search

hirosystems / ordhook

Build indexers, standards and protocols on top of Ordinals and Inscriptions (BRC20, etc).
Apache License 2.0
189 stars 56 forks source link

Inscription number not matched with ordinals.com on v2.0.0 #244

Closed MikaelBTC closed 8 months ago

MikaelBTC commented 10 months ago

I started a new ordhook v2.0.0 server, reloaded all the data from the beginning. But I got the mis-matched inscription number: 6d9f78ebf5ad60df99a76fcc21bbbfb09c83c82c80c84140b0e52effee2dd0c4i0, #53666689 from ordhook but from #53681848 ordinals.com. I think many inscriptions are mis-matched.

logs: Jan 08 00:42:35.562 INFO Inscription 6d9f78ebf5ad60df99a76fcc21bbbfb09c83c82c80c84140b0e52effee2dd0c4i0 (#53666689) detected on Satoshi 1877042280052473 (block #824802, 3879 transfers)

Thank you very much!

lgalabru commented 10 months ago

Hi @MikaelBTC, We caught some issues at the time of the Jubilee block time and published some hot patches that are still in a branch. I'll publish a 2.0.1 in the next hours.

https://ordinals.hiro.so/inscription/6d9f78ebf5ad60df99a76fcc21bbbfb09c83c82c80c84140b0e52effee2dd0c4i0 https://ordinals.com/inscription/6d9f78ebf5ad60df99a76fcc21bbbfb09c83c82c80c84140b0e52effee2dd0c4i0

MikaelBTC commented 10 months ago

Thank you very much for your effort.

MikaelBTC commented 10 months ago

I started a new ordhook v2.0.0 server, reloaded all the data from the beginning. But I got the mis-matched inscription number: 6d9f78ebf5ad60df99a76fcc21bbbfb09c83c82c80c84140b0e52effee2dd0c4i0, #53666689 from ordhook but from #53681848 ordinals.com. I think many inscriptions are mis-matched.

logs: Jan 08 00:42:35.562 INFO Inscription 6d9f78ebf5ad60df99a76fcc21bbbfb09c83c82c80c84140b0e52effee2dd0c4i0 (#53666689) detected on Satoshi 1877042280052473 (block #824802, 3879 transfers)

Thank you very much!

I found the problem, the inscription number in the log is as same as the number from ord v0.9.0, I am not sure the number from the ord v0.14 is correct, I think you can log both the number in ord v0.9 and v0.14.

lgalabru commented 9 months ago

@MikaelBTC could you give a shot to https://github.com/hirosystems/ordhook/releases/tag/v2.0.1?

lgalabru commented 9 months ago

Note that you'll have to rollback the segment of blocks indexed since Jubilee so something along the lines:

$ ordhook db drop 824544 <tip> --config-path ...
MikaelBTC commented 9 months ago

@MikaelBTC could you give a shot to https://github.com/hirosystems/ordhook/releases/tag/v2.0.1?

Sure, I will try it. Thank you very much.

MikaelBTC commented 9 months ago

@lgalabru I found another one with wrong number: 54025106 on v2.0.1, but the right one is 54025105. This is the first time I found the bigger inscription number in ordhook.

logs: Jan 10 04:37:20.850 INFO Inscription 31363e0a69b405c1ae4dc914a7d4c014b67bd4988b231285557c5cdb09b7727ei0 (#54025106) detected on Satoshi 1218205082869518 (block #825090, 909 transfers)

Thank you very much!

MikaelBTC commented 9 months ago

@lgalabru I found another one with wrong number: 54025106 on v2.0.1, but the right one is 54025105. This is the first time I found the bigger inscription number in ordhook.

logs: Jan 10 04:37:20.850 INFO Inscription 31363e0a69b405c1ae4dc914a7d4c014b67bd4988b231285557c5cdb09b7727ei0 (#54025106) detected on Satoshi 1218205082869518 (block #825090, 909 transfers)

Thank you very much!

I found the root of this problem, which is in one block, the order of inscriptions is wrong, not only the inscription number. This one: 9b2364e642a36fa59f5990e987ea904c2a6cfe8a169f16af6a990a37d069ceb6i0(54025030, should be 54025027), it was inserted before: e381d494e37da3bcddd6fcacb0edea17bddbc377f29be1ff45012450ded534c2i0(54025031, should be 54025030).

Thank you very much.

lgalabru commented 9 months ago

Hey @MikaelBTC, yes I am aware of this issue, I believe this is an issue in ord that I'm tracking and discussing here: https://github.com/ordinals/ord/issues/2967

MikaelBTC commented 9 months ago

Hey @MikaelBTC, yes I am aware of this issue, I believe this is an issue in ord that I'm tracking and discussing here: ordinals/ord#2967

Thank you! Let's wait for the ord. Also, I think even if it is an issue of ord, ordhook can show the same result of ord, because the other indexers did this.

MikaelBTC commented 9 months ago

Hi @lgalabru, can you tell me if I use the ordhook v2.0.1 for brc-20 indexer, what is the difference from ord v0.14.1? Will they have difference balance for the same ticker and same address?

lgalabru commented 9 months ago

from a pure brc20 point of view, you should be fine.

MikaelBTC commented 9 months ago

from a pure brc20 point of view, you should be fine.

That is cool, thank you very much.

ybeetle8 commented 9 months ago

I've found that Number doesn't match here either, I'm on 2.0.1.

ybeetle8 commented 9 months ago

Inscription dfead85b8136d8467d6abc91db00d92ff5294dd75c2f56a194112dd6674f7bd6i0 revealed at block #826789 (inscription_number 56884438, ordinal_number 1694301393173832) v2.0.1 ordinals.com Inscription 56794826

lgalabru commented 8 months ago

Addressed in v2.1.0, in the process of being released.