Adnormal very large transcation fee

[Amph]

maybe another hacker that want to transfer asap his fund, into another address?

the bitstamp hacker used 1 btc as a fee, 89 is another story, but it could be

[1714956022]

1714956022

[1714956022]

1714956022

[1714956022]

1714956022

[1714956022]

1714956022

[1714956022]

1714956022

[WhatTheGox]

Well the miners definitely appreciate this. I'm going to assume that someone made a mistake while sending a transaction.
This has happened in the past, nothing new. It's easier to type 100 instead of 0.100 than you think.

Im sure they do appreciate it, devs need to make sure wallets have safety warnings for any mistakes like this.  Scares away the newbies.

[redsn0w]

maybe another hacker that want to transfer asap his fund, into another address?

the bitstamp hacker used 1 btc as a fee, 89 is another story, but it could be

No I do not think it is for the question of a fast confirmation of the transaction. Also with 0.01 only btc you are sure that your tx will be included in the first block, 1 btc it is expensive and also 89 BTC. Like I said previously, it is only a mistake and here you can find a lot of information:

- http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/33u2id/help_losing_over_85_btc_because_of_bitgos_flawed/

[alani123]

SO it was a bug in a srcipt!

[Chris_Sabian]

Someone probably really messed up.   In the summer of 2013, there was a 200 btc fee because a user was trying to create their own outputs rather than letting a wallet to do.

[pitham1]

These are very expensive mistakes. 
Bitcoin is not to be blamed, but the media might write an article doing just that.

[redsn0w]

SO it was a bug in a srcipt!

Yes, however we are waiting more info on reddit.

Someone probably really messed up.   In the summer of 2013, there was a 200 btc fee because a user was trying to create their own outputs rather than letting a wallet to do.

A few days ago I've read a thread here in the forum "why bitcoin will never go mainstream" or something like that (I don't remember now).... This is one of the reason "the knowledge" of what are you doing.

These are very expensive mistakes. 
Bitcoin is not to be blamed, but the media might write an article doing just that.

This is the work of the media, but if someone want to know the truth... He should only search it.

[person]

SO it was a bug in a srcipt!

Yes, however we are waiting more info on reddit.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/33u2id/help_losing_over_85_btc_because_of_bitgos_flawed/cqoo4tr

We (BitGo) have investigated this issue and determined it to be a bug introduced over a year ago in our fork of bitcoinjs-lib. The exact line of the cause is here: https://github.com/BitGo/bitcoinjs-lib/blob/744b0f76803b8fa233ee3b221364b42bdbf9b7f1/src/util.js#L142
We had since fixed this bug in April 22, 2014 (a month later) here: https://github.com/BitGo/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/fbc7377dbfb3da0fd911f2740c18cfcd41becc1b. However, we missed updating the reference to this fix in the legacy recovery tool.
The root cause of the problem occurred during the output value serialization step when the redeem transaction was constructed. During the process of converting the number into bytes for use in the transaction, bitwise operators were used in this old version of the code, which converted the output value (in satoshis) to a 32 bit int, causing an integer overflow and truncating the output of 10227087437 satoshis (102.27 btc) to 1637152845 satoshis (16.37 btc). Kudos to the other members of the public who discovered this as well.
We would like to thank rstn for his patience and we are in private communication with him to ensure he achieves full restitution of funds.

[Cryddit]

This was caused by a bug in the software that created the transaction.  Such bugs are going to happen occasionally, but the transaction it created should not have been seen as valid when it got the output amounts blatantly wrong.

The fact that we treat any over spend as an invalid transaction  but any under spend as a mining fee makes half of the cases where the amounts are blatantly wrong succeed.

All told, I call this proof that the mining fee should be explicit rather than implicit, and then any transaction where output total doesn't equal input total would be invalid.

[alani123]

Bitmain, who's pool mined the block agreed to return the amount lost.

The guy that lost the coins said that they were all returned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/341xkr/all_lost_btc_returned_thank_you_to_bitmain_bitgo/

[redsn0w]

Bitmain, who's pool mined the block agreed to return the amount as I sad. The unlucky guy will have to wait until it's a working day in China again though, probably Monday?

I think the 'unlucky' guy has already received his bitcoin, this is the transaction id:

- https://blockchain.info/it/tx/a0bb4819da6e9bb9406ad06d69509c4f8f9289656c5f42dded994e3993b05f8b


"EDIT3: Update: Bitmain will be sending the Bitcoins to the original transaction's destination address 1JutGHszpA8K2D4SzmhESxJm1hYBjLgm6f."

source: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/33u2id/help_losing_over_85_btc_because_of_bitgos_flawed/

[altcoinex]

Have seen this more then once on here and reddit, although not due to a buggy library as this case, just sender error.... luckily in every case i've seen the pool that mined it was kind enough to return it...