78 orphaned blocks on May 21st?

[levino]

http://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

I hope you guys have not yet discussed this and that I annoy you with this new thread. But has there been an investigation of this event? Was it a double spending?

[Minnesooooota]

Yes that data was erroneous. There was not that many orphaned blocks

[crazyearner]

http://blockchain.info/charts/n-orphaned-blocks?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=

I hope you guys have not yet discussed this and that I annoy you with this new thread. But has there been an investigation of this event? Was it a double spending?

Double-spending is the result of successfully spending some money more than once. Bitcoin is meant to protect against double spending by verifying each transaction added to the block chain to ensure that the inputs for the transaction had not previously already been spent.

Other electronic systems prevent double-spending by having a master authoritative source that follows business rules for authorizing each transaction. Bitcoin uses a decentralized system, where a consensus among nodes following the same protocol is substituted for a central authority.

Hope that explains what double spending is for you. IS like spending your coins twice for one transaction. One transaction makes it the other fails and never gets their.

[levino]

Hope that explains what double spending is for you. IS like spending your coins twice for one transaction. One transaction makes it the other fails and never gets their.

Thanks for this incomplete explanation of double spending.

I someone wanted to double spend he probably would use more than 50% of the current total hashrate to start mining secretly on a block before the block with the to be double spent transaction. Upon reaching the length of the public blockchain (but with the transaction in the attacked block deleted or changed) he would release his now longer than the blockchain branch and replace the official blockchain and thus the transaction he aimed to attack. He would have either double spent it or be now able to spent the same amount again.

I was asking whether this scenario occured, not whether it is possible. But thank you anyhow.

[jonnybravo0311]

Hope that explains what double spending is for you. IS like spending your coins twice for one transaction. One transaction makes it the other fails and never gets their.

Thanks for this incomplete explanation of double spending.

I someone wanted to double spend he probably would use more than 50% of the current total hashrate to start mining secretly on a block before the block with the to be double spent transaction. Upon reaching the length of the public blockchain (but with the transaction in the attacked block deleted or changed) he would release his now longer than the blockchain branch and replace the official blockchain and thus the transaction he aimed to attack. He would have either double spent it or be now able to spent the same amount again.

I was asking whether this scenario occured, not whether it is possible. But thank you anyhow.

So... you are asking if somebody successfully executed a 51% attack on the Bitcoin network?  Most definitively not.

[CryptoBrother]

51% is no posible?

Hm.. Ok let´s get CEX.io



almost 30Ph/s

With total Network HashRate



Is about 40%. But We need to remember that Network HashRate is jumping. Sometimes it´s going down or up. There is too big chance to make 51% attack. ( With small invest You can make it) Now let´s say that someone have a lot of bitcoins or money ( for example from SilkRoad or from "Hacked" exchanges or just bought them ) now small invest with 50% of Your bitcoins to take down some pool ( diffrent than cex.io) and who have more HashPower? Taking down some big pool or 2 small pools is so easy and You can do this with arround 5,000 - 10,000 $ invest. and if You know what are You doing it´s can bring You about 60% of your investment. It´s risky and not for everyone but YES IT IS POSIBLE.

Confirmations on BitCoin Network Take to much time... It is going worst and worst....

[levino]

Yes that data was erroneous. There was not that many orphaned blocks

Before this thread gets out of hands: Could you please elaborate or give any reference for this? Ist the error with the data from blockchain.info? Thanks

[davejh]

Yes that data was erroneous. There was not that many orphaned blocks

Before this thread gets out of hands: Could you please elaborate or give any reference for this? Ist the error with the data from blockchain.info? Thanks

I saw the same "high level" stat the other day. If you looked at their block records though they showed 0 orphans that day.

[Mobius7]

But We need to remember that Network HashRate is jumping.

Since block finding is a random process, the time between blocks will be fluctuating when actual network hashrate is stable.

But, the network hashrate stat you find on bitcoinwisdom.com, blockchain.info or bitcoin.sipa.be are obtained indirectly from the time between blocks.

[davejh]

But We need to remember that Network HashRate is jumping.

Since block finding is a random process, the time between blocks will be fluctuating when actual network hashrate is stable.

But, the network hashrate stat you find on bitcoinwisdom.com, blockchain.info or bitcoin.sipa.be are obtained indirectly from the time between blocks.

And on a daily basis those numbers can be statistically very erratic. Even on a 14-day basis they will regularly be incorrect - +/-5% is not uncommon (http://hashingit.com/analysis/17-reach-for-the-ear-defenders)