0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: delulo on September 02, 2014, 11:59:56 amare those forks due to latency?That particular above is a fork that resulted from 1 delegates producing two DIFFERENT blocks at the same time .. seems like they ran it on two machines and skews sth. up
are those forks due to latency?
does make sense to spreach invalid fork blocks, does it?
blockchain_list_forksHowever it had to be issued on the seed node as some other clients didn't have that information.One of the delegates had it also.Newly synchronized clients do not have this.
Quote from: emski on September 01, 2014, 07:24:10 pmCode: [Select]368403 1d57020bf8042649d56d0f91ca08f451b13b1888 init53 0 166 2014-09-01T02:24:10 0 YES YES 7481ca8e6954140421a8c2a0d51e620d2db2510b init53 0 166 2014-09-01T02:24:10 0 N/A NOWould you please tell me how did you find this information? Thanks!
Code: [Select]368403 1d57020bf8042649d56d0f91ca08f451b13b1888 init53 0 166 2014-09-01T02:24:10 0 YES YES 7481ca8e6954140421a8c2a0d51e620d2db2510b init53 0 166 2014-09-01T02:24:10 0 N/A NO
368403 1d57020bf8042649d56d0f91ca08f451b13b1888 init53 0 166 2014-09-01T02:24:10 0 YES YES 7481ca8e6954140421a8c2a0d51e620d2db2510b init53 0 166 2014-09-01T02:24:10 0 N/A NO
Quote from: HackFisher on September 01, 2014, 09:09:30 pmThe bug of double producing causing falling into a fork seems be resolved?Yes it is! However they were pretty strict about that rule and I couldn't stop myself of posting this. Of course there were others that I messaged privately about similar issues. Actually it was better to just PM DACSunlimited...Sorry if I've offended someone.
The bug of double producing causing falling into a fork seems be resolved?