|
It was a double spend, was not merchants fault, is not good. However you want to phrase it.
|
|
|
|
It's not just downtime. It's a clusterfuck due to all transactions that will inevitably be reversed. I guarantee you a bunch of people lose a lot of money from this. Fortunately for me, I was able to sell some LTC at .0115 BTC  No transactions are being reversed at all. Where are you getting this false information from? He doesn't understand, clearly. You don't understand what I meant, clearly. I had to resend a transaction that was reversed post-fork. If you had a little more patience, it would have been reconfirmed in the new chain. There was just a very large backlog that is still being cleared. - The original problem of TX's building up in mempools still exists - if things get crazy, we can expect out of mem errors, and then dare not think of the consequences for the network. - A double spend was achieved, some people argue the "mechant" should have ignored the 2nd spend or similar, but it happened. Whilst, ppl saying all calm down, the fact that the fix did not work is awful long term, and must be addressed asap. And a hard fork happened, is pretty terrible. |
|
|
|
|
I dont think 1 large exchange is right for many reasons - not only is it a "single point of failure", other issues exist.
|
|
|
|
This was not a 51% attack. Nobody intentionally gained 51% of hashing power for their own purpose. It was a bug in the 0.7 client that caused a blockchain fork, which left the network open to doublespending for a short while. And you dont see why this is a problem? Regardless of the cause? Previously people have been under the impression "double spends" only exist if >51% network - which is actaully not true anyway, it's a lot less. |
|
|
|
|
Yep mtgox is the defacto exchange, and I think it's one of the manipulated currencies out there.
|
|
|
|
There shouldn't be such transactions, there can be fault at merchant end accepting double-spend transaction during fork time.
When the fork was first being looked into, at March 12 2013 and at 00:03 AM the main net at the time (mined by v0.8 clients) was at block 225439, yet other clients were stuck on the fork at the time (mined by v0.7 and prior clients) was at 225431. 00:00 sipa ;;bc,blocks
00:00 gribble 225431
00:01 sipa but it seems blockexplorer is stuck too...
00:01 sipa as i'm on 225439
- http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2013/03/12So even before anyone knew for sure that a fork was underway, there could have been transactions with six confirmations on the v0.8 side. If for whatever reason those transactions didn't also already get included in blocks on the v0.7 side, there was the opportunity to perform a race attack to double spend the transaction that had already been included on the v0.8 side. We now know that exact scenario is what happened with the transfer to OKPay that is being claimed to have been successfully double spent. Though in that instance, it was after the alert went out that OKPay still processed the deposit as being valid. So that specific incident could have been prevented had they halted processing once the alert went out, but there still was a window between when confirmations would occur since the fork started and when the alert eventually went out. Not sure if you're really trying to place any blame on the merchant.... errr |
|
|
|
|
Stopping deposits, stops people depositing their bitcoins to sell / cause crash. All the exchanges closed deposits.
|
|
|
|
|
and yes I think there is also an issue of micro change in the btc client btw.
|
|
|
|
10 payments of 3.1 on top of weekly interest payments ( 0.310,0.279,0.248,0.217,0.186,0.155,0.124,0.093,0.062,0.031) 10 payments of 0.5 on top of weekly interest payments ( 0.05,0.045,0.04,0.035,0.03,0.025,0.02,0.015,0.01,0.005); next week will be interest only  |
|
|
|
I haven't got a clue. I'd rather just hold onto my bitcoins until I need to sell them. I'm hesitant to sell since intersango has lost a lot of liquidity and trust from people after the bitcoinica incident, and I don't like the idea of selling for GBP on any other exchange. I'm worried about ridiculous fees and security issues. I guess I can always store GBP on MtGox without a bank transfer and buy bitcoins back in the future. Yet I'm unsure as to if selling is a good idea regardless. Bitcoin is very volatile, so best to buy when on dips and then sell when you need to, rather than speculate, I think.
Made me smile. |
|
|
|
10 payments of 3.1 on top of weekly interest payments (0.310,0.279,0.248,0.217,0.186,0.155,0.124,0.093,0.062,0.031)
10 payments of 0.5 on top of weekly interest payments (0.05,0.045,0.04,0.035,0.03,0.025,0.02,0.015,0.01,0.005);
|
|
|
|
good to hear |
|
|
|
|
Updating my client now - as a quick question, some gambling websites use a patch I wrote for previous client to support some RPC's from more recent BTC client, is this forked from more recent?
Andy
|
|
|
|
|
because, the few pumpers are pumping it hard.
|
|
|
|
|
If i loan 50k BTC @ 1% interest over the week - e.g. so must pay back 50500BTC, and sell 50k BTC at once time, it'll start a panic / bubble burst.
There's enough people out there looking for "ways" to invest their BTC with viable returns.
As soon as someone makes a nice platform to short, the bubble will burst a lot quicker. It wont take more than a sell off of say 100k BTC lent to cause a crash. As soon as it crashes, can easily buy it back in a weeks time to cover the short.
|
|
|
|
|
more hashrate has joined the network in recent days.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
