| ... | ... | @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ |
|
|
|
Current hypothesis is that the fork happened because of budget being inconsistent across the network: block 57750(A) that contained budget payment was rejected by several nodes in the network; later those nodes accepted block 57750(B) that contained failsafe payment. So far, this is the only logical explanation, however there are few questions to be answered
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Further research directions
|
|
|
|
1. **Why Volodymyr's masternodes rejected block 57750(A)?** The obvious explanation would be that they didn't have the final budget, but they *actually gave votes for Final Budget A*! (todo: confirm with solid evidence)
|
|
|
|
1. *Why Volodymyr's masternodes rejected block 57750(A)?* The obvious explanation would be that they didn't have the final budget, but they *actually gave votes for Final Budget A*! (todo: confirm with solid evidence)
|
|
|
|
2. *What caused issuing of block 57750(B) the next day? Which node mined it?* Probably, it won't help us understanding the problem, but it's just a strange unexplained event
|
|
|
|
3. *Why the failsafe even worked?* Based on code analysis done independently both by Volodymyr and Ashot the failsafe relies on impossible combination of events to work. In fact this was one of the reasons to eradicate it. We must have missed something
|
|
|
|
4. The last block on chain A is 58772 (01/20/2018 @ 11:54pm UTC), however Volodymyr's wallet received up to 57756 on Jan 22 and up to 58228 on Jan 23. *Why?* Probably it's due to the network being split, but it would be nice to have a more detailed explanation
|
| ... | ... | |
