Electroneum Fork Soon?

V8 is a beast of an engine! Muscle Etn Car :smile::sunglasses:


on your timeline i think forking back to asic would have been either 3 or 4 maybe?
anyway a lot of blockchain work happens in the background without announcements.

Howe are the progress on the fork? can you give a little update :slight_smile:


I think it just happened.
Can anyone confirm this?

IMO fork means new etn daemon version. there is no new sw announced on github

there are no news on hacker one either

1 Like

I did wonder and I was searching GitHub.
Couldn’t find new Daemon so posted here… hmm

if I uderstand right alternative blocks can come anytime if the network of nodes vote to take another block as continuation instead of the present one.

1 Like

Yes, but I’ve never seen it say reorganised block replaced block height and update needed. Oh well, just have to keep waiting I guess.

My bad just checked and we’re still v7

3 months later, problem on testnet?

Nope… This is a common sight for people who regularly use the electroneumd CLI. It’s basically a reorganisation of blocks… A little tidy up…

A short explanation would be…

Reorgs happen when there is temporarily a disagreement about what the longest chain is. It happens in every Cryptocurrency, and the shorter the block time, the more frequent it happens. The whole problem is caused by a slight delay in sending signals to all corners of the earth that a miner found a block.
Basically, picture a guy in the Philippines and a guy in Spain each mining what they say is block 780000 at almost exactly the same time. Half the network sees the one guys block first and accepts it, while rejecting the other guys block. The other half of the network does the opposite. It’s actually not that uncommon for this to happen, but usually someone mining on one of those two chains finds another block and adds it on, and then everyone goes “oh look, that chain is longer” and ditches the other one. BUT, sometimes, the near tie in finding blocks can happen two or three or four times in a row. Eventually, one side wins out, and anyone on the wrong chain has to reorganize.
The total lag is pretty much ~15 seconds or so. The shorter the block time, the larger an effect that lag has. i.e. for a 1 minute block, that lag is 1/4th the block time, but for a 2 minute block, it is 1/8th the block time. In bitcoin’s case, it is 1/40th the block time. The smaller that fraction gets, the less likely a reorganisation is to occur.

Nothing to worry about… It’s just the blockchain doing what it’s supposed to :+1:t2::sunglasses:


some sign of life of etn:

Latest Software Rollouts

  • 11th April 2019 - Resolved the following Issues - Enumerating existing registered emails by using the error page, Secure the vendor delete outlet URL, Non-expiring PIN reset token, CSRF attack allowing Language change

found here:


“The recent abnormal transactions and block roll-backs events on BSV again aggravated my worry towards PoW consensus mechanism in general. Many aspects of PoW have been proven to be long-term unsustainable and potentially cata…”

via @blockfolio

I’d like a similar statement on this issue.
I’d hope there is a fix for this in version 8.

1 Like

thats why i prefer for etn to be pos. this way, etn team can have funds for the mobile miner indefinitely as they have most of the supply in their online wallets. even like 5%pa would be enough. just my ipinion.

I think if our blockchain can be fixed to eliminate the possibility of a 51%, while also including smart contracts then pow is ok. But I like the idea of pos rewards and being able to vote on technical development. either way. It’s overdue.

51% of the attack, avoiding as evenly distributed ASIC power into all pools. But that won’t happen. If they stayed anti-asic and used the difficulty adjustment, they wouldn’t have a problem last year. But they avoided it.

GPU’s couldn’t sustain the blockchain. That’s why they had to fork back. But other coins have 51% attack prevention. It’s just a question of putting a limit on pool size percentage.


I’m sure it will be addressed. It seems to have the teams attention. Looking forward to seeing all the updates that are on the way in the near future.

Interesting, Monero don’t have problem with GPU/CPU powering blockchain. If Electroneum fork earlier to anti-asic, then wouldn’t be hash power disaster after fork to anti-asic 1-2month later.

1 Like

Yea it wasn’t handled very well.

Saying that GPUs couldn’t sustain the ETN blockchain is false information…