Post
Topic
Board Announcements (Altcoins)
Re: [ANN] H2O Coin |Yahoo!Finance & more| DGW + Scrypt-N - *DONATED 17.5BTC*
by
owlhooter
on 03/06/2014, 15:46:18 UTC
Supporters,

A bug with solo mining has been detected today. The problem is the following :
 - input address is null
 - output address are generated randomly
 - transaction id has a suffix at the end, for example "-000" which prevent them to be visible in the blockchain.
 - transactions in transactions history have a question mark

This is not a fork as pools are operating nicely and we recommend you to stop soloing if you're doing it a the moment and switch to pool mining until the issue is resolved. First hint of what could cause that would be a dysfunctional node in the network.

Some supporters have unfortunately lost some coins because of that. If it's your case, I engage myself to personally refund you the lost amount.


Anyone seeing a fork of the network?

http://cryptexplorer.com/block/7b36c5218d3e16c3a8537bb41a60b674ccb93763d7ef12fa4d11b44898b2f116

Hash7b36c5218d3e16c3a8537bb41a60b674ccb93763d7ef12fa4d11b44898b2f116
Previous Block3e712e5bd4e0b068d64ffadd842a4edd20241db2259b5592a19c75e49351997f
Height 92804


Our wallet:
h2ocoin getblockhash 92804
802da677e3b72da352af34679ff4a85ffef027975755f3e992355dad0459b3fd

the last good match we have with the BCE is
getblockhash 92780 1b4726cd4d7e7387fe1e4802017520a3cbdc3ea5352e91a8e88028ff02088946


Anyone else seeing this?
I discussed and investigated with Ghost about it and it doesn't seem to be a fork.
Block height on our wallet was right (93231 as I speak), same as the blockchain's.

Could you explain why you thought of a fork ? I'm not knowledgeable enough myself so maybe there are hints I didn't see.


There was the 32 bit client issue which was fixed within the first few days of launch that I noticed I had not updated my 64 bit build on my pool after that was fixed and it ended up on a fork until I rebuilt.  Not sure when Bittrex built their wallet, but hopefully it was after that fix.  But I do wonder if the 32 bit flaw in DGW when it was launched could possibly still cause a fork as the block hash could be close and still possibly have a match.  Maybe a fix with the newest DGW code for H2O would be in order?