Shortline (OP)
|
|
August 26, 2011, 12:55:45 PM |
|
Has anyone seen a confirmed double spend attack?
Mybitcoin doesn't count.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin network protocol was designed to be extremely flexible. It can be used to create timed transactions, escrow transactions, multi-signature transactions, etc. The current features of the client only hint at what will be possible in the future.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
jackjack
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1233
May Bitcoin be touched by his Noodly Appendage
|
|
August 26, 2011, 02:47:10 PM |
|
No, never
|
Own address: 19QkqAza7BHFTuoz9N8UQkryP4E9jHo4N3 - Pywallet support: 1AQDfx22pKGgXnUZFL1e4UKos3QqvRzNh5 - Bitcointalk++ script support: 1Pxeccscj1ygseTdSV1qUqQCanp2B2NMM2 Pywallet: instructions. Encrypted wallet support, export/import keys/addresses, backup wallets, export/import CSV data from/into wallet, merge wallets, delete/import addresses and transactions, recover altcoins sent to bitcoin addresses, sign/verify messages and files with Bitcoin addresses, recover deleted wallets, etc.
|
|
|
the founder
|
|
August 26, 2011, 03:02:30 PM |
|
No, never
The Mt. Gox's hack was a double spend attack / create fake bitcoins / crap attack (though internally in their system)
|
Bitcoin RSS App / Bitcoin Android App / Bitcoin Webapp http://www.ounce.me Say thank you here: 1HByHZQ44LUCxxpnqtXDuJVmrSdrGK6Q2f
|
|
|
SomeoneWeird
|
|
August 26, 2011, 03:30:11 PM |
|
No, never
The Mt. Gox's hack was a double spend attack / create fake bitcoins / crap attack (though internally in their system) Wasn't a real double-spend attack.
|
|
|
|
elggawf
|
|
August 26, 2011, 03:36:27 PM |
|
Wasn't a real double-spend attack.
Wasn't really a double-spend attack at all - MtGox doesn't give discrete addresses or let the users control them in any way. MtGox was an internal accounting screw up that had zero effect on the security of the protocol as a whole.
|
^_^
|
|
|
Are-you-a-wizard?
Member
Offline
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
|
|
August 26, 2011, 04:26:53 PM |
|
If I could do it, my son, I would be retired from these forums by now, and in my yacht.
|
|
|
|
SomeoneWeird
|
|
August 26, 2011, 04:27:30 PM |
|
Wasn't a real double-spend attack.
Wasn't really a double-spend attack at all - MtGox doesn't give discrete addresses or let the users control them in any way. MtGox was an internal accounting screw up that had zero effect on the security of the protocol as a whole. Exactly, the 'hack' didn't even touch the network.
|
|
|
|
Steve
|
|
August 26, 2011, 06:02:23 PM |
|
I can't say as I've ever seen one...I'm certainly not aware of any (legitimate) reports of someone being robbed by a double spend. I suspect many people new to bitcoin have attempted a naive double spend attack however (where you open two instances on the same wallet and try to spend at the same time). I'm not sure if you would want to count that as a double spend attack since it's utterly ineffective if you wait for one confirmation or if you monitor the network for a few seconds after receiving the transaction.
|
|
|
|
Tasty Champa
Member
Offline
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
|
|
August 26, 2011, 06:22:21 PM |
|
dude what's the point??
it's old news, it doesn't work, don't be a crook.
|
|
|
|
elggawf
|
|
August 26, 2011, 07:17:27 PM |
|
dude what's the point??
it's old news, it doesn't work, don't be a crook. It would work if someone delivers the non-returnable goods after 0 or 1 confirmations. It gets harder as the amount of confirmations goes up (and even with the slump so far, the Bitcoin network is still powerful enough that it's non-trivial to even do with one confirmation). It's not that it doesn't work, it's that the payoff is probably not worth the amount of effort required to do it. No one moving a sizable amount of money is going to not wait for confirmations and the longer they choose to wait the harder the attack gets.
|
^_^
|
|
|
|