$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?

[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.