http://insight.auroracoin.is is on old version

[88plug]

Please update to latest release

[lurchinms]

Has been resolved?

[SkateFish]

The daemon running on insight is on an older version but it does represent what we consider is the accurate chain.

The changes made in v2021.01.1 introduced a condition for a chain-split that we are hoping is addressed in v2021.01.2, however it seems there are still miners that are propagating the sidechain.

[lurchinms]

Well it clearing states not to use v01.01, so I was on the previous version. So my miners for the last week have been mine the wrong chain and depleting my AUR funds. KriptoKyng

…

On Jan 21, 2021, at 9:21 PM, mikael hannes ***@***.***> wrote:  The daemon running on insight is on an older version but it does represent what we consider is the accurate chain. The changes made in v2021.01.1 introduced a condition for a chain-split that we are hoping is addressed in v2021.01.2, however it seems there are still miners that are propagating the sidechain. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.

[BioMike]

Insight is being run by someone else, I notified him to update it. He said he would look at it.

As for the chain split, I would like to add a bit more information to that:

Our old 2019 wallet was based on Digibyte when we went multi-algo (with some development on top of that). The code base for this wallet was lagging so much behind in terms of development, we decided to take the current DGB code base (to my memory this was about a year ago) and started applying Bitcoin commits on top of that (that DGB code base was also lagging on Bitcoin). I assumed that DGB didn't do things that would damage the consensus of their network (which looked still largely the same), but I was wrong. They removed/didn't add the code causing to change their network consensus. If the network has many miners that gradually upgrade, the changed consensus is accepted over time, because no blocks get to the chain that hit that consensus rule. Apparently our network is much more different, with a few miners that contribute to a large extend. In this limited pool about 50% of the miners switched to the new wallet, the old wallets hit this rule, while the new ones didn't (due to the missing code) and caused this unintended split.

The split was resolved by adding the missing code and adding a checkpoint to the branch where the old wallets were progressing on and as far as I can see this resolved the issue.

The current plan for the future is to continue developing our code base by adding patches from Bitcoin core to further catch up with that and to keep up to date with its development. On top of that we add our own development, though that will be a lot less. This issue was caused by taking the DGB code base and assume that it was correct (for us). By keeping up to date with Bitcoin we don't have to deal with DGB any more in the future.

I also stated within the Auroracoin team that I would like to have closer lines to (large) miners and exchanges that are on our network and we should work on better monitoring systems for the network. @SkateFish has been handling this miner/exchange reachout for some time and I think he has a better view of and contact with miners within the network than I have. I think nobody was happy with this split happening.

[auroracoin101]

Another update on the chain split which occurred last January 2021.

KriptoKyng ( 2 message above) was reimbursed all coins that we lost on the orphaned chain, and all users and exchanges that had lost funds were compensated.

I have been in contact with miners and have tightened our relationship. In fact, KriptoKyng helped us launch Valhala.is, an Auroracoin specific mining pool, with the long term goal of onboarding Icelandic miners, where electricity is 100% geothermal and hydroelectric.

mikael hannes,
team Auroracoin