Network stuck at block 490157 for 30+ min at the moment

Troubleshooting
2

Maybe some big staker decided to stop. Bitcoin got a 24 hours block at block 74638. I agree it’s pretty unusual but nothing to worry.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1vkp1x/what_is_the_longest_time_between_blocks_in_the/

Edit: The post was removed because of FUD. I approve it so you can be sure we don’t hide anything. Fell free to chat about it!

3

Reddcoin
I maybe wrong, but just putting my thoughts out there
This may be a consequence of both luck in solving a block (i am assuming POSv still ‘solves’ blocks), the number of wallets online at any particular time and network weight.

Does this concern me??
Based on information so far, not so much, just annoying if your waiting for your transaction to confirm.

4

Gnasher I wonder some of this to. Just had a 1 hour block right after sending 1M so I had to wait. Haha not huge deal but just wondering what other possibilitys could cause it.

5

I did’nt know this was possible, Thanks for the links.

Anyone could join the talk to explain why there is sometimes this lack of concordance between the peers? This happens because the hashes are harder to make?

I’m curious why? I would love to see some reasonable explanations
 just to learn a bit more :slight_smile:

6

Oliver seems we all are. sometimes this stuff seems to be cool but complicated :stuck_out_tongue:

7

iisurge I dont believe it is an attack on the network due to the distributed nature.
That said, it would be good to have some metrics on the network state at any point in time

  • number of nodes online
  • network weight
  • hash rate

Oliver I dont believe it is a lack of concordance (otherwise the blockchain would fork)
I do have some clues
 but need some more time to analyse

8

I see three blocks like this today on Reddsight: 490157-490158, 490619-490620, and 490750-490751.

Not sure what that means.

9

Gnasher Yes the PoSV continues to solve blocks. but two nodes fight for a block over more than 30minutes is awesome to see. Problems with time stamp are awesome I had a

And indeed concordance wasn’t the issue, it would have forked.

10

Oliver GrayPhoenix Reddcoin
Sorry for the delay, had to drop my wife to work.
For the 3 block sets mentioned (490157-490158, 490619-490620, and 490750-490751)
There are 3 things that i have determined

  1. At that time the “ComputeNextStakeModifier” is also calculated
  2. the timestamp of date= in the SetBestChain is off by a margin (1 hour) between blocks
  3. ‘progress=’ is larger than normal

refer to the following log entries
Block 490157
Block 490157
Block 490620
Block 490620
Block 490751
Block 490751

My suspicion is that a client has the wrong system time set that is discovering the block
(i havent looked to deep into source to see where that value is set but seems to be associated with the block)

[EDIT] I did look into the source-code just now, and if i am correct the time associated with discovering block is inserted by the client for that block.
Therefore if the client time is wrong, then it could have an effect
Thankfully it looks like there is a correction also made for the following blocks

The progress value looks like it is a time adjustment ± to help with staking time
in each case the progress value is much higher than other values around that time

3 Likes
11

Gnasher

Thanks, I like this attitudes about communities getting to the root of the solution!

I look for more digging! :stuck_out_tongue: