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.
Yes, but Iāve 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 weāre still v7
3 months later, problem on testnet?
Nopeā¦ This is a common sight for people who regularly use the electroneumd CLI. Itās basically a reorganisation of blocksā¦ A little tidy upā¦
A short explanation would beā¦
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. Itās 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 āoh look, that chain is longerā 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 bitcoinās case, it is 1/40th the block time. The smaller that fraction gets, the less likely a reorganisation is to occur.
Nothing to worry aboutā¦ Itās just the blockchain doing what itās supposed to
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:
āThe 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 cataā¦ā
via @blockfolio
https://blockfolio.com/coin/NEO/signal/jE1Tq64dmF
Iād like a similar statement on this issue.
Iād hope there is a fix for this in version 8.
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. Itās overdue.
51% of the attack, avoiding as evenly distributed ASIC power into all pools. But that wonāt happen. If they stayed anti-asic and used the difficulty adjustment, they wouldnāt have a problem last year. But they avoided it.
GPUās couldnāt sustain the blockchain. Thatās why they had to fork back. But other coins have 51% attack prevention. Itās just a question of putting a limit on pool size percentage.
Iām 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.
Yea it wasnāt handled very well.
Saying that GPUs couldnāt sustain the ETN blockchain is false informationā¦
It was entirely accurate actually donāt you remember? Maybe it could work now. But it failed badly. Your profile pic is a gpu mining rig. where were you in the summer!?
I was one of the few rig owners who mined and supported the ETN blockchain from day one right up to the V7 fork through to the asic revert. I now mine ETN indirectly via the etnocean.thorshammer.cc Cryptonight fast pool.
I know exactly what happenedā¦ I was there, I supplied hands on feedback to the devs during the V7 difficulties with my own rigs and pool.
Nice to have such person on this forum! great:)
Exactly my point, so you should know better than to say my statement was inaccurate. They couldnāt fix the difficulty manipulation. So they forked to ASIC resistant. Then the blockchain went too slow/ stopped. And they forked back to ASIC. Just to simplify the situation. I remember they offered a bonus to gpu miners but there was bad sentiment. It could have been handled better.
new commits on master
Added const variable to a few lines.
Probably tweaks for the difficulty.
&& m_timestamps.size() >= difficultyBlocksCount
Isnāt this the āfixā for the excuse F2pool was using to mine empty blocks. But I donāt understand it so I could be wrong.
// ND: Speedup
// 1. Keep a list of the last 735 (or less) blocks that is used to compute difficulty,
// then when the next block difficulty is queried, push the latest height data and
// pop the oldest one from the list. This only requires 1x read per height instead
// of doing 735 (DIFFICULTY_BLOCKS_COUNT).