Fork?

Technical Discussion
#1

I see no conformity between list (in my NCC) of blocks generated by me and list of blocks in NEM Blockchain Explorer.

My NCC says:
Height Time Block hash Fee
Block #9367 Oct 26, 2014 07:17:28 c9a2a4c8985eed5ee4047c1e56bf773179797a5fa1abbd3cf61b6f8ce0e67bbb 0,00
Block #9365 Oct 26, 2014 07:15:30 7d2572505fc88d3034a97f45a99a5af6f31744bd1a429cb453d99048fdd1e368 0,00
Block #9358 Oct 26, 2014 07:10:41 4741ef6d9195eb6f312bd67ecc6a359849595d9da7d6f8f3a0c305db16f9f9a8 0,00
Block #9357 Oct 26, 2014 07:10:28 8a89df1edf79287c17bed05ba806dfc9b8df0c4fb92ea6ff187469b86bc03adb 0,00
Block #9356 Oct 26, 2014 07:10:15 74ac70bbfc6759e898aac490296e2c4d074c3ebbd9ee2c199c2646066d04b519 0,00
Block #9336 Oct 26, 2014 06:47:21 3e7d84c688e20e69eb494f388ae874c0968df8891ad648bd5163d7dfcef14dbf 0,00

NEM Blockchain explorer shows different times and different harvesters

Still my transactions are visible in NEM Block Explorer too

Edit: time is my local time after summer saving time has finished (GMT +1)

#2

hmmmmm… I am checking out mine now too. 

#3

I can confirm there is a problem.  For instance, I just harvested a block in my client at

Block #9470 Oct 26, 2014 16:53:55 f6e8d07b446183db404b93bd433e739a51ce63dc0a5864f341610602a8f9dbf4 0.00


Yet… the block explorer says the most recent block is

Block #9438 10/26/2014 4:53:16 PM 0 TALICERWZAJZ33IDFCLS7H44ULQTDNMG5KU7Y4UL
hash: b34facece5f75eb990c7d70869f2fc4ad4b474d00aa1c72c4734f3a1ec292cb9


That puts my client 32 blocks ahead of the block explorer. 

#4

In the past, I noticed that the hours were off sync by many hours between my local client and the block explorer but that the minutes, seconds, and block numbers were exactly synced.  This no longer seems to be the case. 

Or well… it is the case with my transactions.  All my transactions in my client's transaction history and the transaction history in the block explorer match exactly the time, exactly the hash. 

But there seems to be this discrepancy between blocks harvested on my client and blocks harvested on the block explorer. 

#5

I just sent rigel 11 transactions very quickly.  it looks like according to the block explorer they were all processed in block #9451.  According to my client though, it took 3 different blocks to process all of these transactions. 

Rigel, can you confirm that these transactions were received by you in 3 different blocks?

The hashes in my client's history match the block explorer's transaction history as well as matching the exact time (except for the time code difference of some hours).  But again, there seems to be some discrepancy on what the block explorer's findings are for blocks and my client's records for blocks. 

#6

I have now sent Rigel a transaction for 1 NEM but a fee of 754,321.  If somebody gets a block with the fee 754,321 can you please report back here what block number your client says?

Edit:  I think it was TBJUSANZ63AKNJ57XMK6Y2IBH55UNNRXJFZRDTRW according to the block explorer.


9458 10/26/2014 5:12:20 PM 2 TBJUSANZ63AKNJ57XMK6Y2IBH55UNNRXJFZRDTRW
hash: a51605d6a08a12250e2e72a631b64da6b2331e39d7c53a47e0a09c93dfab0cc0

#7

I can confirm that the network is on a fork. Since it is already more than 720 block deep, it is unresolvable.

#8

???

well, what to do now?

kind of sad, but this is why we have Beta's right?

#9

Here are my logs. 

#10

yea, as we said, there were some major changes in beta ^^
We will release a new version today i guess. Then publish the best chain height. Everyone on a chain that has lower height should delete the db and resync then.

#11

Is it known what triggered this fork?

#12

Is it known what triggered this fork?


afaik it's already fixed as well. Devs had an eye on some weird behaviour the whole time.
#13

So, which is real chain? on chain.nem.ninja? Comparing with chain explorer I'm 54 blocks ahead. Do I need to delete my db and download from scratch?

#14

And this, folks, is why we are beta testing! :stuck_out_tongue:

#15

So, which is real chain? on chain.nem.ninja? Comparing with chain explorer I'm 54 blocks ahead. Do I need to delete my db and download from scratch?


Alice 4 is having the real (best) chain: http://alice4.nem.ninja:7890/chain/last-block
The block explorer is on a fork.
#16


So, which is real chain? on chain.nem.ninja? Comparing with chain explorer I'm 54 blocks ahead. Do I need to delete my db and download from scratch?


Alice 4 is having the real (best) chain: http://alice4.nem.ninja:7890/chain/last-block
The block explorer is on a fork.


So, I'm good? Last block here is the same as Alice 4 :)
#17

I think I am not that chain too.

#18


Is it known what triggered this fork?


afaik it's already fixed as well. Devs had an eye on some weird behaviour the whole time.

Devs are on the ball as usual. ;)
#19



Is it known what triggered this fork?


afaik it's already fixed as well. Devs had an eye on some weird behaviour the whole time.

Devs are on the ball as usual. ;)


Yes. Things like this will happen. So long is it's in BETA or for the future on the testnet this shouldn't concern people. That's what these things are for and major changes almost always come with bugs.
#20




Is it known what triggered this fork?


afaik it's already fixed as well. Devs had an eye on some weird behaviour the whole time.

Devs are on the ball as usual. ;)


Yes. Things like this will happen. So long is it's in BETA or for the future on the testnet this shouldn't concern people. That's what these things are for and major changes almost always come with bugs.

Well now we can shove this in the faces of those who complain launch is taking too long ;) nem would be crashing in value right now if we were live.