|
macbook-air (OP)
|
 |
March 12, 2013, 06:22:02 PM |
|
All time UTC+08:00:
08:08 – Well before I knew what later have happened, I deposited $10000-worth Bitcoins to BTC-e over OKPAY's Bitcoin payment, I paid OKPAY address 12z2n8YCJw1BEsJhhQPLCTuLqwH341nKnE 211.9093 BTC and 0.0005 BTC as transaction fee.
09:30 – The transaction was included in version 0.8's fork, block 225446
10:08 – Deposit completed, $9800 credited to my BTC-e account
12:53 – After some study, I recognized, the transaction, though included in version 0.8's fork, was never confirmed by the pre-0.8 fork, so I decided to make two double spend transactions on two of the vins of the OKPAY transaction, and broadcasted them with the raw transaction API, 0.001 BTC transaction fee included in each transaction.
13:01 – The double spend transaction was included in pre-0.8 fork block 225446
You should know what happens next...
I bet merchants would think twice before they decide to accept Bitcoins after the incident.
|
|
|
|
Jan
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1043
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:38:27 PM |
|
All time UTC+08:00:
08:08 – Well before I knew what later have happened, I deposited $10000-worth Bitcoins to BTC-e over OKPAY's Bitcoin payment, I paid OKPAY address 12z2n8YCJw1BEsJhhQPLCTuLqwH341nKnE 211.9093 BTC and 0.0005 BTC as transaction fee.
09:30 – The transaction was included in version 0.8's fork, block 225446
10:08 – Deposit completed, $9800 credited to my BTC-e account
12:53 – After some study, I recognized, the transaction, though included in version 0.8's fork, was never confirmed by the pre-0.8 fork, so I decided to make two double spend transactions on two of the vins of the OKPAY transaction, and broadcasted them with the raw transaction API, 0.001 BTC transaction fee included in each transaction.
13:01 – The double spend transaction was included in pre-0.8 fork block 225446
You should know what happens next...
I bet merchants would think twice before they decide to accept Bitcoins after the incident.
Ouch... |
Mycelium let's you hold your private keys private.
|
|
|
bg002h
Donator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1466
Merit: 1048
I outlived my lifetime membership:)
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:38:59 PM |
|
All time UTC+08:00:
08:08 – Well before I knew what later have happened, I deposited $10000-worth Bitcoins to BTC-e over OKPAY's Bitcoin payment, I paid OKPAY address 12z2n8YCJw1BEsJhhQPLCTuLqwH341nKnE 211.9093 BTC and 0.0005 BTC as transaction fee.
09:30 – The transaction was included in version 0.8's fork, block 225446
10:08 – Deposit completed, $9800 credited to my BTC-e account
12:53 – After some study, I recognized, the transaction, though included in version 0.8's fork, was never confirmed by the pre-0.8 fork, so I decided to make two double spend transactions on two of the vins of the OKPAY transaction, and broadcasted them with the raw transaction API, 0.001 BTC transaction fee included in each transaction.
13:01 – The double spend transaction was included in pre-0.8 fork block 225446
You should know what happens next...
I bet merchants would think twice before they decide to accept Bitcoins after the incident.
Good thing someone honest was the cause of the double spend... |
|
|
|
Jan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1043
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:42:19 PM |
|
|
Mycelium let's you hold your private keys private.
|
|
|
Elwar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:47:22 PM |
|
Ugh...this is worse than we thought.
Is this the first double spend?
|
First seastead company actually selling sea homes: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders Of course we accept bitcoin. |
|
|
|
yokosan
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:51:50 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
alir
Member
Offline
Activity: 215
Merit: 11
|
|
March 12, 2013, 06:52:54 PM |
|
Guess they don't owe you anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
Largo
Member
Offline
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:00:44 PM |
|
Thats why merchants should have stopped accepting bitcoin deposits, at least those handing out some other form of cash instantly.
The problem was that 0.8 clients were thinking they are in the right fork (because that was actually the case before miners switched to 0.7) so it didnt stop the RPC interface like the 0.7 clients did.
|
|
|
|
|
Isokivi
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:01:52 PM |
|
Heres a merchant giving 0-fucks about double spends, go for it. www.btctrinkets.com Every single payment goes trough a payment processor (mtgox) and I verify every single payment by hand. |
Bitcoin trinkets now on my online store: btc trinkets.com <- Bitcoin Tiepins, cufflinks, lapel pins, keychains, card holders and challenge coins. |
|
|
etotheipi
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1093
Core Armory Developer
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:04:49 PM |
|
Any guesses as to the reason it didn't show up in the pre-0.8 branch? I don't see any reason that the original transaction could be systematically rejected by one branch and not the other. Even transactions that hadn't made it into blocks in the pre-0.7 branch should still be in the nodes' memory pools and double-spends rejected.
gmaxwell pointed out that this could happen if an attacker started by flooding the system with duplicate transactions hoping to create disagreement, but it sounds like macbook-air did not do that.
|
|
|
|
casascius
Mike Caldwell
VIP
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1386
Merit: 1140
The Casascius 1oz 10BTC Silver Round (w/ Gold B)
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:13:20 PM |
|
A serious solution is simply for several major stakeholders to publish signed endorsements and/or kills to blocks. Users can subscribe to them, and if a supermajority agrees to kill a block, the merchant at the very least can be configured to stop and go into safe mode.
I have thought of this long ago, now others might take the idea seriously. It was aggressively rejected in the past under the pretense it was too "centralized". I believe we need it to raise the bar on the risk of a 51% attack.
|
Companies claiming they got hacked and lost your coins sounds like fraud so perfect it could be called fashionable. I never believe them. If I ever experience the misfortune of a real intrusion, I declare I have been honest about the way I have managed the keys in Casascius Coins. I maintain no ability to recover or reproduce the keys, not even under limitless duress or total intrusion. Remember that trusting strangers with your coins without any recourse is, as a matter of principle, not a best practice. Don't keep coins online. Use paper or hardware wallets instead.
|
|
|
elux
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1458
Merit: 1006
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:16:18 PM |
|
All time UTC+08:00:
08:08 – Well before I knew what later have happened, I deposited $10000-worth Bitcoins to BTC-e over OKPAY's Bitcoin payment, I paid OKPAY address 12z2n8YCJw1BEsJhhQPLCTuLqwH341nKnE 211.9093 BTC and 0.0005 BTC as transaction fee.
09:30 – The transaction was included in version 0.8's fork, block 225446
10:08 – Deposit completed, $9800 credited to my BTC-e account
12:53 – After some study, I recognized, the transaction, though included in version 0.8's fork, was never confirmed by the pre-0.8 fork, so I decided to make two double spend transactions on two of the vins of the OKPAY transaction, and broadcasted them with the raw transaction API, 0.001 BTC transaction fee included in each transaction.
13:01 – The double spend transaction was included in pre-0.8 fork block 225446
You should know what happens next...
I bet merchants would think twice before they decide to accept Bitcoins after the incident.
Ouch... And the other: http://blockchain.info/tx-index/59996016The "unconfirmed" transaction was included in http://blockchain.info/block-index/357971, later orphaned. Story seems to check out. How many confirmations did the first transaction get? |
|
|
|
|
TheButterZone
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1032
RIP Mommy
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:18:04 PM |
|
|
Saying that you don't trust someone because of their behavior is completely valid.
|
|
|
gmaxwell
Staff
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4270
Merit: 8805
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:20:09 PM |
|
gmaxwell pointed out that this could happen if an attacker started by flooding the system with duplicate transactions hoping to create disagreement, but it sounds like macbook-air did not do that.
One way would be for miners on the other fork to already have long mempool queues, and so the transaction was just waiting to get mined but they had it. The miners were restarted to switch from 0.8 to 0.7 and in doing so that instantly expires their mempools, and nothing will resync them. Once an entry is mempool expired then all it takes it the transaction managing to get relayed to one of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
MrCrabs
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:21:24 PM |
|
How serious is this please. Double spends I thought were impossible .  |
|
|
|
|
Melbustus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1004
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:26:35 PM |
|
How serious is this please. Double spends I thought were impossible . Was only an issue while there were two chains; ie, for a couple hours last night. The possibility was well-known, which is why it was recommended that merchants, exchanges, etc, stop taking payments/deposits until the issue was resolved, which it now is. |
Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
|
|
|
|
nevafuse
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:35:06 PM |
|
Any guesses as to the reason it didn't show up in the pre-0.8 branch? I don't see any reason that the original transaction could be systematically rejected by one branch and not the other. Even transactions that hadn't made it into blocks in the pre-0.7 branch should still be in the nodes' memory pools and double-spends rejected.
Is this the only successful double spend from last night? Maybe the difference will be easier to spot if there are others. Sounds like there may be other fork issues besides the database problem. |
The only reason to limit the block size is to subsidize non-Bitcoin currencies
|
|
|
Spekulatius
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1022
Merit: 1000
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:35:34 PM |
|
@ OP: Did you repay OK? 
|
|
|
|
|
Ivica
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 218
Merit: 100
Firstbits: 19e3fc
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:37:14 PM |
|
@ OP: Did you repay OK? Nope, until they repay 64.91410001 BTC. |
|
|
|
Nick
Jr. Member
Offline
Activity: 57
Merit: 1
|
|
March 12, 2013, 07:41:05 PM |
|
A serious solution is simply for several major stakeholders to publish signed endorsements and/or kills to blocks. Users can subscribe to them, and if a supermajority agrees to kill a block, the merchant at the very least can be configured to stop and go into safe mode.
I have thought of this long ago, now others might take the idea seriously. It was aggressively rejected in the past under the pretense it was too "centralized". I believe we need it to raise the bar on the risk of a 51% attack.
I have just read this on the reddit thread: Merchants like this probably need to build something into their systems to automatically go into a safe mode if a 2-3 block fork is detected. This might be an equally effective but less centralized approach. What do you think? |
|
|
|
|
|
