61
General Discussion / Re: Delegates, please make sure you upgrade to 0.4.8 version
« on: August 26, 2014, 03:21:08 pm »
Regardless of possible bug in the client, this behavior is still harmful to the network, topics related to this have already been discussed in the DPOS thread.
We should start a new thread and reflag delegates that are produce forks ...
not missing blocks is VERY easy that way but does no good to the network! You just fail your responsibilities against the network ..
I see missing a block A LOT less harmful for the network than producing forks!!
The block must be in the same block number, and be produced by the same delegate, here is a example just taken.
Even though falling into a fork might be a bug in latest version, but we definitely need to enable the auto fire operation.QuoteFORKED BLOCK FORKING BLOCK ID SIGNING DELEGATE TXN COUNT SIZE TIMESTAMP LATENCY VALID IN CURRENT CHAIN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
321979
ef96dea7b653c7292c790935114360eee84708c7 e.coin 1 766 2014-08-26T14:17:10 169 YES YES
7aad16dc0e47e06a093888568bf268a1f2c1a188 btsnow 13 3857 2014-08-26T14:29:20 0 N/A NO
322117
f402e661aeff4ba1704dc59441e7ba05b4d83981 btsx.chinesecommunity 0 166 2014-08-26T14:40:30 0 YES YES
44cc35cf2a4afe38a3e8a4480e7c8f0953991e5a btsx.chinesecommunity 0 166 2014-08-26T14:40:30 1 N/A NO
322131
133db0ce1040b169226753ee8d2dc7735ff2a3b5 google.helloworld 1 402 2014-08-26T14:42:50 0 YES YES
0fad4bd06f03ab6c98a3d1b1094ac331f2d78b03 google.helloworld 1 402 2014-08-26T14:42:50 1 N/A NO
322136
8208884d226913d653520c52e65c75e58dcdb14f microsoft.helloworld 0 166 2014-08-26T14:43:40 0 YES YES
3e4d2d05f9d86382eaeb5c320c73323e5a2b6add microsoft.helloworld 0 166 2014-08-26T14:43:40 1 N/A NO
322139
c6ce76317addf5f1b78e6700ea30da5f443f5e03 x.ebit 0 166 2014-08-26T14:44:10 0 N/A NO
4322211b2f74a2d43183a17042c057da64c4486c x.ebit 0 166 2014-08-26T14:44:10 1 N/A NO
Have you considered the possibility of BUG in the client?
What if it exists prior 0.4.8 ?