Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 02:32:33 AM

Note that this is different from normal block orphaning

Only because this block was invalid. It is identical to what happens (and is supposed to happen) any time a node receives an invalid block.

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 02:32:33 AM

as this would have resulted in a consensus split

Absolute nonsense. Unless you are saying that a significant majority of all mining nodes are willing to accept a block larger than 1 megabyte (in which case it is Core that is trying to create a consensus split by refusing to accept the longest chain). No. In this case, a minority of miners would be willing to accept such a block. As a result the valid chain would quickly grow longer. Only those nodes foolish enough to accept and mine on top of an invalid block (such as so-called SPV miners) would be affected, and any miner dumb enough to accept an invalid block deserves to waste hash power on a dead chain.

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 02:32:33 AM

This block could have resulted in an actual hard fork and chain split due to BU miners and SPV miners.

No. Not in any real way, it couldn't. That's a whole lot of FUD and nonsense. If I didn't know better, I'd think you were just another sig ad spammer.

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 02:32:33 AM

Some BU miners would have considered this block valid and thus mined on top of it.

Let them. Thats what they get for running code that will mine on top of invalid blocks. They'll lose some revenue and learn an important lesson.

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 02:32:33 AM

SPV miners would have received the block header and mined on top of that without checking the validity of the actual block itself until later.

Then they deserve to waste their hashpower and resources on an invalid block.

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 04:10:36 AM

This is not an orphan. An orphan is a valid block. This block is invalid, entirely different from an orphan. An orphan can lead to a valid chain which EVERYONE will follow. This block is invalid,

Exactly. If bitcoin can't handle some nodes receiving invalid blocks occasionally, then it has already failed and we should all abandon the whole experiment. Those dumb enough to mine on top of an invalid block deserve what they get (which entertainingly enough is literally "nothing").

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 04:10:36 AM

and can lead to a chain where SOME NODES (not all nodes) follow.

Only nodes that are willing to risk wasting time and money on a useless endeavor.

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 04:10:36 AM

Rejecting a block for being invalid and subsequently banning the node that sent the block is not behavior just limited to Bitcoin Core. It is present in Bitcoin Unlimited as well and any other software derived from Core. Such behavior has been in the code for a very long time.

Which is why this is nothing more than people blowing a lot of smoke and then trying to claim there is a fire.

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 04:10:36 AM

Again, this block was invalid and rejected. It is not an orphan. They are two very different things.

And yet you continue to act like it was somehow a valid block that could have "forked the network!" Nonsense.

Quote from: achow101 on January 30, 2017, 04:10:36 AM

This just shows that it will not always happen. This does not mean that it can't happen.

Like I said, if it can then bitcoin is already a failed experiment and we should all abandon the entire concept immediately. There is nothing more to see here than fools seeing rain and believing that the sky is collapsing on them.