there was probably no issue with block300017: numBlock check was commented out so there were 100 blocks and thus the check for randBlock < startBlockNum+numBlock-6 was inaccurate
there was probably no issue with block300017: numBlock check was commented out so there were 100 blocks and thus the check for randBlock < startBlockNum+numBlock-6 was inaccurate

ethers/btcrelay,ethereum/btcrelay,vaporry/btcrelay,ethereum/btcrelay