5 ms·

Can easily monitor status of each competing/potential split at https://www.btcforkmonitor.info https://www.btcforkmonitor.info

by nnx 9y ago

provost 9y ago
Thanks for linking to this. FYI -- It's not immediately clear, but the details of how this works and the status checks are provided at the bottom of the webpage.
nnx 9y ago
https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ is also useful to follow what's happening. It looks like 25% of the nodes in the Bitcoin network are suddenly running "Bitcoin ABC" (the implementation supporting bigger block sizes) on AWS... someone somewhere has started a bunch of (spot?) instances it seems.
- simias 9y ago
  Which is a "PR" move and nothing much, I want to point out. I think the metric everybody is watching for at the moment is the hashrate on the BCC fork. It'll show what portion of miners actually commit to the fork. Spawning nodes is cheap and doesn't really mean much.
  - reefoctopus 9y ago
    There are reports that the new AWS nodes aren't playing nicely with existing nodes. It may be an attack.
    - nnx 9y ago
      any link to share about this?
      - reefoctopus 9y ago
        Here's the thread I'm following. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qvofq/someone_just_launched_over_500_bucash_nodes_on_aws/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qvofq/someone_just_la...
  - geofft 9y ago
    Are you able to run multiple nodes on a single machine, or does each node need a unique IPv4 address? If you can do IPv6 or multiple ports, a Potemkin village of even t2.nanos seems wasteful.
    - banana_giraffe 9y ago
      You can actually get multiple IPv4 addresses on a single EC2 instance. How many depends on the instance type, it ranges from 4 public addresses for the smallest type, to 750 on the biggest types.
runeks 9y ago
So, Bitcoin ABC (Cash) is three blocks behind the other nodes, but no chain split has been detected. What’s up with that? Did the block three blocks ago cause a fork? Are we just waiting for someone to mine a Bitcoin Cash block on top of this block and then there’ll be a fork? EDIT: Here's the log from a Bitcoin ABC node I have running: 2017-08-01 13:23:36 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-too-small, size limits failed (code 16) (block 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148) 2017-08-01 13:23:36 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED 2017-08-01 13:23:48 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148 is marked invalid 2017-08-01 13:23:48 ERROR: invalid header received 2017-08-01 13:24:06 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148 is marked invalid 2017-08-01 13:24:06 ERROR: invalid header received [ ... last two lines repeat ... ] Looks like 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148 AKA block number 478559 was rejected by Bitcoin ABC. EDIT2: Here's the code [1]. The block was rejected by Bitcoin ABC/Cash because it was smaller than 1 MB. [1] https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/174846aaaf564e64b6bd06d679996b52ba86ad53/src/validation.cpp#L3397 https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/174846aaaf56...
- simias 9y ago
  That's normal. Bitcoin ABC is rejecting the non-BCC blocks once the median time is after 12:20 UTC. So BTC blocks after 478558 are rejected. Now the BCC miners are actually working on producing the first BCC-only block, which will be block 478559 on the BCC chain and will be different from block 478559 on the BTC chain, hence effectively splitting the chain. Since BCC has only a tiny fraction of BTC's hash rate (around 1% by most estimates, although it's pretty hard to evaluate) it will take a while for this block to be found. Probably hours, maybe even days. Eventually the difficulty on the BCC chain will adjust, so even if the hash rate remains low the "blockrate" should steadily increase within the next few weeks. Also since BCC blocks can be 8 times as big they can fit more transactions in a single block, somewhat mitigating the effect.
  - eterm 9y ago
    The adjustment is by block-count not time, if they only produce a block per day it'll take ~144 days to lower the difficulty. I think people would abandon long before that.

Can easily monitor status of each competing/potential split at https://www.btcforkmonitor.info https://www.btcforkmonitor.info

by nnx 9y ago

Can easily monitor status of each competing/potential split at https://www.btcforkmonitor.info https://www.btcforkmonitor.info

provost 9y ago

Thanks for linking to this. FYI -- It's not immediately clear, but the details of how this works and the status checks are provided at the bottom of the webpage.

nnx 9y ago

https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/ is also useful to follow what's happening. It looks like 25% of the nodes in the Bitcoin network are suddenly running "Bitcoin ABC" (the implementation supporting bigger block sizes) on AWS... someone somewhere has started a bunch of (spot?) instances it seems.

simias 9y ago
Which is a "PR" move and nothing much, I want to point out. I think the metric everybody is watching for at the moment is the hashrate on the BCC fork. It'll show what portion of miners actually commit to the fork. Spawning nodes is cheap and doesn't really mean much.
- reefoctopus 9y ago
  There are reports that the new AWS nodes aren't playing nicely with existing nodes. It may be an attack.
  - nnx 9y ago
    any link to share about this?
    - reefoctopus 9y ago
      Here's the thread I'm following. https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qvofq/someone_just_launched_over_500_bucash_nodes_on_aws/ https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6qvofq/someone_just_la...
- geofft 9y ago
  Are you able to run multiple nodes on a single machine, or does each node need a unique IPv4 address? If you can do IPv6 or multiple ports, a Potemkin village of even t2.nanos seems wasteful.
  - banana_giraffe 9y ago
    You can actually get multiple IPv4 addresses on a single EC2 instance. How many depends on the instance type, it ranges from 4 public addresses for the smallest type, to 750 on the biggest types.

runeks 9y ago

So, Bitcoin ABC (Cash) is three blocks behind the other nodes, but no chain split has been detected. What’s up with that? Did the block three blocks ago cause a fork? Are we just waiting for someone to mine a Bitcoin Cash block on top of this block and then there’ll be a fork? EDIT: Here's the log from a Bitcoin ABC node I have running: 2017-08-01 13:23:36 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-too-small, size limits failed (code 16) (block 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148) 2017-08-01 13:23:36 ERROR: ProcessNewBlock: AcceptBlock FAILED 2017-08-01 13:23:48 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148 is marked invalid 2017-08-01 13:23:48 ERROR: invalid header received 2017-08-01 13:24:06 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148 is marked invalid 2017-08-01 13:24:06 ERROR: invalid header received [ ... last two lines repeat ... ] Looks like 00000000000000000019f112ec0a9982926f1258cdcc558dd7c3b7e5dc7fa148 AKA block number 478559 was rejected by Bitcoin ABC. EDIT2: Here's the code [1]. The block was rejected by Bitcoin ABC/Cash because it was smaller than 1 MB. [1] https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/174846aaaf564e64b6bd06d679996b52ba86ad53/src/validation.cpp#L3397 https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/blob/174846aaaf56...

simias 9y ago
That's normal. Bitcoin ABC is rejecting the non-BCC blocks once the median time is after 12:20 UTC. So BTC blocks after 478558 are rejected. Now the BCC miners are actually working on producing the first BCC-only block, which will be block 478559 on the BCC chain and will be different from block 478559 on the BTC chain, hence effectively splitting the chain. Since BCC has only a tiny fraction of BTC's hash rate (around 1% by most estimates, although it's pretty hard to evaluate) it will take a while for this block to be found. Probably hours, maybe even days. Eventually the difficulty on the BCC chain will adjust, so even if the hash rate remains low the "blockrate" should steadily increase within the next few weeks. Also since BCC blocks can be 8 times as big they can fit more transactions in a single block, somewhat mitigating the effect.
- eterm 9y ago
  The adjustment is by block-count not time, if they only produce a block per day it'll take ~144 days to lower the difficulty. I think people would abandon long before that.