I think they just wanted to have a name like '1337'[1], but even though it was free the rules for usernames somehow do not allow that. I dont know why exactly, but I know - as I posted above - there had been some issues with account names recently and that might have resulted in overly strict rules. It might also be totally unrelated and the rule is in place longer.


[1] that user actually exists -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=10704

Yes, unconfirmed transactions can be reversed. Well not actually reversed but pointed at a different address, which is essentially the same. Usually its very complicated and it would not explain why you received the (or some) coins anyway. Let me try to explain what the current problem is.

If you send a transaction it gets an ID, this TX ID is just an hash and not all parts of the transaction are actually signed by your private key. There are parts that are not signed, but hashed, thus if someone takes a transaction you created and modifies a part of it that is not signed they can change the hash. That is all they can change. They can not change where the coins come from, they can not change where the coins go to and they can not change how many coins are transfered where. Only the hash. Now, why is this important if the important parts of the transaction (the part that deals with the coins) are the same? Its important because of the way transactions work. They always refer to an old transaction. They create a long chain of transactions back to the block where the coins have been mined and created. And this reference works with the TX ID. You create such a chain and the TX you use along the way must not be confirmed. You can create a TX A that sends coins to your friend, who uses them without a confirmation (because he trusts you) to create another TX B to send some coins to his girl. Now this attacker comes in and changes your TX ID. Now there is TX A, the modified twin of A, lets call it A2 and B. B is only valid if A gets confirmed. As it happens durring this attack A2 gets confirmed and B now points to a transaction (A) that is no longer valid. A tried to use the same coins as A2 and A2 is confirmed, thus A will be removed from the memory of all nodes that know about the block that confirmed A2. Your friends girl will be pissed, but its not your fault nor your friends.

In your case I suspect that blockchain.info warned you about a TX like A, but A2 was confirmed so you got the coins anyway. They are the same coins your tradepartner send you, they just arrived under a different TX ID which caused the wallet to get confused.

I am curious about this. Did you do anything? Reset the blockchain data on multibit classic or "repair" on multibit hd? Do you use HD or classic?

Read the more recent posts above, they evaded the ban. There is no chance the account gets unbanned in 90 days.

Maybe I just expected more than similarities between trust lists. Its certainly interesting work, I just dont think it can do what you suggest. On the other hand I might not have the background to judge the significance.

I am guessing here, but its might be possible that your 2nd TX used the change from your first. Not sure if you are familiar with change, but your bitcoin balance consist of inputs you can use. These are transactions you have received in the past. Similar to bills you have to use them entirely. E.g. if you received 1 BTC in a single transaction in the past and want to spend 0.4 BTC now. You (or your wallet) would create a TX that uses the 1 BTC as input and create two outputs. One output for 0.4 to the address you selected as recipient and one output for 0.6 to an address that belongs to your wallet. Electrum even shows a list of change addresses IIRC. It is possible for you to use the 0.6 send back to yourself in another transaction before the 1st TX is confirmed. If however the 1st TX gets modified and is confirmed with a different ID the 2nd TX links to an input that does no longer exist. This is because the inputs are identified by the transaction id. Usually TX IDs do not change so its not an issue. While the attacker is modifing random transactions this is a problem and would result in what you describe. The 2nd TX essentially vanished from the network as it became invalid the second the modified 1st transaction was confirmed.



There is a possible solution, at least for bitcoin core, but I dont know how good it is or if its even ready. I will need to read up on that myself. Its called BIP62[1]. This attack can only be done on unconfirmed transactions as long as you wait for a single confirmation on any transactions you receive or send and do not require the transaction ID to be exact you should be fine.


You should definitly check with the betting service, you are probably not the only person that had this problem. They should require 1 confirmation for now. These chains can also happen with withdrawals from services, but way longer. E.g. they take a big BTC input and issue a payout with it, use the change for another and repeat that once every few seconds. This could result in a long change of transaction that suddently become invalid once the 1st modified TX gets confirmed.


You are welcome

[1] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0062.mediawiki

Yes.

I agree that some additions to a trust list might be common while others are not, my point was that it brings bias if you alone decide it what is common and what not.


What if I told you that I did not post this yesterday because I was pondering whether or not I should post how to easily game your analysis, but still see identical trust ratings? I have not gambled for a while, would you be willing to make it a small bet?

verified (via core)

Das ist korrekt, immer fein wachsam sein. In diesem Fall gab es aber für mich gar nicht die Möglichkeit etwas zu klauen. Konnte OP helfen und habe dankend eine Spende für meinen Server erhalten.

It did not send it twice, but the transaction you send (A) was modified along the way by a node. This create transaction B that spends the same coins and sends them to the same address as A, but has a different transaction ID. This is called a "malleabiltiy attack" and can be fixed by contacting blockchain.infos support. Only A or B can confirm never both.

More here -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1198032.0

Thanks for that.


Which could be argued to bring in bias since it relies on your perspective and past experiences.


It did not for Quickseller and the (now known) alt, just to name one example of someone with a hidden alt and a highly modified trust list.

There are different ways to get the same result and only the direct copy would be noticable by your reasearch. Additionally for those that actively try to hide their alts its very easy to manipulate their list in such a way that they no longer end up over 0.8 or any other limit for that matter.

Always close core first before you shut down the machine. Let the little window say "do not shut down until this is gone" finish before you shut down. If you do not follow the advice the programm gives you its database might corrupt and will need to rebuild. On a slow machine it can take several days, but it will not download the blockchain again. It uses the local data.

Its called "malleability" and its an attack currently run on the network. Reset the blockchain[1], your TX has probably changed which might have resulted in issues with the site you gambled with.


They do not disappear they just changed their ID, it confuses wallets and services.

[1] electrum has a function for in under tool IIRC.

Its not uncommon for services to pay to your account instead to an address. Considering the payment rate per post the withdrawal fee should not be an issue.

Previously it was possible to have a username without any visible symbol or was visually identical to another username, which - as you probably can imagine - lead to issues. I suspect that the new rules are a bit stricter.

Bit-x signature payout gone wrong. This is exactly what you should not do currently, spend unconfirmed inputs.

Yep, a dedicated thread to collect them all -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=576337.0

If thats the reason its the dumbest approach I have ever seen. If you want to sell an account, you better not atract attention because you spam the board. Put the negative ratings on top of that and the account is worthless.

No, that is just your interpretation. You claim to be innocent without addressing any of the issues I presented you.


Why advertise outside of the ponzi section if you want to stay within? Notice how I dont tag anyone that stays in that section? Because I dont have a problem with ponzis in general, I have problem with people like you that present overly complicated systems and try to pitch them as safe investments.


I dont think ponzis are against the rules, scams are neither. Trust is not about rules.


Depends on the wording of the rating. I have little problems with people leaving me negative ratings out of spite, its pretty obvious anyway.


No.


Yet we are no judges, we do not imprison anyone, we can just issue warnings. There is a big difference here in the power someone on DT actually has and the power a court has.


Its all I do, its all anyone on DT can do, nothing more.