$10k double spend...

[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