Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Bitcoin ist not catching up after block 1700059 #923

Closed
krishKM opened this issue Mar 10, 2012 · 13 comments
Closed

Bitcoin ist not catching up after block 1700059 #923

krishKM opened this issue Mar 10, 2012 · 13 comments

Comments

@krishKM
Copy link

krishKM commented Mar 10, 2012

Hi there,

since two days Bitcoin is not catching up with current block. I have deleted the whole folder and downloaded the block chain again. still same issue.. Am I missing anything??

thx in advance

@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Mar 10, 2012

Which version are you running?

@krishKM
Copy link
Author

krishKM commented Mar 10, 2012

0.6.0

@luke-jr
Copy link
Member

luke-jr commented Mar 10, 2012

@krishKM
Copy link
Author

krishKM commented Mar 10, 2012

oh.. i have beta version then...

0.6.0-Beta

@gmaxwell
Copy link
Contributor

You have 0.6.0rc1. Upgrade to 0.6.0rc2. http://sourceforge.net/projects/bitcoin/files/Bitcoin/bitcoin-0.6.0/test/ or downgrade to 0.5.2.

@krishKM
Copy link
Author

krishKM commented Mar 10, 2012

oh thx.. i could not downgrade as it throwed me some c++ runtime error.. I upgraded to 0.6.2 and its fine..
why i could not continue with the 0.6.0 ?

@krishKM krishKM closed this as completed Mar 10, 2012
@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Mar 10, 2012

0.6.0 and 0.6.2 do not exist.

You have been using a pre-release of 0.6.0 (the release candidate 1, rc1), which enabled BIP16 as of march 1st. BIP16 was however delayed until april first. This was incorporated in the second pre-release of 0.6.0 (rc2).

Someone mined a fake BIP16 transaction, which your 0.6.0rc1 crlient didn't accept, but was valid, as BIP16 was not yet enabled.

@krishKM
Copy link
Author

krishKM commented Mar 10, 2012

is there any chances (theoretically), that "bad" people can generate (with luck) a wallet ID as mine and steal my coins?

@sipa
Copy link
Member

sipa commented Mar 10, 2012

theoretically, yes.

in practice, if all people in the world would generate as many private keys per second as the total number of hash calculations the entire bitcoin network did in its entire history, it would take longer than the age of the universe before any reasonable chance for a double will appear.

Also, what does this have to do with this issue?

@krishKM
Copy link
Author

krishKM commented Mar 10, 2012

nope..just thinking if anyone has the chance to steal my 50k coins..

@gmaxwell
Copy link
Contributor

Er. Trying to be tactful here— If you really have 50k BTC and are only now getting around to asking questions about this kind of exposure, I'd strongly recommend you diversify your assets by selling that Bitcoin now.

Bitcoin is relatively new and risky technology. If you don't have the time or background to keep up with it and understand it deeply you should probably limit your exposure.

In any case, I'm glad your issue was resolved. Cheers.

@rebroad
Copy link
Contributor

rebroad commented Apr 6, 2012

@krishKM I'd not recommend selling your bitcoins. I think I understood your question to mean "could someone have stolen my bitcoins as a result of continuing to use 0.6.0rc1", right? The answer is practically, no, as sipa implied but didn't expressly state. Even had there been a fork that your client followed, it wouldn't have been the main fork, and even if you'd spend your coins on that fork, they would still exist on the main fork. If anything, you'd have ended up with 50k coins on both forks, and could have double spent them had anyone else continued following and mining that other fork (which they didn't). I think I'm right in this conclusion. Hopefully someone will correct me if I'm not.

@gmaxwell
Copy link
Contributor

gmaxwell commented Apr 6, 2012

Right. Receiving while on a fork is the only dangerous operation— because transactions you thought were confirmed may turn out to not be confirmed on the real chain (and there may be conflicting transactions confirmed in their place, making it impossible for them to ever confirm there). Sending, holding, etc. all safe.

suprnurd pushed a commit to chaincoin-legacy/chaincoin that referenced this issue Dec 5, 2017
ptschip pushed a commit to ptschip/bitcoin that referenced this issue Jan 19, 2018
Use a set for keeping track socket handles and some formatting changes
@bitcoin bitcoin locked as resolved and limited conversation to collaborators Sep 8, 2021
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants