mirror of
https://github.com/seigler/dash-docs
synced 2025-07-28 10:16:15 +00:00
156 lines
6.5 KiB
HTML
156 lines
6.5 KiB
HTML
---
|
|
title: "Some Miners Generating Invalid Blocks"
|
|
alias: "spv-mining"
|
|
active: true
|
|
banner: "WARNING: many wallets currently vulnerable to double-spending of confirmed transactions (click here to read)"
|
|
bannerclass: "alert"
|
|
---
|
|
{% capture markdown %}
|
|
<p><em>This document is being updated as new information arrives. Last
|
|
update: 2015-07-06 02:00. All times are UTC.</em></p>
|
|
|
|
**Note: this alert is on-going: the situation has not yet been
|
|
resolved. ([Update #1](#update-1))**
|
|
|
|
{% assign confs="30" %}
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="summary">Summary</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>Your bitcoins are safe if you received them in transactions confirmed before 2015-07-06 00:00 UTC.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>However, there has been a problem with a planned upgrade. For
|
|
bitcoins received later than the time above, confirmation scores are
|
|
significantly less reliable then they usually are for users of
|
|
certain software:</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li markdown="span"><b>Lightweight (<a href="http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/4649/what-is-an-spv-client">SPV</a>) wallet users</b> should wait an additional {{confs}}
|
|
confirmations more than you would normally wait. Electrum users,
|
|
please see [this note][electrum note].</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><b>Bitcoin Core 0.9.4 or earlier users</b> should wait an
|
|
additional {{confs}} confirmations more than you would normally
|
|
wait or upgrade to <a href="/en/download">Bitcoin Core 0.10.2</a>.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><b>Web wallet users</b> should wait an additional {{confs}} confirmations
|
|
more than you would normally wait, unless you know for sure that your
|
|
wallet is secured by Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or later.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><b>Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or later users are unaffected.</b> (Note:
|
|
<a href="/en/download">upgrade to 0.10.2</a> is recommended due to
|
|
denial-of-service vulnerabilities unrelated to this alert.)</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="miners">Miners</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>If you pool mine, please switch to a pool that properly validates
|
|
blocks. The Wiki Mining Pool Comparison page currently contains a list of <a
|
|
href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Comparison_of_mining_pools#SPV_Mining_.2F_Old_Bitcoin_Core">known (or
|
|
suspected) good and bad pools.</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p>If you solo mine, please switch to Bitcoin Core 0.10.2.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="solution">When Will Things Go Back To Normal?</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>The problem is miners creating invalid blocks. Some software can detect
|
|
that those blocks are invalid and reject them; other software can't
|
|
detect that blocks are invalid, so they show confirmations that aren't
|
|
real.</p>
|
|
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li><b>Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 and later</b> never had any problems because
|
|
it could detect which blocks were invalid.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><b>Bitcoin Core 0.9.4 and earlier</b> will never provide as much
|
|
security as later versions of Bitcoin Core because it doesn't know
|
|
about the additional <a
|
|
href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0066.mediawiki">BIP66</a>
|
|
consensus rules. <a href="/en/download">Upgrade</a> is recommended
|
|
to return to full node security.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><b>Lightweight (SPV) wallets</b> are not safe for less than
|
|
{{confs}} confirmations until all the major pools switch to full
|
|
validation.</li>
|
|
|
|
<li><b>Web wallets</b> are very diverse in what infrastructure they
|
|
run and how they handle double spends, so unless you know for sure
|
|
that they use Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 or later for full validation, you
|
|
should assume they have the same security as the lightweight
|
|
wallets described above.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<h2 id="cause">What's Happening</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>Summary: Some miners are currently generating invalid blocks. Almost
|
|
all software (besides Bitcoin Core 0.9.5 and later) will accept these
|
|
invalid blocks under certain conditions.</p>
|
|
|
|
So far, the following forks of two or more blocks have occurred:
|
|
|
|
{% assign Blocks='Blocks <sup><a href="#invalid-blocks">[1]</a></sup>' %}
|
|
|
|
<a name="list-of-forks" />
|
|
|
|
| Start date | End time | {{Blocks}} | Double Spends |
|
|
|----------------|----------|------------|---------------|
|
|
| 4 July @ 02:10 | 03:50 | 6 | 0 |
|
|
| 5 July @ 21:50 | 23:40 | 3 | Not yet known |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The paragraphs that follow explain the cause more throughly.
|
|
|
|
<p>For several months, an increasing amount of mining hash rate has been
|
|
signaling its intent to begin enforcing <a
|
|
href="https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0066.mediawiki">BIP66</a>
|
|
strict DER signatures. As part of the BIP66 rules,
|
|
once 950 of the last 1,000 blocks were version 3 (v3) blocks, all
|
|
upgraded miners would reject version 2 (v2) blocks.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Early morning on 4 July 2015, the 950/1000 (95%) threshold was
|
|
reached. Shortly thereafter, a small miner (part of the non-upgraded
|
|
5%) mined an invalid block--as was an expected occurrence.
|
|
Unfortunately, it turned out that roughly half the network hash rate
|
|
was mining without fully validating blocks (called SPV mining), and
|
|
built new blocks on top of that invalid block.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Note that the roughly 50% of the network that was SPV mining had
|
|
explicitly indicated that they would enforce the BIP66 rules. By not
|
|
doing so, several large miners have lost over $50,000 dollars worth
|
|
of mining income so far.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>All software that assumes blocks are valid (because invalid blocks
|
|
cost miners money) is at risk of showing transactions as confirmed
|
|
when they really aren't. This particularly affects lightweight (SPV)
|
|
wallets and software such as old versions of Bitcoin Core which have
|
|
been downgraded to SPV-level security by the new BIP66 consensus
|
|
rules.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The recommended fix, which was attempted, was to
|
|
get all miners off of SPV mining and back to full validation (at
|
|
least temporarily). If this happens, Bitcoin.org will reduce its
|
|
current recommendation of waiting {{confs}} extra confirmations to a
|
|
lower number.</p>
|
|
|
|
## Updates
|
|
|
|
1. **6 July 04:00:**{:#update-1} A new fork occurred starting 5 July at
|
|
21:30 with three blocks before the valid chain again became the
|
|
strongest chain. See the recently-added [list of forks](#list-of-forks).
|
|
Reports that the situation has passed are **not correct.** Please continue
|
|
to wait {{confs}} more confirmations than you usually would wait before
|
|
accepting a transaction.
|
|
|
|
## Invalid Blocks
|
|
|
|
Please see the list of [invalid block hashes][] on the Bitcoin Wiki.
|
|
|
|
<!--
|
|
<div style="text-align:right">
|
|
<i>This notice last updated: 2015-07-04 06:00 UTC</i>
|
|
</div>
|
|
-->
|
|
|
|
[electrum note]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/July_2015_Forks#Electrum
|
|
[invalid block hashes]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/July_2015_Forks#Invalid_Block_Hashes
|
|
{% endcapture %}
|
|
{{ markdown | markdownify }}
|