$10k double spend...

[Elwar]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348.0

This is no hack of some Bitcoin service, this is a hit to Bitcoin itself.

How low will the price go once this gets out?

[1714882321]

1714882321

[1714882321]

1714882321

[humanitee]

Did he do all that before the diverging chain was found out?

[myself]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348.0

This is no hack of some Bitcoin service, this is a hit to Bitcoin itself.

How low will the price go once this gets out?

be happy it was only 10k

[lucif]

Hehe... I am sorry for ppl went long.

[Elwar]

Did he do all that before the diverging chain was found out?

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

[Elwar]

The total amount of BTC traded the 10 transactions after block 225446 adds up to about 145k BTC. That is over $6 million at a price of $45/BTC.

I wonder how much of that $6 million ended up being double spends too.

[Odalv]

The total amount of BTC traded the 10 transactions after block 225446 adds up to about 145k BTC. That is over $6 million at a price of $45/BTC.

I wonder how much of that $6 million ended up being double spends too.

Maybe(I think) all of them were merged into 0.7 chain automatically. This is what Bitcoin protocol have to do.

[elux]

Bitcoin is a solution to the double-spending problem of using a peer-to-peer network to manage transactions.

The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record or chain that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain of records (called blocks) not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of computing power. As long as a majority of computing power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain of records and outpace attackers.

[Spaceman_Spiff]

The total amount of BTC traded the 10 transactions after block 225446 adds up to about 145k BTC. That is over $6 million at a price of $45/BTC.

I wonder how much of that $6 million ended up being double spends too.

I would think only a very small minority.  I transferred some coins too that were on the wrong chain, but didn't doublespend them.

Also : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152300.0

[zby]

This is a trivial consequence of the blockchain fork - I think it should be already accounted for in the dip last night, but who knows.  I believe nobody will cry when OKPAY reverses the transaction in their system.  Overall I think it all was handled much better then I would expect for such an event - but yeah - some merchants might be burned if they were not alert and cannot reverse the payments,  so it might get some additional attention.   MtGox stopped accepting transfers pretty quickly I think.

[molecular]

I don't understand how this double-spend even worked. Shouldn't his first tx have ended up in both chains in the first place? Why wasn't it included in the 0.7 chain?

[Piper67]

I don't understand how this double-spend even worked. Shouldn't his first tx have ended up in both chains in the first place? Why wasn't it included in the 0.7 chain?

I think the transaction went through during that period where the 0.8 chain was orphaned, and the double spend was sent shortly thereafter. At some point, when the 0.7 chain overtook the 0.8 chain, the original transaction would either have been accepted or rejected, but I have a feeling before that could happen he sent the double spend, caused all the trouble, then quickly posted about his successful double spend.

[humanitee]

I don't understand how this double-spend even worked. Shouldn't his first tx have ended up in both chains in the first place? Why wasn't it included in the 0.7 chain?

It is my understanding that the .7 blockchain had imposed block size limits while the .8 had not. Therefore, transactions that were waiting to be included in the .7 blockchain could be included in the .8 at any time.

[yokosan]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348.0

This is no hack of some Bitcoin service, this is a hit to Bitcoin itself.

How low will the price go once this gets out?

Once the merchant give up the price will drop.

[Odalv]

When chain forks there is no reason for a panic sell because you have same amount in both. ... so the worst case scenario is "your amount is doubled." :-)

[Nemesis]

Its best to hold on fiat and buy back in when the price drop.

This recent incident has damaged the confident level of btc. Price drops is inevitable.

Its a wake-up call for all of us. BTC isnt ready for mainstream. Dont expect big online merchants to accept btc anytime soon.

[Odalv]

looks like Nemesis has dumped under $44 :-)

[gimme_bottles]

Its best to hold on fiat and buy back in when the price drop.

This recent incident has damaged the confident level of btc. Price drops is inevitable

that's just wishful thinking. yes, something went wrong, but look at how fast the issue was solved. if this happened to a bank, until now nobody would know more than that the system doesn't work. instead, bitcoin is back up and running.

keep in mind that it is bitcoin 0.8, it is still beta. but the fact that such a huge issue can be solved that fast is a good sign. of course i like it better if those things don't happen, but that's what beta is for. it is better to find the bugs now than to find them in a few years when bitcoin has spread and increased in value. the way the fork was dealt with makes me more confident about the future.

BTW, some time ago i heard of a professional programmer (can't remember the name) who said he was absolutely amazed that until then not one major bug/malfunction was found in the bitcoin core source code. also, if i understood todays issue correct the problem was the interface between the bitcoin core and the database, which was changed from 0.7 to 0.8. so i guess it won't be too hard to get 0.8.1 up and running.

[Nemesis]

Its best to hold on fiat and buy back in when the price drop.

This recent incident has damaged the confident level of btc. Price drops is inevitable

that's just wishful thinking. yes, something went wrong, but look at how fast the issue was solved. if this happened to a bank, until now nobody would know more than that the system doesn't work. instead, bitcoin is back up and running.

keep in mind that it is bitcoin 0.8, it is still beta. but the fact that such a huge issue can be solved that fast is a good sign. of course i like it better if those things don't happen, but that's what beta is for. it is better to find the bugs now than to find them in a few years when bitcoin has spread and increased in value. the way the fork was dealt with makes me more confident about the future.

BTW, some time ago i heard of a professional programmer (can't remember the name) who said he was absolutely amazed that until then not one major bug/malfunction was found in the bitcoin core source code. also, if i understood todays issue correct the problem was the interface between the bitcoin core and the database, which was changed from 0.7 to 0.8. so i guess it won't be too hard to get 0.8.1 up and running.

No one here debate if btc is still a beta or not.

You cant deny the fact that this will slow down the adoptions by merchant.

The issue is not solved IMO. Simply orphan the fork and keep the default block size limit isnt a fix. We need to come up with a prevention system to put the whole thing in safe mode when this happens again.

Only then, the confidence is restored. Imagine what would happen, if we're all mining ASICs now. It would be a disaster.

Btw, name one incident where the whole banking network has to be stopped as double spending might happen? PPL quickly say "if this happens to bank" has no clue. Sure you bank wiring might be slow and delayed.... that doesnt stop me from buying parts from Newegg does it?

[Odalv]

Its best to hold on fiat and buy back in when the price drop.

This recent incident has damaged the confident level of btc. Price drops is inevitable

that's just wishful thinking. yes, something went wrong, but look at how fast the issue was solved. if this happened to a bank, until now nobody would know more than that the system doesn't work. instead, bitcoin is back up and running.

keep in mind that it is bitcoin 0.8, it is still beta. but the fact that such a huge issue can be solved that fast is a good sign. of course i like it better if those things don't happen, but that's what beta is for. it is better to find the bugs now than to find them in a few years when bitcoin has spread and increased in value. the way the fork was dealt with makes me more confident about the future.

BTW, some time ago i heard of a professional programmer (can't remember the name) who said he was absolutely amazed that until then not one major bug/malfunction was found in the bitcoin core source code. also, if i understood todays issue correct the problem was the interface between the bitcoin core and the database, which was changed from 0.7 to 0.8. so i guess it won't be too hard to get 0.8.1 up and running.

No one here debate if btc is still a beta or not.

You cant deny the fact that this will slow down the adoptions by merchant.

The issue is not solved IMO. Simply orphan the fork and keep the default block size limit isnt a fix. We need to come up with a prevention system to put the whole thing in safe mode when this happens again.

Only then, the confidence is restored. Imagine what would happen, if we're all mining ASICs now. It would be a disaster.

Btw, name one incident where the whole banking network has to be stopped as double spending might happen? PPL quickly say "if this happens to bank" has no clue. Sure you bank wiring might be slow and delayed.... that doesnt stop me from buying parts from Newegg does it?

Yes, really  disaster, our speculation will not work.

[gimme_bottles]

No one here debate if btc is still a beta or not.

You cant deny the fact that this will slow down the adoptions by merchant.

of course, in short to medium term this will cause people who aren't into bitcoin that much and don't have much knowledge about the system behind bitcoin think twice before getting in.

[elux]

No one here debate if btc is still a beta or not.

You cant deny the fact that this will slow down the adoptions by merchant.

of course, in short to medium term this will cause people merchants who aren't into bitcoin that much and don't have much knowledge about the system behind bitcoin think twice run away screaming  before instead of getting in.

[gimme_bottles]

No one here debate if btc is still a beta or not.

You cant deny the fact that this will slow down the adoptions by merchant.

of course, in short to medium term this will cause people merchants who aren't into bitcoin that much and don't have much knowledge about the system behind bitcoin think twice run away screaming  before instead of getting in.

maybe they crawl back when credit card fees get risen repeatendly

[Nemesis]

No one here debate if btc is still a beta or not.

You cant deny the fact that this will slow down the adoptions by merchant.

of course, in short to medium term this will cause people merchants who aren't into bitcoin that much and don't have much knowledge about the system behind bitcoin think twice run away screaming  before instead of getting in.

maybe they crawl back when credit card fees get risen repeatendly

If you have several transaction a week..... sure no problem to consider btc.

If you're newegg with thousands of transactions, no way in hell you will take the risk.

Thats all that matters.

[MonadTran]

of course, in short to medium term this will cause people merchants who aren't into bitcoin that much and don't have much knowledge about the system behind bitcoin think twice run away screaming  before instead of getting in.

maybe they crawl back when credit card fees get risen repeatendly

Yeah, and, chargebacks... Maybe a tiny little fork once in every two years is not that bad...

Still, I wish this had never happened.

[chiropteran]

If you have several transaction a week..... sure no problem to consider btc.

If you're newegg with thousands of transactions, no way in hell you will take the risk.

Thats all that matters.

Don't you realize that newegg and virtually all online merchants already take this risk?

Credit cards, via charge-back, are one of the easiest ways to double spend.

[oakpacific]

The blockchain could find out a double spend, what's wrong is the 6-confirmations recommendation, it should be changed, especially for transactions involving large amount.

[Nemesis]

If you have several transaction a week..... sure no problem to consider btc.

If you're newegg with thousands of transactions, no way in hell you will take the risk.

Thats all that matters.

Don't you realize that newegg and virtually all online merchants already take this risk?

Credit cards, via charge-back, are one of the easiest ways to double spend.

Easy? go ahead and do charge-back. See how well that pans out for you.

[chiropteran]

Easy? go ahead and do charge-back. See how well that pans out for you.

A: I've done a few charge backs over the years, for legitimate reasons, they worked out fine.

B: If newegg accepted bitcoins and got hurt by a double spend, they wouldn't exactly be powerless to do anything about it.  For example they would still have your name, address, probably require a phone number, and you would be facing an immediate lawsuit.  It's not silkroad, they aren't going to just deliver your hardware to an empty ally.

[MonadTran]

Easy? go ahead and do charge-back. See how well that pans out for you.

You first. Go ahead, create a hard fork, and do the double-spending
Chargebacks might well be easier.

[BitcoinAshley]

LOL @ FUDders who claim this will doom bitcoin b/c merchants.

One double-spend in entire history of BTC vs thousands and thousands of fraudulent doublespends (chargebacks) via MASTERCARD VISA PAYPAL etc etc etc. Not only that, but fraudulent chargebacks are practically encouraged by card companies, are built into the system i.e. you can request one. BTC allows no official channel for chargebacks and the only reason that one ever happened was because of a software fluke, virtually the only significant software fluke so far, which is pretty good for a piece of software that handles millions of dollars.

Do these FUDpeople just not think?

If I were a merchant I'd be glad to use a payment service with such a low risk of double-spends. Give me bitcoin with its 1 accidental $10,000 double-spend any day over Mastercard/Visa/Paypal/Amex/Etc with its cumulative millions of intentional double-spends and double spend feature available on request via official channel.

The only way we could dissuade merchants from adopting bitcoin is by introducing a double-spend feature into the client where you could request that a centralized authority charge back your money from a merchant. Then it'd be just like the credit cards. Oh and jack the fee to like 5%. THAT would be a great way to deter merchants. Not a fluke block-chain fork that is fixed immediately.

[oakpacific]

LOL @ FUDders who claim this will doom bitcoin b/c merchants.

One double-spend in entire history of BTC vs thousands and thousands of fraudulent doublespends (chargebacks) via MASTERCARD VISA PAYPAL etc etc etc. Not only that, but fraudulent chargebacks are practically encouraged by card companies, are built into the system i.e. you can request one. BTC allows no official channel for chargebacks and the only reason that one ever happened was because of a software fluke, virtually the only significant software fluke so far, which is pretty good for a piece of software that handles millions of dollars.

Do these FUDpeople just not think?

If I were a merchant I'd be glad to use a payment service with such a low risk of double-spends. Give me bitcoin with its 1 accidental $10,000 double-spend any day over Mastercard/Visa/Paypal/Amex/Etc with its cumulative millions of intentional double-spends and double spend feature available on request via official channel.

The only way we could dissuade merchants from adopting bitcoin is by introducing a double-spend feature into the client where you could request that a centralized authority charge back your money from a merchant. Then it'd be just like the credit cards. Oh and jack the fee to like 5%. THAT would be a great way to deter merchants. Not a fluke block-chain fork that is fixed immediately.

In fact, you could easily implement a fork-detection system: whenever a fork(i.e., two branches with more than one block)  is detected, wait for more confirmations until one branch stops growing, this is not something requires protocol overhauling or even client reprogramming.

[Timbert33]

LOL @ FUDders who claim this will doom bitcoin b/c merchants.

One double-spend in entire history of BTC vs thousands and thousands of fraudulent doublespends (chargebacks) via MASTERCARD VISA PAYPAL etc etc etc. Not only that, but fraudulent chargebacks are practically encouraged by card companies, are built into the system i.e. you can request one. BTC allows no official channel for chargebacks and the only reason that one ever happened was because of a software fluke, virtually the only significant software fluke so far, which is pretty good for a piece of software that handles millions of dollars.

Do these FUDpeople just not think?

If I were a merchant I'd be glad to use a payment service with such a low risk of double-spends. Give me bitcoin with its 1 accidental $10,000 double-spend any day over Mastercard/Visa/Paypal/Amex/Etc with its cumulative millions of intentional double-spends and double spend feature available on request via official channel.

The only way we could dissuade merchants from adopting bitcoin is by introducing a double-spend feature into the client where you could request that a centralized authority charge back your money from a merchant. Then it'd be just like the credit cards. Oh and jack the fee to like 5%. THAT would be a great way to deter merchants. Not a fluke block-chain fork that is fixed immediately.

Some of your points are reasonable. Paypal loses a lot of money to fraud each year for example. But your point about 1 accidental $10,000 double spend is laughably ridiculous. You don't think that would have been a much bigger problem if btc was used widespread and people didn't realize what was going on as quickly? I guarantee there would have been LOTS of money double spent in that situation.

[Nemesis]

Easy? go ahead and do charge-back. See how well that pans out for you.

A: I've done a few charge backs over the years, for legitimate reasons, they worked out fine.

B: If newegg accepted bitcoins and got hurt by a double spend, they wouldn't exactly be powerless to do anything about it.  For example they would still have your name, address, probably require a phone number, and you would be facing an immediate lawsuit.  It's not silkroad, they aren't going to just deliver your hardware to an empty ally.

Son get real..... they're not gonna sue your ass for a shitty Rosewill parts that you bought.

The fact that you compare legitimated chargeback with double spend tell how smart you are.

What risk did Newegg take again?

[zby]

...

The issue is not solved IMO. Simply orphan the fork and keep the default block size limit isnt a fix. We need to come up with a prevention system to put the whole thing in safe mode when this happens again.

...

That one is easy - merchants should look for forks - and then stop accepting payments.  Sure there can be forks that are not visible for them - but this is taken into account in the design by waiting for the x amount of confirmations. 

[willphase]

this wasn't a double spend - it was a single spend on two different blockchains - I'm not sure why everyone is so concerned about this - the spend only existed once in the longest chain, it just happened that the longest chain changed, and it changed after 6+ confirmations had already happened in a previous longest chain.  The issue here was that the merchant ignored or did not know about the advice to not accept confirmed blocks from the currently longest chain (the 0. because the 0.7 chain was going to outgrow it and invalidate those transactions.

At no point was there a double spend in the longest chain, which is exactly how bitcoin is designed to work.

Will

[Nemesis]

this wasn't a double spend - it was a single spend on two different blockchains - I'm not sure why everyone is so concerned about this - the spend only existed once in the longest chain, it just happened that the longest chain changed, and it changed after 6+ confirmations had already happened in a previous longest chain.  The issue here was that the merchant ignored or did not know about the advice to not accept confirmed blocks from the currently longest chain (the 0. because the 0.7 chain was going to outgrow it and invalidate those transactions.

At no point was there a double spend in the longest chain, which is exactly how bitcoin is designed to work.

Will

Noob, you dont understand what double spending is do you?

[johnyj]

It is NOT a double spend. It's spend the same coin twice on each different chain, once per chain, when there is a hard fork. And you can do it anytime when you make your own client and fork the main block chain

This is always a consequence of a hard fork, so a hard fork will cause many confusing things and it must be treated very careful

[Nemesis]

It is NOT a double spend. It's spend the same coin twice on each different chain, once per chain, when there is a hard fork. And you can do it anytime when you make your own client and fork the main block chain

This is always a consequence of a hard fork, so a hard fork will cause many confusing things and it must be treated very careful

Wow the level of stupidity in this thread is thro the roof!


Do you even hear yourself pumpkin? "It is NOT a double spend. Its a spend the same coin twice"

A fascinating brain you got there.

Double spend means you spend your coins TWICE! Stupid.....

It doesnt matter which attack/venture it use (Race, Finney, Vector76, Brute-force, or >50% )

Pick one....

[johnyj]

It is NOT a double spend. It's spend the same coin twice on each different chain, once per chain, when there is a hard fork. And you can do it anytime when you make your own client and fork the main block chain

This is always a consequence of a hard fork, so a hard fork will cause many confusing things and it must be treated very careful

Wow the level of stupidity in this thread is thro the roof!


Do you even hear yourself pumpkin? "It is NOT a double spend. Its a spend the same coin twice"

A fascinating brain you got there.

Double spend means you spend your coins TWICE! Stupid.....

It doesnt matter which attack/venture it use (Race, Finney, Vector76, Brute-force, or >50% )

Pick one....

Maybe my word is not very clear, a Double Spend by definition is spend the same coin twice on the SAME NETWORK. After a hard fork, there are two networks, so the same pre-fork coins can be spent on each network. If you fork 3 chain, then you have 3 network, you can triple spend, and so on... that has nothing to do with each network's security. The problem is that merchant might not be aware of this situation

[glub0x]

i modified my client so that i created a hard fork, now i can spend my coins twice on 2 network. Am i double spending my bitcoins? not really

[johnyj]

To be honest, fork is really a headache for bitcoin. In fiat world, you can never spend the same dollar on two different transaction network, since there is a central authority keep a book of everyone's account, and cash is physical (counterfeit cash is possible). But fiat money have other problem like generate dollar out of thin air, the effect is the same as double/triple/multiple spend, but only FED have the right to do it 

[chiropteran]

To be honest, fork is really a headache for bitcoin. In fiat world, you can never spend the same dollar on two different transaction network, since there is a central authority keep a book of everyone's account, and cash is physical (counterfeit cash is possible). But fiat money have other problem like generate dollar out of thin air, the effect is the same as double/triple/multiple spend, but only FED have the right to do it  

In fiat world, nearly every real business accepts credit cards.  Credit card charge-backs are the exact same effect for the merchant as a double-spend, but much easier to produce for the scammer.

Son get real..... they're not gonna sue your ass for a shitty Rosewill parts that you bought.

If they don't care about losing money to a credit card charge back scam they won't care about losing money to a bitcoin double-spend that IS ONLY POSSIBLE because all the major mining nodes went along with it.  Any idiot kid can try to do a charge back, double spending is impossible for any singular criminal or even a huge criminal organization unless they have control over 51% or more of the hashing power.

The fact that you compare legitimated chargeback with double spend tell how smart you are.
What risk did Newegg take again?

You are the one crying and whining about a single double spend after 3 years of operation, that is only enabled because every major mining node agreed to fix the blockchain.  As opposed to charge backs, which can occur all the time, and cost merchants a ton of money.  If the double spend is a risk, charge backs are.  If charge backs are not a risk, then neither is a double spend.  They are the same thing.

Also, get a clue: legitimate or scam charge backs work the exact same way.  It's not like a legitimate charge back doesn't cost the merchant time and money.

[bb113]

To be honest, fork is really a headache for bitcoin. In fiat world, you can never spend the same dollar on two different transaction network, since there is a central authority keep a book of everyone's account, and cash is physical (counterfeit cash is possible). But fiat money have other problem like generate dollar out of thin air, the effect is the same as double/triple/multiple spend, but only FED have the right to do it  

In fiat world, nearly every real business accepts credit cards.  Credit card charge-backs are the exact same effect for the merchant as a double-spend, but much easier to produce for the scammer.

Son get real..... they're not gonna sue your ass for a shitty Rosewill parts that you bought.

If they don't care about losing money to a credit card charge back scam they won't care about losing money to a bitcoin double-spend that IS ONLY POSSIBLE because all the major mining nodes went along with it.  Any idiot kid can try to do a charge back, double spending is impossible for any singular criminal or even a huge criminal organization unless they have control over 51% or more of the hashing power.

The fact that you compare legitimated chargeback with double spend tell how smart you are.
What risk did Newegg take again?

You are the one crying and whining about a single double spend after 3 years of operation, that is only enabled because every major mining node agreed to fix the blockchain.  As opposed to charge backs, which can occur all the time, and cost merchants a ton of money.  If the double spend is a risk, charge backs are.  If charge backs are not a risk, then neither is a double spend.  They are the same thing.

Also, get a clue: legitimate or scam charge backs work the exact same way.  It's not like a legitimate charge back doesn't cost the merchant time and money.

I agree the double spend was not a huge deal and there are easy ways for merchants to protect themselves from this type of thing, but disagree its the same as a chargeback. The rate of chargebacks is probably somewhat predictable, while these types of events could lead to a sudden, unexpected surge in chargebacks which can be much more dangerous.

[Nemesis]

It is NOT a double spend. It's spend the same coin twice on each different chain, once per chain, when there is a hard fork. And you can do it anytime when you make your own client and fork the main block chain

This is always a consequence of a hard fork, so a hard fork will cause many confusing things and it must be treated very careful

Wow the level of stupidity in this thread is thro the roof!


Do you even hear yourself pumpkin? "It is NOT a double spend. Its a spend the same coin twice"

A fascinating brain you got there.

Double spend means you spend your coins TWICE! Stupid.....

It doesnt matter which attack/venture it use (Race, Finney, Vector76, Brute-force, or >50% )

Pick one....

Maybe my word is not very clear, a Double Spend by definition is spend the same coin twice on the SAME NETWORK. After a hard fork, there are two networks, so the same pre-fork coins can be spent on each network. If you fork 3 chain, then you have 3 network, you can triple spend, and so on... that has nothing to do with each network's security. The problem is that merchant might not be aware of this situation

Hey there stupid,

what is a >50% attack again?

Did you even bother looking to it? Its an attack that allow double spending .... guess how? Because it creates a hard fork!

Stupid as stupid does.


Edit: btw, read this thread idiot: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152621.0

[Nemesis]

To be honest, fork is really a headache for bitcoin. In fiat world, you can never spend the same dollar on two different transaction network, since there is a central authority keep a book of everyone's account, and cash is physical (counterfeit cash is possible). But fiat money have other problem like generate dollar out of thin air, the effect is the same as double/triple/multiple spend, but only FED have the right to do it  

In fiat world, nearly every real business accepts credit cards.  Credit card charge-backs are the exact same effect for the merchant as a double-spend, but much easier to produce for the scammer.

Son get real..... they're not gonna sue your ass for a shitty Rosewill parts that you bought.

If they don't care about losing money to a credit card charge back scam they won't care about losing money to a bitcoin double-spend that IS ONLY POSSIBLE because all the major mining nodes went along with it.  Any idiot kid can try to do a charge back, double spending is impossible for any singular criminal or even a huge criminal organization unless they have control over 51% or more of the hashing power.

The fact that you compare legitimated chargeback with double spend tell how smart you are.
What risk did Newegg take again?

You are the one crying and whining about a single double spend after 3 years of operation, that is only enabled because every major mining node agreed to fix the blockchain.  As opposed to charge backs, which can occur all the time, and cost merchants a ton of money.  If the double spend is a risk, charge backs are.  If charge backs are not a risk, then neither is a double spend.  They are the same thing.

Also, get a clue: legitimate or scam charge backs work the exact same way.  It's not like a legitimate charge back doesn't cost the merchant time and money.

I agree the double spend was not a huge deal and there are easy ways for merchants to protect themselves from this type of thing, but disagree its the same as a chargeback. The rate of chargebacks is probably somewhat predictable, while these types of events could lead to a sudden, unexpected surge in chargebacks which can be much more dangerous.

I wonder how these dumbasses survive life on daily basis.

A hard fork like this has caused the whole btc economy on hold. Potentially MANY transactions can be doublespended. If BTC had gone mainstream, it would have been $1millions lost in doublespending.

[HighInBC]

To be honest, fork is really a headache for bitcoin. In fiat world, you can never spend the same dollar on two different transaction network, since there is a central authority keep a book of everyone's account, and cash is physical (counterfeit cash is possible). But fiat money have other problem like generate dollar out of thin air, the effect is the same as double/triple/multiple spend, but only FED have the right to do it 

You can write a cheque that uses the same money twice, it will take weeks for them to figure it out. Credit cards get charged back all the time and merchants still accept those.

A successful double spend is like a bigfoot, often talked about and rarely seen.

I doubt merchants will consider this a significant issue.

[molecular]

I wonder how these dumbasses survive life on daily basis.

A hard fork like this has caused the whole btc economy on hold. Potentially MANY transactions can be doublespended. If BTC had gone mainstream, it would have been $1millions lost in doublespending.

But double-spending doesn't lose any money. In fact, it doubles money, hence the name. It's all good!

Here a coin,
there a coin,
everywhere a coin coin.

[Nemesis]

I wonder how these dumbasses survive life on daily basis.

A hard fork like this has caused the whole btc economy on hold. Potentially MANY transactions can be doublespended. If BTC had gone mainstream, it would have been $1millions lost in doublespending.

But double-spending doesn't lose any money. In fact, it doubles money, hence the name. It's all good!

Here a coin,
there a coin,
everywhere a coin coin.

Hahha  it sure does

[chiropteran]

A hard fork like this has caused the whole btc economy on hold. Potentially MANY transactions can be doublespended. If BTC had gone mainstream, it would have been $1millions lost in doublespending.

who cares?

One million, are you joking?  That isn't even enough to care about.

http://www.verifi.com/news/press-releases-and-announcements/bid/142830/Special-Report-Feds-Bust-200-Million-Credit-Card-Fraud-Ring

One credit card fraud ring scammed over $200 million.  And they didn't need the cooperation of 51% of the credit card processors to do this.

I guess if you are a merchant losing 200 million in credit card fraud is better than losing $10k from a once in a lifetime bitcoin fork, eh?  Nice logic you have there, you must be some kind of business genius.  Did you go to Harvard?

Edit: nevermind, don't bother answering.  After looking at your other posts you are just an obvious troll, welcome to the ignore list.

[Gabi]

Well this is what happen with a rollback, if you invalid the last ten blocks or so and do a rollback, it is normal that these transactions risk to be doublespended, since usually no one expect a transaction with over ten confirmations to disappear.

[Nemesis]

Well this is what happen with a rollback, if you invalid the last ten blocks or so and do a rollback, it is normal that these transactions risk to be doublespended, since usually no one expect a transaction with over ten confirmations to disappear.

Rollback is technically incorrect. The transactions in .8 blockchine still gets merged to pre .8 blockchain.

[Gabi]

This is not what happened, the transaction of this double spend was put in a block in the 0.8 chain but not in the 0.7 chain. Once the rollback happened and miners started mining on the 0.7 chain they did not add the transaction, wich was then "double spended"

[Nemesis]

This is not what happened, the transaction of this double spend was put in a block in the 0.8 chain but not in the 0.7 chain. Once the rollback happened and miners started mining on the 0.7 chain they did not add the transaction, wich was then "double spended"

You didnt understand it right,

The transaction that is on .8 blockchain and doubled spend on pre .8 will be invalidated.

Other transactions will be added to pre .8 blockchains automatically. Its not lost (which what rollback means). Its still catching up with all the new blocks being mined right now.

Rollback means every transaction in .8 blockchain got cancelled.


Ps. i think you're confused the rollback as in downgrading the software to .7 , with what you said.

To understand clearly again what happened, i will sum up like this: This scenario isnt exactly similar to a 51% attack where one of the forks is completely invalidated. Instead the fork was "merged", even the blocks in .8 blockchains got orphaned, their transactions are still recorded and put into new blocks mining now. This gave an opportunity of a double spend as in RACE attack. The transactions in .8 blockchain goes back to 0 confirmation stage. Thats how this particular double spend happened. (his second spend became the first that got confirmed, his first spend is now invalidated as ..."double spend" )