AlphaX/qortal
1
0
Fork 0
forked from Qortal/qortal
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Revert "Workaround for block 535658 problem"

Browse Source 
This reverts commit 278201e87c.
This commit is contained in:
CalDescent 2021-09-09 12:55:21 +01:00
parent a6bbc81962
commit 63c9bc5c1c
2 changed files with 1 additions and 84 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

7
src/main/java/org/qortal/block/Block.java
View File

@ -1092,14 +1092,9 @@ public class Block {
// Create repository savepoint here so we can rollback to it after testing transactions // Create repository savepoint here so we can rollback to it after testing transactions
repository.setSavepoint(); repository.setSavepoint();
if (this.blockData.getHeight() == 212937) { if (this.blockData.getHeight() == 212937)
// Apply fix for block 212937 but fix will be rolled back before we exit method // Apply fix for block 212937 but fix will be rolled back before we exit method
Block212937.processFix(this); Block212937.processFix(this);
}
else if (this.blockData.getHeight() == 535658) {
// Apply fix for block 535658 but fix will be rolled back before we exit method
Block535658.processFix(this);
}
for (Transaction transaction : this.getTransactions()) { for (Transaction transaction : this.getTransactions()) {
TransactionData transactionData = transaction.getTransactionData(); TransactionData transactionData = transaction.getTransactionData();

78
src/main/java/org/qortal/block/Block535658.java
View File

@ -1,78 +0,0 @@
package org.qortal.block;
import org.qortal.naming.Name;
import org.qortal.repository.DataException;
/**
* Block 535658
* <p>
* A node minted a version of block 535658 that contained one transaction:
* a REGISTER_NAME transaction that attempted to register a name that was already registered.
* <p>
* This invalid transaction made block 535658 (rightly) invalid to several nodes,
* which refused to use that block.
* However, it seems there were no other nodes minting an alternative, valid block at that time
* and so the chain stalled for several nodes in the network.
* <p>
* Additionally, the invalid block 535658 affected all new installations, regardless of whether
* they synchronized from scratch (block 1) or used an 'official release' bootstrap.
* <p>
* The diagnosis found the following:
* - The original problem occurred in block 535205 where for some unknown reason many nodes didn't
* add the name from a REGISTER_NAME transaction to their Names table.
* - As a result, those nodes had a corrupt db, because they weren't holding a record of the name.
* - This invalid db then caused them to treat a candidate for block 535658 as valid when it
* should have been invalid.
* - As such, the chain continued on with a technically invalid block in it, for a subset of the network
* <p>
* As with block 212937, there were three options, but the only feasible one was to apply edits to block
* 535658 to make it valid. There were several cross-chain trades completed after this block, so doing
* any kind of rollback was out of the question.
* <p>
* To complicate things further, a custom data field was used for the first REGISTER_NAME transaction,
* and the default data field was used for the second. So it was important that all nodes ended up with
* the exact same data regardless of how they arrived there.
* <p>
* The invalid block 535658 signature is: <tt>3oiuDhok...NdXvCLEV</tt>.
* <p>
* The invalid transaction in block 212937 is:
* <p>
* <code><pre>
{
"type": "REGISTER_NAME",
"timestamp": 1630739437517,
"reference": "4peRechwSPxP6UkRj9Y8ox9YxkWb34sWk5zyMc1WyMxEsACxD4Gmm7LZVsQ6Skpze8QCSBMZasvEZg6RgdqkyADW",
"fee": "0.00100000",
"signature": "2t1CryCog8KPDBarzY5fDCKu499nfnUcGrz4Lz4w5wNb5nWqm7y126P48dChYY7huhufcBV3RJPkgKP4Ywxc1gXx",
"txGroupId": 0,
"blockHeight": 535658,
"approvalStatus": "NOT_REQUIRED",
"creatorAddress": "Qbx9ojxv7XNi1xDMWzzw7xDvd1zYW6SKFB",
"registrantPublicKey": "HJqGEf6cW695Xun4ydhkB2excGFwsDxznhNCRHZStyyx",
"name": "Qplay",
"data": "Registered Name on the Qortal Chain"
}
</pre></code>
* <p>
* Account <tt>Qbx9ojxv7XNi1xDMWzzw7xDvd1zYW6SKFB</tt> attempted to register the name <tt>Qplay</tt>
* when they had already registered it 12 hours before in block <tt>535205</tt>.
* <p>
* However, on the broken DB nodes, their Names table was missing a record for the `Qplay` name
* which was sufficient to make the transaction valid.
*/
public final class Block535658 {
private Block535658() {
/* Do not instantiate */
}
public static void processFix(Block block) throws DataException {
// Unregister the existing name record if it exists
// This ensures that the duplicate name is considered valid, and therefore
// the second (i.e. duplicate) REGISTER_NAME transaction data is applied.
// Both were issued by the same user account, so there is no conflict.
Name name = new Name(block.repository, "Qplay");
name.unregister();
}
}