Double Spend? Or What happen?

[lordhavok]

Please look at this transaction.

https://blockchain.info/tx/84050229b20ee9d7553ce63bf78f37dbaa6238afb01cd1356c0df83f8e91adea

It is a double spend or something? It is only show on blockchain.info blockchain explorer but it does not show on other blockchain explorer.

[mocacinno]

Please look at this transaction.

https://blockchain.info/tx/84050229b20ee9d7553ce63bf78f37dbaa6238afb01cd1356c0df83f8e91adea

It is a double spend or something? It is only show on blockchain.info blockchain explorer but it does not show on other blockchain explorer.

No, it's a normal transaction... It probably didn't reach any other nodes yet, but it will probably be included in a block in due time...

It's 172 bytes, 20.000 satoshi's fee = 116 satoshi's per byte... SO it won't probably take to long since https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ only recommands 90 satoshi's per byte at the time of writing...

The only thing that worries me is that the outputs are going to an address with label "Bitcoin Magic Doubler"... You do know that 99,999999999999% of those doublers are ponzi's or straight up scams???

[lordhavok]

Please look at this transaction.

https://blockchain.info/tx/84050229b20ee9d7553ce63bf78f37dbaa6238afb01cd1356c0df83f8e91adea

It is a double spend or something? It is only show on blockchain.info blockchain explorer but it does not show on other blockchain explorer.

No, it's a normal transaction... It probably didn't reach any other nodes yet, but it will probably be included in a block in due time...

Thanks for your quick reply. I'm already waiting for more than 3 hours on this transaction. It only show on blockchain.info.

[mocacinno]

Please look at this transaction.

https://blockchain.info/tx/84050229b20ee9d7553ce63bf78f37dbaa6238afb01cd1356c0df83f8e91adea

It is a double spend or something? It is only show on blockchain.info blockchain explorer but it does not show on other blockchain explorer.

No, it's a normal transaction... It probably didn't reach any other nodes yet, but it will probably be included in a block in due time...

Thanks for your quick reply. I'm already waiting for more than 3 hours on this transaction. It only show on blockchain.info.

This is strange... I tried to push your transaction trough my node, but got this message:
64: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Witness program hash mismatch).

Mind sharing how you created this transaction?

[lordhavok]

Please look at this transaction.

https://blockchain.info/tx/84050229b20ee9d7553ce63bf78f37dbaa6238afb01cd1356c0df83f8e91adea

It is a double spend or something? It is only show on blockchain.info blockchain explorer but it does not show on other blockchain explorer.

No, it's a normal transaction... It probably didn't reach any other nodes yet, but it will probably be included in a block in due time...

Thanks for your quick reply. I'm already waiting for more than 3 hours on this transaction. It only show on blockchain.info.

This is strange... I tried to push your transaction trough my node, but got this message:
64: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Witness program hash mismatch).

Mind sharing how you created this transaction?

Is this a new exploit that only affects on blockchain.info? I did not create this transaction I receive a payment that trace back from this transaction.

[mocacinno]

Please look at this transaction.

https://blockchain.info/tx/84050229b20ee9d7553ce63bf78f37dbaa6238afb01cd1356c0df83f8e91adea

It is a double spend or something? It is only show on blockchain.info blockchain explorer but it does not show on other blockchain explorer.

No, it's a normal transaction... It probably didn't reach any other nodes yet, but it will probably be included in a block in due time...

Thanks for your quick reply. I'm already waiting for more than 3 hours on this transaction. It only show on blockchain.info.

This is strange... I tried to push your transaction trough my node, but got this message:
64: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Witness program hash mismatch).

Mind sharing how you created this transaction?

Is this a new exploit that only affects on blockchain.info?

I'm not tech savvy enough to give you a conclusive answer, but it seems there is a problem with the signature... I don't think it would qualify as an exploit, since it seems the transaction isn't included in a block by any miner eventough it has sufficient fees.

[dArkjON]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/44y88x/bitcoin_magic_doubler_ask_me_anything/

Transactions do not expire. If they are valid - they are valid forever. The question is - how long should blockchain.info keep the chain of unconfirmed transactions? Will see.

The "root" transaction in this long chain has non-standard High-S value in ECDSA signature and can not be malleated to a standard form. So, this is valid transaction from the point of view of blockchain.info, but miners do not confirm it because of their strict policy rules.

[DannyHamilton]

No, it's a normal transaction...

No. It isn't.

It's a non-standard transaction.

It probably didn't reach any other nodes yet,

Most miners and block explorers recognize that it is a non-standard transaction.  Therefore they reject it.  Blockchain.info has a rather buggy implementation so they tend to be fooled occasionally into displaying transactions or blocks that are non-standard or invalid.  This is one of those times.

but it will probably be included in a block in due time...

If there are any miners (or mining pools) out there that are intentionally including non-standard transactions in their blocks, then this transaction could eventually be confirmed, but it is very unlikely.  This nonstandard transaction was created by a hacker intentionally for the purposes of sending transactions that will probably never confirm. This is why it is important NOT to exchange any product or service until a transaction is confirmed unless you have a trust relationship with the sender.

It's 172 bytes, 20.000 satoshi's fee = 116 satoshi's per byte... SO it won't probably take to long since https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ only recommands 90 satoshi's per byte at the time of writing...

It is impossible to say for certain if or when it will confirm, but since it is non-standard, there's a good chance that it might not ever confirm.

The only thing that worries me is that the outputs are going to an address with label "Bitcoin Magic Doubler"... You do know that 99,999999999999% of those doublers are ponzi's or straight up scams???

This particular one is designed to allow senders to receive a non-standard transaction back that will never confirm. Then they can send bitcoins from that unconfirmed transaction to someone else and hope that the recipient is foolish enough to send a product or service in exchange for the unconfirmed bitcoins.

This is strange... I tried to push your transaction trough my node, but got this message:
64: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Witness program hash mismatch).

Exactly.  Like I said, it's a non-standard transaction.  Most nodes will reject it.  Blockchain.info appears to not notice that it is non-standard.

Is this a new exploit that only affects on blockchain.info?

Not new, but yes, it is an exploit that takes advantage of the fact that valid, but non-standard, transactions are displayed by blockchain.info and hopes that there aren't any miners confirming non-standard transactions.

I receive a payment that trace back from this transaction.

Then either the person that sent you the payment is trying to steal from you, or someone else already stole from them and they are trying to pass on the loss to you.

If they didn't to this to you intentionally (and they are the victim) then the person that sent the transaction to you needs to be informed that they should never spend unconfirmed bitcoins.

[antaja]

i always get the "none standard input" from kraken withdrawal
im not sure if its normal, but its always got confirmed

[amaclin]

It's a non-standard transaction.

Have a deep look to the transaction inputs.
Don't you see there any scripts already discussed here?

[Quickseller]

It's a non-standard transaction.

Have a deep look to the transaction inputs.
Don't you see there any scripts already discussed here?

You are an alt of the OP, yes?

edit: I am not sure why you ask these types of questions -- you already know the answer

[amaclin]

You are an alt of the OP, yes?

no

edit: I am not sure why you ask these types of questions -- you already know the answer

I am not asking questions here and now.

[shorena]

It's a non-standard transaction.

Have a deep look to the transaction inputs.
Don't you see there any scripts already discussed here?

You are an alt of the OP, yes?

edit: I am not sure why you ask these types of questions -- you already know the answer

Sometimes these questions are helpful for others - willing and able - to find the answer on their own. To say it with a Goethe quote they recently posted themselves (IIRC).

...ein Teil von jener Kraft, die stets das Böse will und stets das Gute schafft.

You could say its a way of answering questions that is no longer common.

[amaclin]

To say it with a Goethe quote they recently posted themselves (IIRC).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1575527.msg15924033#msg15924033

[Pursuer]

i always get the "none standard input" from kraken withdrawal
im not sure if its normal, but its always got confirmed

I don't know why no one has said this clear yet:
blockchain.info shows these transactions as "non-standard" because they have been send from or to a multisignature bitcoin address (addresses starting with 3) there is nothing not-normal here.
the signature in these transactions are unlike other transactions maybe that is why it says "non-standard"!

[johoe]

It's a standard SegWit P2WPKH over P2SH transaction.  However, I guess amaclin didn't include any signatures (witness), when pushing it to Blockchain.info.  So this transaction will never be confirmed by segwit-enabled miners.

Since SegWit isn't activated yet, it should be possible to include it in a block or even double spend it.  Are there any pools that accept non-standard transactions and that don't support segwit?  Looks like amaclin is betting 3.37 Bitcoin that nobody can easily double-spend them.

Here is a related thread and check the trust ratings  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1710442.0

[amaclin]

It's a standard SegWit P2WPKH over P2SH transaction.

Perfect!

However, I guess amaclin didn't include any signatures (witness), when pushing it to Blockchain.info.

1) I doubt bc.i ever knows about segwit today. they can not support op_return output scripts for years.
supporting segwit is much more difficult for bc.i and other block-explorers.
2) I didn't include signatures because I do not have the private keys for these addresses

[johoe]

2) I didn't include signatures because I do not have the private keys for these addresses

LOL.

I'm wondering why people do these experiments with 2500 $ worth of bitcoin on mainnet, even though it is likely that they just lose the bitcoins.

[amaclin]

LOL.
I'm wondering why people do these experiments with 2500 $ worth of bitcoin on mainnet, even though it is likely that they just lose the bitcoins.

Bitcoin itself is a gambling. Someone wanted to stamp himself as a "first segwit address owner on mainnet"
For more information:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5f34rl/convert_normal_1_address_to_new_segwit_address/

[tardi]

Please look at this transaction.

https://blockchain.info/tx/84050229b20ee9d7553ce63bf78f37dbaa6238afb01cd1356c0df83f8e91adea

It is a double spend or something? It is only show on blockchain.info blockchain explorer but it does not show on other blockchain explorer.

When you do not add fees, sometimes it takes time for the nodes to relay the transactions.