Bitcoins transferred under 5 secs. w/o confirmations! How possible?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

https://blockchain.info/address/14cVg2Hnegd9vQs218RN8mKrpwvuTwUZd7

2 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1Ka44Q9bdm5uRsb3tyeMQPmWiN27yLkqU7

4 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1HBdpb33BGW56jWEhXdFZAF7JfWZ4Ws6Rd

2 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1BWz7DF615bcxQMrsoZetxSeU3v8yDFfNP

2 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1QBUXwemBGneKQpjiN6JVsbKieTSAJvFiC

3 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1LPV6TEj38ohfkcCt7AZCkDCb1V3xxfjF5

3 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1G7SyF1zc1PUpevdWw5uE4bgFNNZ1rWwPg

3 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1BsvKASfZ6kfzMk9fJ5ysycah2QCMsCKxz

3 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/17yg9bjZJ9SRMwtZpo5vTvZ53hzTo5jv14

4 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1JQVJbYbJ63vJUAdMqb6prV8TutX4w8ZWA

2 seconds later: https://blockchain.info/address/1M1F49qhqWqynGKWuX8qaQ79iZ87p1ZRqa

12 seconds later (probably needed to catch his breath): https://blockchain.info/address/1457r5NiLm6WEUbAojWahALKdDTuqz7Wyk

I'm sure there's a logical explanation for the above, but it eludes me.

Enlighten me!

[1714026521]

1714026521

[1714026521]

1714026521

[escrow.ms]

What the heck, looks like random funds are getting dropped and then remaining funds are getting moved to another address and then same process was repeated.

[Birdy]

I'm not sure, but maybe it's moving from one address to an another within one bitcoin-qt wallet?
I remember being able to send transaction within the wallet addresses with 0 confirmations again, when the first one confirmed the second one did too.

[mufa23]

Perhaps all of those addresses are under one wallet.dat. When you move something from one address to another, the transfer is pretty much instant. Or at least, that's how it appears on the front end of Bitcoin-qt. But I don't think that makes much sense.. ? (please note, anything I might have said might be completely retarded. I'm just guessing, and have no idea what I'm talking about)

[escrow.ms]

looks like it's some sort of payment address and funds are moving to different change wallet after transactions. I found http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=PsyKick this guy's address in one of these transactions.

[escrow.ms]

3000 BTC journey

Main Source: https://blockchain.info/address/1LrPYjto3hsLzWJNstghuwdrQXB96KbrCy
https://blockchain.info/tx/14a5adce82fecf976f9ec963c86a051d363ad7301bf96b055364de7a27b3bfee

EDIT:
This one was the First

https://blockchain.info/address/1uAcfMBjRNZeQZumRhuyTLQskbUVgzkJm
Last: https://blockchain.info/address/138ef4gnsEin4knodMypcvXdYrgRfRSRPa

PS: The USD price of a bitcoin reached  $230 on 9 April 2013. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Hello, new bitcoiners.

Currently, we're discussing how bitcoins can change hands in mere seconds without any confirmations. Too bad you won't see it because this thread has been moved to the Technical Support section of this forum, a place I didn't even knew existed until the penning of this post.

Am I being told that this issue is not even relevant, hence the move?

Maybe it was taken into consideration where the wallet stemmed from, hence the hiding of this important (so I thought) thread.

At the moment, I'm fuckin' beside myself! (not dissing the person who moved the thread)

[dree12]

Hello, new bitcoiners.

Currently, we're discussing how bitcoins can change hands in mere seconds without any confirmations. Too bad you won't see it because this thread has been moved to the Technical Support section of this forum, a place I didn't even knew existed until the penning of this post.

Am I being told that this issue is not even relevant, hence the move?

Maybe it was taken into consideration where the wallet stemmed from, hence the hiding of this important (so I thought) thread.

At the moment, I'm fuckin' beside myself! (not dissing the person who moved the thread)

With all due respect, Phinn, it was moved because it fits better here. The Bitcoin Discussion forum is for things that don't go well elsewhere. In fact, if you look at the average number of replies, Bitcoin Discussion threads are less noticed because of all the clutter. (Average: 16.3 replies in Bitcoin Discussion, for Economics/Speculation it is 31.8).

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Hello, new bitcoiners.

Currently, we're discussing how bitcoins can change hands in mere seconds without any confirmations. Too bad you won't see it because this thread has been moved to the Technical Support section of this forum, a place I didn't even knew existed until the penning of this post.

Am I being told that this issue is not even relevant, hence the move?

Maybe it was taken into consideration where the wallet stemmed from, hence the hiding of this important (so I thought) thread.

At the moment, I'm fuckin' beside myself! (not dissing the person who moved the thread)

With all due respect, Phinn, it was moved because it fits better here. The Bitcoin Discussion forum is for things that don't go well elsewhere. In fact, if you look at the average number of replies, Bitcoin Discussion threads are less noticed because of all the clutter. (Average: 16.3 replies in Bitcoin Discussion, for Economics/Speculation it is 31..

Thank you so kindly, dree. Your reply makes so much sense. Apologies for being an asshole this time. (sincerely)

I now look forward to a logical explanation.

Peace, all.

Bruno Kucinskas

[dree12]

I believe that this is just someone testing this. Eventually, Bitcoin will allow miners to confirm a series of transactions simultaneously if the final transaction pays enough fees for the entire transaction stack.

[QuantumQrack]

Anything related to faster confirms or no confirms needs to stay in the main discussion for a little while for visibility.  It was a mistake to move it.

[DeathAndTaxes]

You have always been able to spend 0-confirm funds.  The protocol has no rule against this.  Of course a tx can't confirm until all of its parents are also confirmed.

The QT client has a restriction requiring 1 (not 6) confirmations for coins sent from outside addresses before allowing funds to be "spent" however that is simply a client side block and can be removed in the source code.  Coins from one address to another in the same wallet can be spent with 0-confirms.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

You have always been able to spend 0-confirm funds.  The protocol has no rule against this.  Of course a tx can't confirm until all of its parents are also confirmed.

The QT client has a restriction requiring 1 (not 6) confirmations for coins sent from outside addresses before allowing funds to be "spent" however that is simply a client side block and can be removed in the source code.  Coins from one address to another in the same wallet can be spent with 0-confirms.

This makes sense, D&T. Now, explain to me how this is accomplished within a couple seconds over and over and over again without the use of a script.

Also, since we know where this address stems from, why was InstaWallet breaking up a large wallet into smaller increments, doing such at one at a time oppose to several at a time of which they've been doing?

[DeathAndTaxes]

It is trivial to accomplish.

Send coins to another address in your in your wallet.   The input of any tx is simply a previous tx output.  Normally we wait 1+ confirms but there is no requirement to do so, not at the protocol level.  So take the unspent output you just created and make a new tx using that output as an input and then take the output of that tx and use it as an input for yet another new tx ... etc.

You need a modified client with coin control (or coin control patch) but once you have that the protocol doesn't care it is simply creating transactions like you would any other you just don't wait for the prior unspent output to be confirmed.

Send x BTC using any unspent output to address A (output a)
Send x BTC using unspent output a to address B (output b)
Send x BTC using unspent output b to address C (output c)
...
Send x BTC using unspent output y to address Z (output z)






As for why?  No idea but the protocol doesn't care.  They are valid transactions.  They have always been valid transactions.

[🏰 TradeFortress 🏰]

You don't need to wait for confirmations to submit a TX. You can craft TXes offline even, and chain 50 transactions and broadcast them in a second. However, if you don't include enough fees it'll be discarded by nodes.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

The above explanations make sense. Thanks to all those who took the time to explain it to me in layman's terms.

Now, the only thing that baffles me is why 3,000 BTC moved from the Instawallet Cold Storage wallet was fragmented in such a way that approximately 80% of all those smaller transaction remain untouched since being stored on April 1, 2013, or thereabouts: https://blockchain.info/tx/996b0e98db80b20516313cd32920e7c8093a8a5bf1e1b1887747338a49052ce5

I ain't no fool, albeit an argument could be made I was by keeping over 1,123+ BTC in three separate wallets on InstaWallet even though it was advised to not do such, but continued the practise after it was discovered that there might be a flaw in its business model and was led to believe that my funds were secure.

If securing ~2,400 BC in ~100 different wallets is their way of protect mine, among others bitcoins, then this thread needed not be penned. But if I recall, Boussac and Davout are on record in stating that the bitcoins are secured in the handful of wallet addresses they submitted--not 100's

To be clear, it's the InstaWallet funds I'm discussing here and not BitcoinCentral's, as clearly seen in the BlockChain.

[Raoul Duke]

looks like it's some sort of payment address and funds are moving to different change wallet after transactions. I found http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=PsyKick this guy's address in one of these transactions.

Which transaction was that? That is my OTC account. I may have some information for you.

[escrow.ms]

looks like it's some sort of payment address and funds are moving to different change wallet after transactions. I found http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=PsyKick this guy's address in one of these transactions.

Which transaction was that? That is my OTC account. I may have some information for you.

 it was 19.88 BTC transfer
https://blockchain.info/tx/2d188c6c80bf52de4bc027d1bc74fc916b2ffe34ce2d3e27004f716722d933e0

[Raoul Duke]

looks like it's some sort of payment address and funds are moving to different change wallet after transactions. I found http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=PsyKick this guy's address in one of these transactions.

Which transaction was that? That is my OTC account. I may have some information for you.

 it was 19.88 BTC transfer
https://blockchain.info/tx/2d188c6c80bf52de4bc027d1bc74fc916b2ffe34ce2d3e27004f716722d933e0

I think that was Bitcoin-24 returning the balance I had in there when they closed.

[Phinnaeus Gage]

looks like it's some sort of payment address and funds are moving to different change wallet after transactions. I found http://bitcoin-otc.com/viewgpg.php?nick=PsyKick this guy's address in one of these transactions.

Which transaction was that? That is my OTC account. I may have some information for you.

 it was 19.88 BTC transfer
https://blockchain.info/tx/2d188c6c80bf52de4bc027d1bc74fc916b2ffe34ce2d3e27004f716722d933e0

I think that was Bitcoin-24 returning the balance I had in there when they closed.

Hey, psy. Please believe me when I say that I'm not accusing any mods/admins of wrongdoings with this thread. It was started to get a serious concern addressed, then morphed somewhat toward IW, not meaning to bring you into the discussion, albeit another poster above felt it was warranted. When I first read the PsyKick post, I didn't even make the connection until you came here and started asking questions.

Exactly when did Bitcoin-24 close? The reason I ask is because I thought I saw bitcoins go to them via IW's wallet.