Quote from: Genrobo on June 08, 2011, 06:53:29 AM

Quote from: [Tycho] on June 08, 2011, 06:50:24 AM

Quote from: bullox on June 08, 2011, 06:44:29 AM

Quote from: [Tycho] on June 08, 2011, 06:37:18 AM

Quote from: grndzero on June 08, 2011, 06:36:07 AM

Quote from: [Tycho] on June 08, 2011, 06:34:29 AM

Quote from: bcpokey on June 08, 2011, 06:29:33 AM

You know what else has already happened too? Tycho has been hacked. That's why he instituted email locks on accounts, because a hacker got into his system and changed peoples addresses. Hacked once...

Please, don't tell about what you don't know.
Most (~14) victims of that attack were using same passwords on deepbit and another pool that got hacked, that's how the attacker got them. Also they were using same passwords for mining and main account.

Hey [Tycho] what's the [Bounty] on the Block Chain Monitor?

As it says in the forum thread, my part and those two who added their messages.

It's just a strawman, and Tycho knows it.
There is no technical way to find orphaned block chains without everyone running bitcoind to update their software to a specific version that would report orphaned blocks to a central authority. And the authority would need to be agreed upon. The client, as it stands, simply abandons them.

This "authority" can just connect to some different points of network and log the blocks.

When the majority of the network is reporting one set of blocks as being accurate, and the minority is reporting a different set as accurate...

Wouldn't the authority automatically assume the majority?...
:|
Or let's say, they always assume the smaller portion of the network was correct...
THAT WOULD MAKE A FORK IN THE BLOCK CHAIN EVEN EASIER TO DO.

Your logging at different points in the network idea is not sound.

If there is difference detected then it would be cause for inspection and alert people that something might be wrong. i would have achieved what it was set out to do and the people who really understand the protocol better would look at it and see if there was a problem. It's an early warning system, not a prevention method.

It would also be a good thing to have in place in the future so that it can be adapted if any new exploits are discovered.