14

A hard fork is by definition one that does not get solved. At least not by the rules of the system, as it is essentially an incompatibility between the rules assumed by separate nodes. But think about what can cause such a thing: An incorrect (=not identical to the rest of the network) implementation forks off. In this case it will always certainly be ...


8

Gavin Andreson has tweeted this: https://twitter.com/gavinandresen/status/311290936527298561 The bitcointalk post linked by Gavin is a post by Peter Wuille, which says this: Hello everyone, there is an emergency right now: the block chain has split between 0.7+earlier and 0.8 nodes. I'll explain the reasons in a minute, but this is what you need to know ...


5

The highest blockchain containing only valid blocks is always the "correct" blockchain. The first 225430-block was accepted by 0.8 clients/miners, but due to a flaw in 0.7 clients/miners couldn't accept the block. The 0.7-fork was accepted by all client and miners, and the 0.8-fork was only accepted by 0.8 clients/miners. The core Bitcoin developers ...


5

The following blocks were abandoned (along with a few more along that chain as the quickly dwindling set of 0.8.0 miners plugs along) when the 0.7 blockchain caught up with the 0.8.0 blockchain at 2013-03-12 06:19:32. Thankfully, you can see that the 0.8.0 chain has slowed down to just one block in the two hours after 03:28:41 UTC. Also note that, as I ...


5

You should go to 0.7, despite the fact that this is the version containing the error. This choice was made because it should be much easier to get the few who upgraded to bleeding-edge 0.8 to downgrade than to get everyone to upgrade all at once. Sources: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152030 http://codinginmysleep.com/blockchain-all-forked-up/ ...


5

So which is it? Does "hard fork" describe a condition of the network, or a software update? Either is acceptable. You can say that version so-and-so causes a fork, and you can say that the network is currently forked. Was the March 2013 fork a hardfork? It depends on your definition. The March 2013 incident initially appeared to be a hard-fork, but a ...


5

The core concept has always been accept the largest blockchain that passes the predetermined proof of work tests. Hard forks like the one that occurred in March happen as a result of some software in the p2p ecosystem having a different understanding of what the legitimate blockchain should be. This reality is ok with all distributive networks to some extent ...


4

Miners who use a pool don't necessarily even have bitcoind. They use separate mining software (which does not constitute a node, or build blocks or anything of the sort) and the bitcoins they receive are first credited to the pool eWallet, and can then be withdrawn to any wallet. The pool is the one choosing the blocks and even if the miner's wallet happens ...


3

I don't think anyone known exactly what the problem is, yet (note to future readers: the flaw was discovered just few moments ago). I found this on the #bitcoin-dev IRC channel: sipa: Diablo-D3: just saying that the breaking block had 1700 transactions, but affected over 5000 block index entries It's probably is a problem with "Berkeley DB" (0.8 use ...


2

Those who will buy the coins from the miners are the ones who guide the miner's behavior. This is called the economic majority. At the level of maturity of the Bitcoin economy in March, 2013, the decision as to what the economic majority wanted was the response to a very short question: "What side of the fork is Mt. Gox on?" The answer to that was that Mt....


2

What happened in the March 2013 fork was that two different versions of the bitcoin client disagreed about what a valid block was. You could look for a block reorg, but that will only show up when the fork is fixed. How could you detect a hard fork as soon as it happens? Well, you could run 5 different versions of the bitcoin client at once, then figure out ...


1

In addition to the March 2013 bug, the bug introducing CVE-2018-17144 was also a hard fork, even if there was no chain split. The fix was a soft fork, since it restored the old consensus rules.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible