{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitpay/bitcore/issues/1188","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitpay/bitcore/issues/1188/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitpay/bitcore/issues/1188/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitpay/bitcore/issues/1188/events","html_url":"https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore/issues/1188","id":68827151,"number":1188,"title":"Error: More than one instance of bitcore found with different versions: v0.11.7 and v0.11.7","user":{"login":"olalonde","id":416585,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/416585?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde","html_url":"https://github.com/olalonde","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/olalonde/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitpay/bitcore/labels/bug","name":"bug","color":"fc2929"}],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":14,"created_at":"2015-04-16T02:06:44Z","updated_at":"2015-09-09T10:13:50Z","closed_at":"2015-04-30T07:26:30Z","body":"Getting this error:\r\n\r\n```bash\r\n/src/node_modules/bitcore-p2p/node_modules/bitcore/index.js:17\r\n  throw new Error(message);\r\n        ^\r\nError: More than one instance of bitcore found with different versions: v0.11.7 and v0.11.7. Make sure there are no version conflicts between package.json files of your dependencies. This could also happen when a package depends on a git repository.\r\n    at Object.<anonymous> (/src/node_modules/bitcore-p2p/node_modules/bitcore/index.js:17:9)\r\n    at Module._compile (module.js:460:26)\r\n    at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:478:10)\r\n    at Module.load (module.js:355:32)\r\n    at Function.Module._load (module.js:310:12)\r\n    at Module.require (module.js:365:17)\r\n    at require (module.js:384:17)\r\n    at Object.<anonymous> (/src/node_modules/bitcore-p2p/index.js:1:77)\r\n    at Module._compile (module.js:460:26)\r\n    at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:478:10)\r\n```\r\n\r\nIMO, the current solution of checking for different require'd bitcore versions is really hacky and not idiomatic Node.js. The real solution would be to avoid relying on `instanceof`."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitpay/bitcore/issues/comments/138864873","html_url":"https://github.com/bitpay/bitcore/issues/1188#issuecomment-138864873","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/bitpay/bitcore/issues/1188","id":138864873,"user":{"login":"Levino","id":1150767,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1150767?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino","html_url":"https://github.com/Levino","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/Levino/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2015-09-09T10:13:50Z","updated_at":"2015-09-09T10:13:50Z","body":"@braydonf I think this issue needs to be reopened. I have never heard of a package that you are not allowed to require in a subpackage but only at the top. This is 90's style, if you ask me. What is npm require for then?"}}