Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics

[Ente]

About the "Warning! this bitcoin address contains transactions which maybe double spends. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this address. ":

- ignorant of how p2pool works.
- pathetic.
- discriminating.
- unprofessional.

To sum it up, sod off, blockchain.info.

It happens quite often that I read a post, am annoyed by it, look to the left and see your profilename.
Please reduce your rudeness and generally calm down.

Ente

[pirateat40]

Wallet seems to be having issues.

[frankendoodle]

Mine as well, but I contacted their support team and they said that some changes were being made to the site and that it should be working properly again soon.

However I did almost have a panic attack when I checked my wallet and it showed my balance back at 0 and no transactions recorded aaaand I still can't send anything.

[mcorlett]

Out of curiosity, why shouldn't your address lookup APIs be used for payment processing?

[piuk]

Wallet seems to be having issues.

Apologies, should be ok now.

Out of curiosity, why shouldn't your address lookup APIs be used for payment processing?

Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.

[Ente]

Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.

Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?

Ente

[Rassah]

Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.

Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?

Ente

If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com, that's how they lost half their money, with thieves stealing small amounts using unconfirmed transactions. If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com.

[mcorlett]

Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.

Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?

Ente

If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com, that's how they lost half their money, with thieves stealing small amounts using unconfirmed transactions. If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com.

MyBitcoin didn't accept unconfirmed transactions - they accepted single-confirmation transactions.

[Rassah]

Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.

Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?

Ente

If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com, that's how they lost half their money, with thieves stealing small amounts using unconfirmed transactions. If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com.

MyBitcoin didn't accept unconfirmed transactions - they accepted single-confirmation transactions.

Would that mean that there were actual double spend transactions and possible 51% attacks, or the thieves got really lucky because some of their transactions were part of a chain fork split?
Or does that mean there is a higher probability that they lied? As I understand it, even with a single confirm, the chances of a double spend thanks to a block that later gets rejected, and doing this continuously, are near impossible.

[realnowhereman]

Because they include 0 confirmation transactions and in some rare circumstances unconfirmed double spends.

Uhm, where there any double-spend "attacks" already? Ever?
I guess it would only be a "two concurrent transactions are broadcasted", and wouldnt have anything to do with the blockchain at all?

Ente

If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com, that's how they lost half their money, with thieves stealing small amounts using unconfirmed transactions. If we are to believe Mybitcoin.com.

MyBitcoin didn't accept unconfirmed transactions - they accepted single-confirmation transactions.

Fair enough; but the only time that loses you money is if those single-confirm transactions are subsequently undone because of a double spend on a separate chain.  Surely that large quantity of double spends to steal so much from MyBitcoin would show up?

[mcorlett]

For context:

After careful analysis of the intrusion we have concluded that the software
that waited for Bitcoin confirmations was far too lenient. An unknown
attacker was able to forge Bitcoin deposits via the Shopping Cart Interface
(SCI) and withdraw confirmed/older Bitcoins. This led to a slow trickle of
theft that went unnoticed for a few days. Luckily, we do keep a percentage of
the holdings in cold storage so the attackers didn'tt completely clean us out.
Just to clarify, we weren't "fully" hacked aka "rooted". You can still trust
our PGP, SSL, and Tor public keys.

It appears to be human error combined with a misunderstanding of how Bitcoin
secures transactions into the next block. Our programmer was under the
assumption that one block was good enough to secure a transaction. Two years
ago when the software was written, this single confirm myth was a popular
belief.

In hindsight we should have credited deposits after one confirmation so they
would show up in the transaction history, and held the deposit until it reached
at least 3 confirmations. Keeping track of two balances and displaying them in
the login area would have been trivial.

Would that mean that there were actual double spend transactions and possible 51% attacks, or the thieves got really lucky because some of their transactions were part of a chain fork split?

It may. However, controlling 51% of the network only means that you can outrun the honest miners on a consistent basis. An attacker could've been constantly moving funds to and from MyBitcoin, hoping for a lucky break where he got lucky and scored a couple of fast rounds, and the network slower ones.

Or does that mean there is a higher probability that they lied?

This is what I think happened. There is no way they kept just 49% of their funds in cold storage. Even if you only moved funds to and from cold storage once per day, there probably still wasn't need for 51% of their funds to be active and ready to go.

[horgh]

Site is completely down now...

[piuk]

I'm on it.

[Inaba]

Well get off it and fix it!  Jeez... everyone knows sitting on a computer usually causes it to crash.

[pirateat40]

The wallet just doesn't seem to work anymore.

[Callius]

Anyone else seeing a spike on the unknown % making up the hash rate? looking at 53% atm with 67 blocks solved by 0.0.0.0 , is this just a default IP the site sets if it can't get one, an error, plain luck or something else?

[Inaba]

The entire blockchain is messed up on the site, if you go look at individual blocks, the coinbase is wrong, along with the inputs and transactions.

The hashes are right... something is crosslinked somewhere that shouldn't be.

[Jine]

The entire blockchain is messed up on the site, if you go look at individual blocks, the coinbase is wrong, along with the inputs and transactions.

The hashes are right... something is crosslinked somewhere that shouldn't be.

Could this be related:
This is NOT our block: https://blockchain.info/block-height/168357

We're using poolserverj with workmaker, so all our generated inputs go to the same address, and it's the address shown on:
http://blockexplorer.com/block/00000000000001d440e68701c7e82de8b095741bdb76936b07598a8a9d0a5c29

https://blockchain.info/blocks/Bitcoins.lc isn't even our URL afaik.
https://blockchain.info/blocks/Bitlc.net shows the correct blocks, but what and where does Bitcoins.lc comes from?

Whats going on? Is it possible to delete the bitcoins.lc-tag from that block, so our users don't get confused?

Note:
All our blocks contains "BitLC /P2SH/" in the coinbase, just fyi.

[piuk]

Yesterday there was a problem with the database, I thought I had fixed it by importing a backup from a few days ago. But it looks like the script indexes are out of sync with the transaction indexes. I'm not sure what to do, I think the only option is to reimport the entire blockchain - but then all previous orphaned block data and ip address data will be lost.

I'm so tired of this, I'm supposed to be taking a break from bitcoin development for a bit.

[Jine]

I know the feeling  I support you in either way, you're doing a great job.