So I think the 6-confirmation recommendation should be changed: tell the merchants to wait for as many as possible if time permits, or if the amount is large.
How about 6 confirmations plus the length of the longest fork difference, which is usually 0 or 1. I think we need an automated fork monitoring system, with red alerts to the devs, miners and merchants when it gets greater than 2 blocks. There would be no way of knowing whether the longest one is the correct one, i.e., someone mined an orphan block and is immediately rejected, yet the main chain's difference to the orphaned chain will still continue to grow, but the monitoring system is a good idea, if both branches are detected to have two or more blocks, everyone gets an alert, and the merchant will keep requesting new confirmations until one branch stops growing for a certain period of time. |
|
|
|
It would be fine, if there are at least 3 different clients. I hope some company will invest in development soon.
Yes, it's more like the current network is created to demonstrate to people out there the potential of bitcoin, the decentralization may not be enough if all big guys around are good buddies hanging out together. |
|
|
|
|
OP's suggestion looks good in retrospect, seeing what had happened. There are unique problems with bitcoin as with any other investment, so diversification most probably can't go wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
The blockchain could find out a double spend, what's wrong is the 6-confirmations recommendation, it should be changed, especially for transactions involving large amount.
|
|
|
|
Excuse my non-technical, conceptual-only questions / thoughts / checking if I have this right in my head:
1) There was no *permanent* "double spend" right? i.e. the transaction on the .8 fork would have eventually been orphaned / dumped / never credited to the address specified in the .8 block?
2) The risk here (and reason why SwC shut off all deposits / withdraws for a few hrs until this was resolved) was that during this very odd period a sophisticated user could use multiple 0-conf services that would all at the same time believe they were getting the same coins, but after the blockchain becomes 1 again only 1 of the transactions would actually be included in the "real" blockchain?
In theory this didn't just affect 0-confirmation services. The transaction on the 0.8 side of the double-spend got 15 confirmations on that fork before it was invalidated by the conflicting transaction from the 0.7 side of the fork, which is more confirmations than anyone requires. So I think the 6-confirmation recommendation should be changed: tell the merchants to wait for as many as possible if time permits, or if the amount is large. |
|
|
|
|
Anyone can point me to anything about that 2010 fork?
|
|
|
|
Gentlemen, you just watched finance in the 21st century.
*complete transparency
*community driven
*solution driven
*results
Bitcoin just gained a lot more confidence.
Well said. Whatever the short-term fallout, this gives me *more* confidence in the long-term robustness, both in terms of system design (in that issues *can* be resolved quickly without much user impact), and also in the community to quickly arrive at consensus and execute the best solution. Bitcoin will no doubt run into issues in the future, ranging from similar issues to outright attacks, and I like seeing this fire drill handled so effectively. And the immediate willingness of people to cooperate when it matters. |
|
|
|
oakpacific, I didn't know you were a thief too? : O
I see, you have a reading comprehension problem. Hint: you were talking to exactly the person you considered to have stolen money. |
|
|
|
wrong again, Im out for good. got a few more projects that dont involve market manipulation, in other words stealing money.
Then why are you still posting here, feeling great hanging around with thieves then? |
|
|
|
The market will regain confidence once it figures out how awesome it is to be able to really aware of the problem, if it were a bank the investors would have no knowledge until it stinks.
What investors and "the market" make out of it will depend largely on the media. And i doubt that they will see it the way you and i do. They're gonna have field day calling this a "hack", "crash", "broken system", whatever sounds most dramatic for the actual writers' article. And why wouldn't they? It's a good story, after all. Not necessarily true, but just too good to be wasted. And yes, that will have an impact on the confidence of investors. They may be smart people, but they're also smart enough to not waste their time on really understanding the technicals of their investments. Not all investors buy/sell on the panic of other people. We have had way too many markets creating huge problems underneath yet still spouting out good news all day. If someone finds out that too much transparency is scary, so be it, but they may as well stay in the grand nanny's basement forever. |
|
|
|
Any speculation to why people are rushing to sell their bitcoins now?
Because the market is smarter than anyone and knows that if this problem happens once it can happen again and worse. Black day for Bitcoin, but time will heal. The market will regain confidence once it figures out how awesome it is to be able to really aware of the problem, if it were a bank the investors would have no knowledge until it stinks. |
|
|
|
Any speculation to why people are rushing to sell their bitcoins now?
 |
|
|
|
After taking it over, the main chain is the right one now... |
|
|
|
Is this issue fixed or do we still have 2 blockchains running?
Fixed? U call 51% attack organized by Bitcoin Foundation "a fix"? :facepalm: What 51% attack? Do you even know what "51% attack" means? Hint: it isn't the Bitcoin equivalent of the boogeyman. Isn't there written about 51% attack? - If you're a miner, please do not mine on 0.8 code. Stop, or switch back to 0.7. BTCGuild is switching to 0.7, so the old chain will get a majority hash rate soon.
It's not an attack if nobody is stopping you from making transactions or getting confirmation, but just for you own safety, you need to wait out a bit longer, like wait for 30 something confirmations, etc. |
|
|
|
ok, every software has its bugs. Anyway, the soonest you discover and correct the bug, the better  In this case, it was a matter of minutes ! Gratz to the Devs !!! I am not sure how well the things will work out after this network becomes much larger then the small community we are having now. |
|
|
|
Is it working? Is the Orphaned chain growing or what?
Seems to be faster then expected. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
