glitch003



Offline



Activity: 219

Merit: 101







Full MemberActivity: 219Merit: 101 Re: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks March 12, 2013, 02:42:51 AM #104 This sucks but at least we're working out all these bugs right now (how to handle version upgrades safely, etc) while Bitcoin is still in it's infancy. Better that this happen now than in the future when more people are utilizing the network and the consequences could be worse.



This is all part of the risk that we incur, and is exactly the reason why everyone says "don't invest more in Bitcoin than you can spare to lose"

dree12



Offline



Activity: 1246

Merit: 1055









LegendaryActivity: 1246Merit: 1055 Re: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks March 12, 2013, 02:42:59 AM #105 Quote from: whitenight639 on March 12, 2013, 02:39:13 AM So let me get this right,



IF we'd all upgrade to .08 then the blocksize restriction would have been lifted, but because not many did we now have a fork and because the 0.7 blockchain is longer we should revert to that until a proper upgrade path to 0.8 is made available?



so is 0.8 inherently flawed, I thought there was a consensus that the blocksize should be lifted? I think this is very poor



A simple retards guide summing up key points for and against blocksize restriction or lifting should have been stickied in the forum for some time and a poll taken by everybody not just miners, devs and long time posters.



An upgrade should have been built and tested on an isolated blockchain if that is possible,



A announcement about the upcoming availability of the upgrade should have been stickied referring to the poll results and post aforementioned,



A target date and block number should have been specified and downloads of the new client should have been made available along with an "alert£"



Some time before the specified date / block another last chance alert should hav been issued, anyone not upgrading after the date / block should have been left in the dust.







0.8 did not lift the blocksize. The block being big is just a specific problem, it could have been a block too small or too strange (the problem was, however, that the block was very bigbut not "too big"). The problem was 0.7 and below rejecting a block that should have been accepted.



0.8 is not flawed. The flaw lied in 0.7 and below. If an upgrade was hastened, the problem would not have been a problem at all. 0.8 did not lift the blocksize. The block being big is just a specific problem, it could have been a block too small or too strange (the problem was, however, that the block was very bigbut not "too big"). The problem was 0.7 and below rejecting a block that should have been accepted.0.8 is not flawed. The flaw lied in 0.7 and below. If an upgrade was hastened, the problem would not have been a problem at all.

No_2



Offline



Activity: 881

Merit: 1006





BTC: the beginning of stake-based public resources







Hero MemberActivity: 881Merit: 1006BTC: the beginning of stake-based public resources Re: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks March 12, 2013, 02:47:52 AM #111 Quote from: whitenight639 on March 12, 2013, 02:39:13 AM So let me get this right,



IF we'd all upgrade to .08 then the blocksize restriction would have been lifted, but because not many did we now have a fork and because the 0.7 blockchain is longer we should revert to that until a proper upgrade path to 0.8 is made available?



so is 0.8 inherently flawed, I thought there was a consensus that the blocksize should be lifted? I think this is very poor



A simple retards guide summing up key points for and against blocksize restriction or lifting should have been stickied in the forum for some time and a poll taken by everybody not just miners, devs and long time posters.



An upgrade should have been built and tested on an isolated blockchain if that is possible,



A announcement about the upcoming availability of the upgrade should have been stickied referring to the poll results and post aforementioned,



A target date and block number should have been specified and downloads of the new client should have been made available along with an "alert£"



Some time before the specified date / block another last chance alert should hav been issued, anyone not upgrading after the date / block should have been left in the dust.







I agree. Did anyone test this? Empirical evidence and testing edge cases are crucial. I agree. Did anyone test this? Empirical evidence and testing edge cases are crucial.

NilamDoc



Offline



Activity: 76

Merit: 10





Bitcoin







MemberActivity: 76Merit: 10Bitcoin Re: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks March 12, 2013, 02:49:04 AM #112 The problem is not with the wallet, the problem is with the client 0.7 which was mining. It was not able to accept block chain height 225430.



So,

- if you are using 0.8 -- do not worry

- if you are using 0.8 and mining - stop mining and wait till proper instruction comes from the core development team.

- if you are using 0.7 and not mining - do not worry

- if you are using 0.7 and mining - stop mining and wait till proper instruction comes from the core development team.



blockchain.info has the same alert message and also mtgox.com has stopped accepting inputs



Wait till we get another alert from core team! Development Only

whitenight639



Offline



Activity: 154

Merit: 100









Full MemberActivity: 154Merit: 100 Re: Alert: chain fork caused by pre-0.8 clients dealing badly with large blocks March 12, 2013, 02:50:30 AM #114 Quote from: dree12 on March 12, 2013, 02:42:59 AM Quote from: whitenight639 on March 12, 2013, 02:39:13 AM So let me get this right,



IF we'd all upgrade to .08 then the blocksize restriction would have been lifted, but because not many did we now have a fork and because the 0.7 blockchain is longer we should revert to that until a proper upgrade path to 0.8 is made available?



so is 0.8 inherently flawed, I thought there was a consensus that the blocksize should be lifted? I think this is very poor



A simple retards guide summing up key points for and against blocksize restriction or lifting should have been stickied in the forum for some time and a poll taken by everybody not just miners, devs and long time posters.



An upgrade should have been built and tested on an isolated blockchain if that is possible,



A announcement about the upcoming availability of the upgrade should have been stickied referring to the poll results and post aforementioned,



A target date and block number should have been specified and downloads of the new client should have been made available along with an "alert£"



Some time before the specified date / block another last chance alert should hav been issued, anyone not upgrading after the date / block should have been left in the dust.







0.8 did not lift the blocksize. The block being big is just a specific problem, it could have been a block too small or too strange (the problem was, however, that the block was very bigbut not "too big"). The problem was 0.7 and below rejecting a block that should have been accepted.



0.8 is not flawed. The flaw lied in 0.7 and below. If an upgrade was hastened, the problem would not have been a problem at all.

0.8 did not lift the blocksize. The block being big is just a specific problem, it could have been a block too small or too strange (the problem was, however, that the block was very bigbut not "too big"). The problem was 0.7 and below rejecting a block that should have been accepted.0.8 is not flawed. The flaw lied in 0.7 and below. If an upgrade was hastened, the problem would not have been a problem at all.



So why are we being told to downgrade if there is an issue with 0.7 accepting / producing (the rare) malformed block, has this issue been addressed in 0.8?



If this is like a zero day issue then everyone rushing to back to the 0.7 that still has the issue is strange, especially if the 0.8 client can integrate the blocks / blockchain produced from 0.7 clients.





It's like finding a vulnarability in XP and then asking Vista users to downgrade to it. So why are we being told to downgrade if there is an issue with 0.7 accepting / producing (the rare) malformed block, has this issue been addressed in 0.8?If this is like a zero day issue then everyone rushing to back to the 0.7 that still has the issue is strange, especially if the 0.8 client can integrate the blocks / blockchain produced from 0.7 clients.It's like finding a vulnarability in XP and then asking Vista users to downgrade to it. 125uWc197UW5kM659m4uwEakxoNHzMKzwz