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

Fork created by TimeDrift adjustment #679

Closed
ocminer opened this issue Apr 4, 2018 · 9 comments
Closed

Fork created by TimeDrift adjustment #679

ocminer opened this issue Apr 4, 2018 · 9 comments

Comments

@ocminer
Copy link

ocminer commented Apr 4, 2018

b6c3807

actually creates a fork at block 2007365

The blockchain snapshot is not valid anymore, the wallet's won't sync up from scratch anymore and the current chain is simply not usable anymore with this push.

Your change simply disagrees with the attackers blocks, the first block I see from the attacker was 2007365 - so the wallets will stop syncing there and simply not progress any further.

You should immediately refrain from that "fix" and set a proper fork-height (at least 48h) and the chain up until the fork block MUST accept blocks with the old timestamps and blocks after that fork block then only with the new timestamp in order to fix it (a little).

@justinvforvendetta
Copy link
Member

working on that now

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 4, 2018

When I downloaded the client, it had

"static const int64 nMaxClockDrift = 2 * 15 "

and not the current version with

"static const int64 nMaxClockDrift = 2 * 15 * 15 "

So I guess there's 2 hard forked client out now?

@justinvforvendetta
Copy link
Member

when you downloaded the client, or compiled it? @coinsmith

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 4, 2018

Compiled it a few hours ago.

Edit: it wouldn't sync beyond block 2010337

@justinvforvendetta
Copy link
Member

@ocminer @coinsmith please pull latest changes.

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 5, 2018

Will do, this version won't cause a fork?

@justinvforvendetta
Copy link
Member

@coinsmith yes it will, at block 2040000.

@oliverw
Copy link

oliverw commented Apr 5, 2018

@justinvforvendetta So the attacker could technically continue to exploit the bug until we cross block 2040000?

@justinvforvendetta
Copy link
Member

yes that is correct @oliverw

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants