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

Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier. #7952

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 28, 2016

Conversation

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@paveljanik
Contributor

paveljanik commented Apr 26, 2016

Log block hash in AcceptBlockHeader.

Right now, it is a bit hard to sync on plain testnet. This helped debugging.

@paveljanik

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@paveljanik

paveljanik Apr 26, 2016

Contributor

FYI: right now, the current master is not able to sync on plain testnet with

ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 00000000000005354772cb50ea2decd1e9176724c41eb3427197943aea33194e is marked invalid

This is block 787391 (https://www.blocktrail.com/tBTC/block/00000000000005354772cb50ea2decd1e9176724c41eb3427197943aea33194e).

Contributor

paveljanik commented Apr 26, 2016

FYI: right now, the current master is not able to sync on plain testnet with

ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 00000000000005354772cb50ea2decd1e9176724c41eb3427197943aea33194e is marked invalid

This is block 787391 (https://www.blocktrail.com/tBTC/block/00000000000005354772cb50ea2decd1e9176724c41eb3427197943aea33194e).

@mruddy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mruddy

mruddy Apr 26, 2016

Contributor

Yep, I noticed that testnet is forked too. Looks like the CSV fork activated and the 0.12.1 clients followed a different chain when block=00000000000005354772cb50ea2decd1e9176724c41eb3427197943aea33194e height=787391 encountered "ERROR: ConnectBlock: contains a non-BIP68-final transaction". The 0.12.1 chain is longer height wise, but has lower work so the older clients reject it right now. That wasn't the case last night. Last night, my client was not sync'ing to the most work chain because it was hitting the "Large reorg, won't direct fetch to ..." case in the headers message processing. That I thought was kind of interesting from the standpoint of what would happen if SPV mining created a bad chain 17 or so blocks long in production. My node seemed stuck at that point, just sitting there not really doing anything.

Contributor

mruddy commented Apr 26, 2016

Yep, I noticed that testnet is forked too. Looks like the CSV fork activated and the 0.12.1 clients followed a different chain when block=00000000000005354772cb50ea2decd1e9176724c41eb3427197943aea33194e height=787391 encountered "ERROR: ConnectBlock: contains a non-BIP68-final transaction". The 0.12.1 chain is longer height wise, but has lower work so the older clients reject it right now. That wasn't the case last night. Last night, my client was not sync'ing to the most work chain because it was hitting the "Large reorg, won't direct fetch to ..." case in the headers message processing. That I thought was kind of interesting from the standpoint of what would happen if SPV mining created a bad chain 17 or so blocks long in production. My node seemed stuck at that point, just sitting there not really doing anything.

@laanwj

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@laanwj

laanwj Apr 27, 2016

Member

utACK 61c0170

Member

laanwj commented Apr 27, 2016

utACK 61c0170

@laanwj laanwj added the Docs label Apr 27, 2016

@mruddy

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@mruddy

mruddy Apr 28, 2016

Contributor

test ACK. before and after (from testnet):

2016-04-28 01:27:26 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block is marked invalid
2016-04-28 01:32:43 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 00000000000005354772cb50ea2decd1e9176724c41eb3427197943aea33194e is marked invalid
Contributor

mruddy commented Apr 28, 2016

test ACK. before and after (from testnet):

2016-04-28 01:27:26 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block is marked invalid
2016-04-28 01:32:43 ERROR: AcceptBlockHeader: block 00000000000005354772cb50ea2decd1e9176724c41eb3427197943aea33194e is marked invalid
@fanquake

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@fanquake
Member

fanquake commented Apr 28, 2016

utACK 61c0170

@gmaxwell

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@gmaxwell

gmaxwell Apr 28, 2016

Member

utACK.

Member

gmaxwell commented Apr 28, 2016

utACK.

@MarcoFalke

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@MarcoFalke
Member

MarcoFalke commented Apr 28, 2016

utACK 61c0170

@laanwj laanwj merged commit 61c0170 into bitcoin:master Apr 28, 2016

1 check passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

laanwj added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2016

Merge #7952: Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier.
61c0170 Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier. (Pavel Janík)

codablock added a commit to codablock/dash that referenced this pull request Sep 16, 2017

Merge #7952: Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier.
61c0170 Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier. (Pavel Janík)

codablock added a commit to codablock/dash that referenced this pull request Sep 19, 2017

Merge #7952: Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier.
61c0170 Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier. (Pavel Janík)

codablock added a commit to codablock/dash that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2017

Merge #7952: Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier.
61c0170 Log invalid block hash to make debugging easier. (Pavel Janík)
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment