Dump overnight because of a false article about a double spend

[btc_angela]

This has been the story of bitcoin market from the very early days. False articles, lies on social media, obituaries by famous people, ... have always been used as a tool to crash the price in order to buy more bitcoins.
I'm not surprised that the bitcoincore.org drama with the white paper and the known scammer also came out yesterday causing the panic to grow more.

From now on we can only expect FUD to grow more serious with the price and as people react to FUD effectively, they get more bold and spread more of it in any future drops.

Ah CSW went silent mode when bitcoin was making a good run on reaching a new all time high, and now that it is down to $30k'ish he suddenly appear, Lol, typical of attention grabber like CSW so no surprised there.

And yes, we have seen so many lies and fake news in the past, the good thing is that bitcoin is so resilient or become battle tested with this kind of attacks because we are still here. And now that the double spend has been clear, we might see the price jumping again to around $35k or even more next week.

[LogitechMouse]

I don't usually care that much about FUD's but I only do one thing whenever I see some articles that destroys Bitcoin.
"BUY MORE".

I've seen many things like this already and this double spend thing has been posted many times in the internet already but it already is a false statement. Negative news = panic and then sell for those newbie investors but if you are a contrarian and a pro investor,  you know that this are just some of the opportunities for us to accumulate more at a lower price .

[sgbett]

The amount of "this is fine" is absolutely incredible, Andreas all up on twitter, creating articles, posting videos. Absolutely essential to convince those that don't really understand the implications of what this means that there is nothing to see here.

RBF + Full Blocks makes zero confidence unworkable, because it supplants the first seen rule and *allows* double spends. In Core's view of things this a feature not a bug.

What's interesting about this is that the expected behaviour of RBF would be that the later broadcast tx with the higher fee should be the one that makes it into the chain, but in this case a miner instead followed the first seen rule.

The implication of this is that you *absolutely* must wait for confirmations, which makes BTC essentially useless as Peer-to-Peer digital cash.

Again, in core's view of things this is a feature not a bug.

For anyone keeping up at home, Bitcoin was first and foremost supposed to be digital cash.

A semantic argument about it not being a double spend because one of them was not spent is disingenuous. Real world consequences of this are that a customer spending $20 in a coffee shop is long gone and the merchant has no recourse. Ergo, BTC cannot be used as digital cash.

At least now core has taken down the Whitepaper there is no question that they are building something else. Maybe that thing is a great thing, maybe ya'll can get rich trading it. GLHF

[NeuroticFish]

If you would be a newbie, I'd understand this post. But anyone long enough around should know that most services need 3 confirmations (some years ago it was 6) and anyone knows that orphaned blocks do happen.
Also a replaceable transaction, one on which RBF can be made, has a special flag, allowing the recipient get warned to be more careful (yes, a proper wallet shows that)

But it's easier to panic and spread panic than read and learn...

[sgbett]

If you would be a newbie, I'd understand this post. But anyone long enough around should know that most services need 3 confirmations (some years ago it was 6) and anyone knows that orphaned blocks do happen.
Also a replaceable transaction, one on which RBF can be made, has a special flag, allowing the recipient get warned to be more careful (yes, a proper wallet shows that)

But it's easier to panic and spread panic than read and learn...

Orphan blocks happen all the time. Yes I know this, I said nothing about that because its common knowledge.

What I explained were the consequences of having an earlier lower fee tx be the one in the longest chain. This means RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s) - as you restated. So BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended.

If that makes you panic you should probably ask yourself why.

[blckhawk]

Looks like a $4000+ dump occurred overnight because of a false article about a double spend. Dump started right after the article was published last night.

https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-double-spend-spotted-in-the-wild


Of course this is just a normal temporary fork in the chain that resulted from a transaction getting used twice with different fees and included in two different blocks around the same time, and naturally one of the chains succeeded in being the longest chain which resulted in the other transaction getting stuck in orphaned blocks. But obviously the market panic sold at this news haha. Perfect time to buy cheap bitcoin as this should correct upwards quickly as people realize this news was fake haha (a rare instance of actual fake news!). And the cointelegraph quoted a BSV scammer to play up the "double spend" smh

I'm not quite sure about that but perhaps this FUD causes a sell-off that is why the price doesn't go that well. But it could also be a correction as well. Anyway, I don't think that it is the end of the rally, rather than taking the news seriously what if you take the opportunity to buy 'cause pretty sure that it will bounce back. This might be FUD actually, so better for us not to be swayed by it because if we do and decide to sell-off then you know who's gonna buy it and make a benefit from it.

[suchmoon]

What I explained were the consequences of having an earlier lower fee tx be the one in the longest chain. This means RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s) - as you restated. So BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended.

RBF is not supposed to provide a guarantee, it's quite the opposite - it's a warning that the TX can be replaced. Have fun arguing with your straw man.

[NeuroticFish]

This means RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s) - as you restated. So BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended.

If that makes you panic you should probably ask yourself why.

They've never did provide any guarantee.

About the digital cash part, I think that's debatable. The fact that people are used to transfer cash instantly, doesn't mean that any kind of cash have to do this. Bitcoin, by design, makes you wait for confirmations. Even if this "flaw" (as you seem to see it) would not exist, even then you would not be able to pay with Bitcoin at the grocery store (just imagine how big the queue would get!)

You can still pay with Bitcoin, however, for your plane ticket, for your vacation, for whatever you are shopping online. It still fits to the P2P digital cash use case and one can properly wait for the proper number of confirmations. And for the grocery store, .. we need something added to Bitcoin. Maybe LN, maybe something else.

And I'm not panicked at all, nice try to twist my words. Only newbies with insufficient knowledge can get panicked by all this ... story.

[sgbett]

What I explained were the consequences of having an earlier lower fee tx be the one in the longest chain. This means RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s) - as you restated. So BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended.

RBF is not supposed to provide a guarantee, it's quite the opposite - it's a warning that the TX can be replaced. Have fun arguing with your straw man.

Lol. I know it provides no guarantees, I said *expected* behaviour. (it would be the most economically rational thing to do). However now there exists absolute proof that a miner might mine either. The only straw man is you thinking my central point was "RBF provides guarantees"

My central point is: RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s)

My conclusion from this is: BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended.

[LUCKMCFLY]

At this point, I do not think that the price will drop due to any news or article, the market never reacts so quickly, unless it is a great fundamental, and we are in the middle of a fundamental called Covid-19, that even so the sustained pump of Bitcoin has been maintained and with the beginning of this 2021 and under the presidency of Biden things have been balancing, we just have to wait, but how things look and knowing that the market is also moving by emotions I do not see a strong fall yet possible .

[Dabs]

Sell house.
Zero confs.

Ok, here are the house keys. I'll be back later if it does not confirm. I know where you live.

But selling a car? Wait 3 confs. Selling coffee? Don't you have free points on that Starbucks rewards card you have? (Or reload that card first.)


Bitcoin offers finality of settlement faster than any international bank can do. They typically take at least 3 to 5 days.

I'd argue that Bitcoin is a check (or cheque) or bank draft or money order that clears in an hour.

[sgbett]

This means RBF provides no guarantees, it means that in BTC you must wait for confirmation(s) - as you restated. So BTC cannot be used as P2P digital cash, as it was intended.

If that makes you panic you should probably ask yourself why.

They've never did provide any guarantee.

About the digital cash part, I think that's debatable. The fact that people are used to transfer cash instantly, doesn't mean that any kind of cash have to do this. Bitcoin, by design, makes you wait for confirmations. Even if this "flaw" (as you seem to see it) would not exist, even then you would not be able to pay with Bitcoin at the grocery store (just imagine how big the queue would get!)

You can still pay with Bitcoin, however, for your plane ticket, for your vacation, for whatever you are shopping online. It still fits to the P2P digital cash use case and one can properly wait for the proper number of confirmations. And for the grocery store, .. we need something added to Bitcoin. Maybe LN, maybe something else.

And I'm not panicked at all, nice try to twist my words. Only newbies with insufficient knowledge can get panicked by all this ... story.

Look here... I thought we needed LN in 2016...

I want segwit. I think its great, because its a big help to getting LN. I really want LN, because I think that its an essential part of the road to allowing crypto replace fiat. I think blockstream are probably not bad guys. I'm open to the idea that not everything will be done on chain, and that's ok (provided Layer-N solutions share the same key attributes of being open source, peer to peer, do not require the use of their party, allows you to be your own bank etc)
...snip...

2 years of back and forth though and it became abundantly clear that I was wrong about the reasons for LN and SegWit. When SWx2 was proposed and as soon as segwit was introduced everyone reneged on the 2mb part. Fortunately Bitcoin forked so the original chain could be preserved. I still don't think block stream are bad guys, but it was very clear they were a business looking to make money off the back of bitcoin and that the original design did not fit with their plans. Lots of people sounded the alarm about LN, and side chains. They were all discussed and here we are today LN still not delivered, and Liquid is the preferred "Bitcoin" for Blockstream. Who knew? This is not nefarious insomuch as they are a business and they want to make money, but it should make you question why certain decisions were made. Adam Pivoting from 2/4/8 to a hard refusal is the shining example.

I feel like I have followed what has happened over the last 10 years *very* closely, I have *always* considered Bitcoin to be p2p digital cash (per Whitepaper) and so when I see changes that move Bitcoin away from this it raises huge red flags. It was incredibly painful the split in 2018. I now realise this was my own cognitive dissonance. I saw BTC before me, that I had strongly supported all these years. I saw a "fork" that everyone was telling me was fake. I knew though the "fake" one represented everything I had always believed in Bitcoin and the "real" one had diverged and become something else. Letting go of BTC was the hardest decision in my life.

For some years I have wondered if I did the right thing, but the longer time went on the more relaxed I became.

Fortunately the situation appears to be coming to a head this year bitcoin core's removal of Whitepaper is tacit admission that it is no longer Bitcoin per the Whitepaper. The next step is CSW will pursue reclaiming the Bitcoin brand through the courts, people seem to detest this approach - but ask yourself if he is fraud then why would he be going to court. That is the last place fraudsters and scammers want to end up!

The people that know what's going on, but continue to deny the reality of the situation - well they only have themselves to blame.

The innocent people that do not know what is going on is who I feel for most.

[NeuroticFish]

CSW

Now I start to understand what's your agenda. LoL!

[sgbett]

CSW

Now I start to understand what's your agenda. LoL!

I love how those 3 little letters make it impossible for people to read any other words around them.

[Torque]

The next step is CSW will pursue reclaiming the Bitcoin brand through the courts, people seem to detest this approach - but ask yourself if he is fraud then why would he be going to court. That is the last place fraudsters and scammers want to end up!

The people that know what's going on, but continue to deny the reality of the situation - well they only have themselves to blame.

The innocent people that do not know what is going on is who I feel for most.

So where's the signed message as proof of Satoshi? Delusion is a hell of a drug, sgbett.

CSW

Now I start to understand what's your agenda. LoL!

I love how those 3 little letters make it impossible for people to read any other words around them.

Because he's a fraud. A con man. A proven plagiarist. A snake oil salesman. And you're one of his best customers.

[Dabs]

You can stick to BCH or BSV with CSW all you want. That's fine with us. That is your choice. But remember it's an altcoin as considered by economic majority.

Whether they are right or wrong is irrelevant.

All we ever wanted was cryptographic proof and he could never do it, and never will.

Bitcoin Core are just developers, so they can take down something. Not to worry, Michael Saylor put it back up on his site, Digital Fidelity put it back up, and maybe a dozen others put it back up. The whitepaper.

You can read it from over a dozen different websites now. I'd like to see CSW try to sue Fidelity and MicroStrategy.

[SirLancelot]

I don't usually care that much about FUD's but I only do one thing whenever I see some articles that destroys Bitcoin.
"BUY MORE".

I've seen many things like this already and this double spend thing has been posted many times in the internet already but it already is a false statement. Negative news = panic and then sell for those newbie investors but if you are a contrarian and a pro investor,  you know that this are just some of the opportunities for us to accumulate more at a lower price .

Fud was created so that people could be afraid, sell their coins, and other rich people could buy a lot more from the cheap amount. Let's be honest with each other, at 40k price it is not going to go double that easily, we are talking about 40k here, the double of 40k is 80k and reaching that level is not easy. However if you create FUD and pay mainstream (crypto mainstream, not regular mainstream) media channels how there is a horrible situation going on (this time it was double spend) that would cause it to go down.

It means if we reach to 25k or even 20k that would make things easier, you would buy from those levels and you could sell from 40k to 50k and can double your profit very easily. This is exactly the reason why there was a talk about this, because people wanted more money and rich people are capable of creating fud all their own if they want to.

[pooya87]

Lots of people sounded the alarm about LN, and side chains.

The same people were sounding the alarm about SegWit telling people that your funds are going to be stolen if sent to a SegWit address by using technobabble and throwing terms such as "anyone can spend".

and Liquid is the preferred "Bitcoin" for Blockstream.

There are lots of companies building centralized crap on top of bitcoin such as Tether. They all have their utilities but they are still centralized crap.

It was incredibly painful the split in 2018.

Bitcoin has never had any "splits".
It is an open source protocol with open to all blockchain all under MIT license allowing anyone to freely create a copy of it and thousands of developers have done it with about a hundred of them also copying the blockchain and the name. None of it is considered a "split" but they are all simply "copies" and poor copies at that.

I saw a "fork" that everyone was telling me was fake. I knew though the "fake" one represented everything I had always believed in Bitcoin and the "real" one had diverged and become something else. Letting go of BTC was the hardest decision in my life.

You again shot yourself in the foot. All the arguments you made in your previous posts about the "double spend" are true in all the bitcoin copies from LTC and DOGE down to shitcoins like BCH, BTG, BTV, BSV,... they all inherit the same characteristics of bitcoin since they are copies of the protocol.
Same 2 competing transactions could take place in any of these chains and be included in two different blocks, one in the main chain and another a stale block (orphan is wrong term).

bitcoin core's removal of Whitepaper

I was wondering how long it took for you people to use it this way

The next step is CSW will pursue reclaiming the Bitcoin brand through the courts,

In other words you believe that bitcoin is a centralized thing that is owned by one person. Good to know your real views!

[Dabs]

I know you guys are just trolling, or feeding the troll. Once anyone mentions the three letters "CSW" it's quite easy to completely ignore everything else he has to say.

It's a free world, but I simply don't like wasting too much of my time. Maybe just a little.

[Hamphser]

It never happened. 

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bitcoin-double-spend-never-happenedColin Harper

"Put another way, no bitcoin was “double-spent” because no new coins were added to Bitcoin’s supply. Instead, the same coins from the same wallet were registered in two different blocks during a typical split in Bitcoin’s blockchain.-210834555.html#:~:text=Put%20another%20way%2C%20no%20bitcoin,typical%20split%20in%20Bitcoin's%20blockchain."

We know that this market is highly reactive to fud so it wasnt a surprising thing.