<p>Apparently, there is a fork between <code>0.12.0</code> and <code>0.12.1</code> nodes.</p>

<p>Testnet is used to test new features of Bitcoin before they are released on the main network. Apparently, the newer version of Bitcoin created a block that was invalid under the rules of the older Bitcoin version. This caused the network to split, as the two versions now created two competing blocks at the same height, and are following separate chains.</p>

<p>Apparently, the softfork activation is being tested, which may cause your experience:</p>

<pre><code>&lt;phantomcircuit&gt; nope
&lt;phantomcircuit&gt; like 50% of the hashing power currently on testnet randomly drops out for days at a time
&lt;phantomcircuit&gt; and im messing with the timestamps to get many many many more blocks than there should be
&lt;phantomcircuit&gt; the two things combined result in soft forks activating with way less than 95% of the hashing power
</code></pre>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T14:48:14.480Z
Can you please elaborate. I didn’t get you. I am quite new to Bitcoins
jgm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T14:57:42.260Z
@jgm: I've updated my answer.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T16:18:34.827Z
That patch doesn't seem to create any consensus changes. Why would that be the cause?
Nick ODell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T16:33:57.380Z
Good point, I got linked to it on IRC, didn't check it thoroughly enough. I've seen it both suggested that it had something to do with `OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY` or with GBT, haven't been able to find more information.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T19:08:29.383Z
@Murch I think that seems to be the answer. I run the `testnet` on two machines and both are way ahead of other blockchain explorers. Also I run the version `0.12.1`
jgm
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-04-26T14:44:18.837Z
2016-04-26T16:41:47.817Z
2016-04-26T16:41:47.817Z
Murch
<p>I am running <code>bitcoin-qt</code> on the <code>testnet</code>. The count of the last block is <code>787794</code> which is way ahead of what I see on blockchain explorers such as <a href="https://test.webbtc.com/" rel="nofollow">https://test.webbtc.com/</a>, which shows the last block as <code>787747</code>. Why is there this difference ?</p>

<blockchain><bitcoin-core><testnet><blockchain-fork><height>
Height mismatch between bitcoin-qt and bitcoin explorers
jgm
# Height mismatch between bitcoin-qt and bitcoin explorers

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-04-26)

I am running `bitcoin-qt` on the `testnet`. The count of the last block is `787794` which is way ahead of what I see on blockchain explorers such as <https://test.webbtc.com/>, which shows the last block as `787747`. Why is there this difference ?

**Tags:** blockchain, bitcoin-core, testnet, blockchain-fork, height


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-04-26. Score: 1 | Accepted answer

Apparently, there is a fork between `0.12.0` and `0.12.1` nodes.

Testnet is used to test new features of Bitcoin before they are released on the main network. Apparently, the newer version of Bitcoin created a block that was invalid under the rules of the older Bitcoin version. This caused the network to split, as the two versions now created two competing blocks at the same height, and are following separate chains.

Apparently, the softfork activation is being tested, which may cause your experience:

```
<phantomcircuit> nope
<phantomcircuit> like 50% of the hashing power currently on testnet randomly drops out for days at a time
<phantomcircuit> and im messing with the timestamps to get many many many more blocks than there should be
<phantomcircuit> the two things combined result in soft forks activating with way less than 95% of the hashing power

```

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Can you please elaborate. I didn’t get you. I am quite new to Bitcoins  
> **username_1**: @username_0: I've updated my answer.  
> **username_2**: That patch doesn't seem to create any consensus changes. Why would that be the cause?  
> **username_1**: Good point, I got linked to it on IRC, didn't check it thoroughly enough. I've seen it both suggested that it had something to do with `OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY` or with GBT, haven't been able to find more information.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I think that seems to be the answer. I run the `testnet` on two machines and both are way ahead of other blockchain explorers. Also I run the version `0.12.1`  

---

