Mark is brilliant. Make fiat and Bitcoin withdraws impossible and let people trade their balances until fees whittle everyone to 0! What a wonderful business plan!

People are selling goxcoins for goxdollars? I hope they are enjoying their virtual trading game!

Let's say you have a new wallet. You've funded your wallet by sending some coins to an address using a single transaction. Now that you have a balance, you want to spend/send some coins. You send a few coins to vendor A. A little while later, you find something you want to buy at vendor B. So, you go ahead and send some coins to vendor B. Let's say there were no blocks found in the time period between your two purchases.

The coins you've sent to A were already confirmed and your wallet software allows you to send them.

The coins you've sent to B were not confirmed (they were change from the first transaction and there has been no block), yet your wallet allows you to send them anyway.

If the transaction you sent to A was changed by the bot currently attacking the network and the changed transaction is accepted in the next block, the transaction to vendor B will be invalid (never included in a block).

You won't lose any coins in the process, but some users might not understand why their second transaction was invalid.

Having unexpected things occur is not acceptable when dealing with wallet software. This is how the current version of Bitcoin-Qt works.

If you don't understand my post, here is someone with far more technical knowledge than me explaining it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=460944.0

Neither is Gox.

Perhaps it's simply supply and demand.

When you can sell something for $5, do you sell it for $1 instead?

No, you've misinterpreted.

I can't answer for the OP, but my wishful thinking (if you want to call it that) has served me wonderfully.

I sure hope it won't be different this time.

They haven't proven themselves to be total incompetent idiots?

I don't know. No one cares about the people who said the same thing in the past. Many of them are still saying it!

I think this negative impact would be less of a negative impact than having transactions go invalid.

Saying "No" from the start is preferable to saying "Yes" then "Sorry, I was wrong".

Edit: Perhaps an error message along with "No" would be prudent, something like, "No confirmed inputs currently available, please wait for the next block before sending."

Does it matter if they were? It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to realize avoiding an exchange which consistently provides poor service and poor communication is a good idea!

A lower (or falling) exchange rate does not help distribute coins to more people.

Sorry.

There is no reason to stop transactions, they work fine if you are using properly coded clients.

A lot of people seem to overreact to this malleability issue without fully understanding the problem.

I personally don't care if my "transaction ID" is changed because it doesn't affect the actual outcome of the transaction.

I don't think this "cause" will advance bitcoin in the slightest. I apologize if my opinion somehow offends you.

I don't want to post a purely negative response without providing something constructive so...

If, for example, you started an information campaign aimed at helping new Bitcoin users properly secure their coins (teaching them about cold storage, offline wallets, etc.), I would be much more interested in donating.

I love this idea. Please fork Bitcoin (or create an altcoin) with the option to reverse transactions and allow this altcoin to compete with Bitcoin on the open market.

The market will certainly decide which property is more desirable and we can finally put this topic to rest.

Thanks!

Since fonzie didn't bother to answer, maybe you can.

How have Dogecoin creators addressed the transaction malleability issue?

Yes, facilitating trade has done terrible things to society. We need to go back to trading deer pelts for chickens and living in caves.

Can we see a link to some technical information explaining how Dogecoin is unaffected by transaction malleability?

Then more people will panic.

It has been much higher during extreme price movements in the past (I believe I've seen over 9000).

It is probably currently higher than normal.