Sort of. There is a bit of a terminology mess there. There used to be actual orphan blocks before we had header-first synchronization, which would be blocks for which we didn’t know the parent block. That can’t happen anymore, because we always announce headers first and only retrieve blocks for which we know the parent block.
We refer to blocks that are not part of the best chain as extinct blocks or stale blocks, but a long time ago someone used the term orphan blocks for that and it stuck. Presumably, the term stems from Bitcoin Core labeling the block reward of a stale block as “orphaned” in the code as it’s not part of the best chain.
synchronizing nodes often get blocks that are not directly tied into the best chain visible to that node, although the network claims will be part of the best chain. those are also sometimes called orphaned blocks.
Basically. If you want to split hairs you might say a block can only be stale if no other blocks are built on it, i.e. no multiblock reorg necessary. They put stale in quotes probably because it's a matter of perspective.
Are you a serious Bitcoiner? I do not see attached LN wallets.
For context -
What is Stacker News? It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community. Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets. To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats. Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits. This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution. The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions. But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community. Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet. Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree. Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform. If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop. Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability. But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches. When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further. When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow. So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit. I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not. Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow. Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy. Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit. Do not trust- verify. What about this fundamental principle do they not understand? And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words. Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit. Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy. SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed. I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work. So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response. V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all. The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.
Cool. Is it the same thing as "orphaned block"?
Sort of. There is a bit of a terminology mess there. There used to be actual orphan blocks before we had header-first synchronization, which would be blocks for which we didn’t know the parent block. That can’t happen anymore, because we always announce headers first and only retrieve blocks for which we know the parent block.
We refer to blocks that are not part of the best chain as extinct blocks or stale blocks, but a long time ago someone used the term orphan blocks for that and it stuck. Presumably, the term stems from Bitcoin Core labeling the block reward of a stale block as “orphaned” in the code as it’s not part of the best chain.
Also see: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/5859/5406
no
synchronizing nodes often get blocks that are not directly tied into the best chain visible to that node, although the network claims will be part of the best chain. those are also sometimes called orphaned blocks.
Basically. If you want to split hairs you might say a block can only be stale if no other blocks are built on it, i.e. no multiblock reorg necessary. They put stale in quotes probably because it's a matter of perspective.
incomplete; please see my sibling response[1] to your comment
#1437846 ↩
given the intended network contention in the summer, a live version of orphan blocks/chain(s) would be most interesting.
Thank you! This is very useful.
Are you a serious Bitcoiner?
I do not see attached LN wallets.
For context -
What is Stacker News?
It is a social media platform intentionally created to enable a P2P V4V BTC denominated community.
Originally Stacker News (SN) custodyed sats on behalf of participants but the threat of government regulatory prosecution on the pretext of money transmitter forced a move away from the custody of sats by the platform to the platform enabling participants to send sats via their wallets.
To achieve this participants need to attach wallets to both send and receive sats.
Where participants do not or cannot attach LN wallets transactions will often default to Cowboy Credits.
This change was a compromise forced by the threat of government prosecution.
The difficulty of attaching both sending and receiving wallets is moderate- it takes some effort and newbie or non tech people may struggle with it, but most competent Bitcoiners can succeed in attaching wallets and thus enabling sats denominated P2P transactions.
But a number of Stackers have chosen not to attach wallets- in particular sending wallets which enable you to send sats into the SN community.
Very few have attached just a sending wallet- many have attach just a receiving wallet.
Those who only attach a receiving wallet can receive sats from others but cannot send sats into the community. They may feel that as content providers they have no need or obligation to send sats into and within the SN community. I disagree.
Where these receive but not send (horse but no gun) Stackers proclaim to be Bitcoiners but refuse to enable a sending wallet they are demonstrably hypocrits. They claim they want to build and grow the BTC LN MoE network but they cannot be bothered contributing toward that growth by attaching a sending wallet and demonstrating they are not just talking, but are also walking and supporting a sats denominated platform.
If we do not use the LN wherever and whenever we can it will not grow and develop.
Some claim it is too hard to attach wallets- its too hard on their self custody nodes or wallets- this just highlights how much work the LN still needs before it is capable of anything approaching 100% reliable MoE capability.
But the best way to grow and strengthen the LN is it use it – despite its remaining flaws and glitches.
When wallets are supported by people using them they receives transaction fees and can develop liquidity and systems further.
When LN wallets are not used the LN decays- it does not have the usage and fees income to grow.
So when self proclaimed advocates for BTC and LN refuse to attach wallets (especially sending wallets) I see hypocrit.
I will continue to see hypocrit until and unless someone can explain why I should not.
Calling me a Nazi, trolling and making fun of me crudely seeking to avoid the issues I raise will not stop me from asking why are you claiming to be a Bitcoiner but refusing to attach wallets and use the LN here where we can help it grow.
Now some are deliberately concealing their wallet status, as if this is about a right to privacy.
Concealing your wallet status means nobody else can verify whether or not you are serious about using BTC LN, or whether you are just an all talk no walk hypocrit.
Do not trust- verify.
What about this fundamental principle do they not understand?
And then they talk about 'content' being more important than whether or not you have attached wallets - in this context the intentional lack of attached wallets undermines your credibility as your actions do not match your words.
Your submitted content may be great, but you as someone claiming to be a serious Bitcoiner are undermining your credibility and the credibility of your content by being a hypocrit.
Your content, is tainted by your verifiable hypocrisy.
SNs needs both good content providers and those who pay for that content if it is succeed.
I am more in the latter group than the former but both are required overall or the model does not work.
So as a net contributor of sats and thus a net consumer of content I object where content providers refuse to engage in the P2P V4V ethos by refusing to attach both sending and receiving wallets and I will both withhold my contribution of sats and sometimes downvote in response.
V4V needs to work reciprocally or it will not work at all.
The content providers need net sats contributors/content consumers who send sats into the platform, or the entire platform fails.