Quote from: Coinler on October 29, 2014, 08:21:35 PM

i dont think there will be an issue with txes on their fork as users/pools on their fork would still be able to deposit. it's the users/pools on the good fork who wouldnt have been able to deposit.

I'd say, at least after ~blk 12600something, no transaction would be possible to get through with even 1 confirmation since no new block to contain one becomes generated. no PoW, cos no miner (I hope! what lunatic would that be), PoS not reached on that fork...
such tx'es will rot in tx cache til they are swept...

Quote from: SnjafSnjaf on October 29, 2014, 11:13:24 PM

I am a bit confused who is on good chain and who is on fork that we are trying to adopt here...?

no one is on fork, we're all on spoon here Grin

...now, seriously and in brief Wink

the GOOD fork - that isn't one actually, but apparently the only valid blockchain.
it's the one currently at blk16000+somewhat, end of PoW reached as intended,
PoS currently active and working (like a ticking clock to be precise Cheesy

)

if your wallet got network clients at all (and there should be a lot around... got 12 active connections... had way less on bigger coins!)
then you're most probably in the right net anyway Wink

the BAD fork that forked off after blk10041 is the one
with an erroneous blk10041 (and hard luck put bittrex on that fork as well as at least 2 of the miningpools).
this fork should end around 12600+somewhat when the last miner realized
that this leads to a dead end and went off.
the bad fork might as well already beeing abandoned (apart from the known ones) so sould only contain very
little nodes, if any.

if you go to the debug console and:
> getpeerinfo

you'll get a list of your next network neighbours. some of the info
is strong evidence about what network you joined. e.g.:

[
{
"addr" : "123.123.123.123:16665",
"services" : "00000001",
"lastsend" : 1414512845, <-- should both be a very recent utime like this or higher
"lastrecv" : 1414512888, <--- " --
"conntime" : 1414502352,
"version" : 70000,
"subver" : "/Spark:1.0.0/", <-- should be an 1.0.0 client for now, the 1.1.0 is presumably a buggy linux client prone to take the bad fork...
"inbound" : false,
"startingheight" : 14144,
"banscore" : 0
}
]

---

Quote from: dellyz on October 29, 2014, 11:32:34 PM

does this mean ppl who have spark on bittrex will lose them?

I don't want to go as far as saying: no, but if:
a) they were deposited before block 10041
b) traded inside bittrex
then I'd say, there's good chance they won't even be touched by the problem and should
be available as soon as the wallet issue has been resolved.

if however deposits happend AFTER said 10041, then they might be in a contingent
where we need to find a solution to settle ledgers with bittrex... this is under investigation right now
after the guys at the rex got through it, we can work out a solution and foremost get a picture on
the volume of the difference to clean.
my impression when visually scraping the charts was that trading vol. should range at most at
around a few btc... 2-3 top maybe... likely some less... but that's just my eyes and 5 sec. look Wink

and I'm pretty sure that tx volume won't top trading vol. in that relative short time window...

to me, that still sounds all well possible to fix

I promissed a brief version -----------------v Cheesy