Combined the three invalid name registration block patches into a single class. This should allow syncing from genesis again.

src/main/java/org/qortal/block/Block.java

@@ -41,14 +41,12 @@ import org.qortal.data.block.BlockData;
 import org.qortal.data.block.BlockSummaryData;
 import org.qortal.data.block.BlockTransactionData;
 import org.qortal.data.network.OnlineAccountData;
-import org.qortal.data.transaction.RegisterNameTransactionData;
 import org.qortal.data.transaction.TransactionData;
 import org.qortal.repository.ATRepository;
 import org.qortal.repository.DataException;
 import org.qortal.repository.Repository;
 import org.qortal.repository.TransactionRepository;
 import org.qortal.transaction.AtTransaction;
-import org.qortal.transaction.RegisterNameTransaction;
 import org.qortal.transaction.Transaction;
 import org.qortal.transaction.Transaction.ApprovalStatus;
 import org.qortal.transaction.Transaction.TransactionType;
@@ -1094,9 +1092,14 @@ public class Block {
 			// Create repository savepoint here so we can rollback to it after testing transactions
 			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
 				Block212937.processFix(this);
+			}
+			else if (InvalidNameRegistrationBlocks.isAffectedBlock(this.blockData.getHeight())) {
+				// Apply fix for affected name registration blocks, but fix will be rolled back before we exit method
+				InvalidNameRegistrationBlocks.processFix(this);
+			}
 
 			for (Transaction transaction : this.getTransactions()) {
 				TransactionData transactionData = transaction.getTransactionData();

src/main/java/org/qortal/block/InvalidNameRegistrationBlocks.java

@@ -0,0 +1,114 @@
+package org.qortal.block;
+
+import org.apache.logging.log4j.LogManager;
+import org.apache.logging.log4j.Logger;
+import org.qortal.naming.Name;
+import org.qortal.repository.DataException;
+
+import java.util.HashMap;
+import java.util.Map;
+
+/**
+ * Invalid Name Registration Blocks
+ * <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.
+ *
+ * This problem then occurred two more times, in blocks 536140 and 541334
+ * To reduce duplication, I have combined all three block fixes into a single class
+ *
+ */
+public final class InvalidNameRegistrationBlocks {
+
+	private static final Logger LOGGER = LogManager.getLogger(InvalidNameRegistrationBlocks.class);
+
+	public static Map<Integer, String> invalidBlocksNamesMap = new HashMap<Integer, String>()
+	{
+		{
+			put(535658, "Qplay");
+			put(536140, "Qweb");
+			put(541334, "Qithub");
+		}
+	};
+
+	private InvalidNameRegistrationBlocks() {
+		/* Do not instantiate */
+	}
+
+	public static boolean isAffectedBlock(int height) {
+		return (invalidBlocksNamesMap.containsKey(height));
+	}
+
+	public static void processFix(Block block) throws DataException {
+		Integer blockHeight = block.getBlockData().getHeight();
+		String invalidName = invalidBlocksNamesMap.get(blockHeight);
+		if (invalidName == null) {
+			throw new DataException(String.format("Unable to lookup invalid name for block height %d", blockHeight));
+		}
+
+		// 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, invalidName);
+		name.unregister();
+
+		LOGGER.debug("Applied name registration patch for block {}", blockHeight);
+	}
+
+	// Note:
+	// There is no need to write an orphanFix() method, as we do not have
+	// the necessary ATStatesData to orphan back this far anyway
+
+}