[FUD] HALT ALL TRADING. VERY IMPORTANT INFO INSIDE (42)

[jongameson]

apparently time is a "delusion" cause we are not all operating on Atomic Time.  please fix!!

19VAb9zAhpWLaWfEuqw9HXup2zaNoNPPyE

[1713529452]

1713529452

[BTC-TK]

In before the shitstorm....

EDIT: Seems that you've broadcasted the spending transaction before you received the BTC.

[msc]

EDIT: Seems that you've broadcasted the spending transaction before you received the BTC.

I've seen that before, but usually for a shorter time span, I think.  But as long as it balances...

[7Priest7]

Perhaps blockchain.info's cataloging methods are simply imperfect.

It all balances out though, no double spends, no free btc.

Somebody with a working version of armory mind checking the address?

[yogi]

Looking at the timestamp the coins were recived before they were sent to another address. The order blockchain.info is showing thoses ttransacions is back-to-front.

[User705]

It's showing in the same block though. 

[theonewhowaskazu]

Looking at the timestamp the coins were recived before they were sent to another address. The order blockchain.info is showing thoses ttransacions is back-to-front.

Either way, something is wrong. If you read it from top-to-bottom, the 3rd tx from the top should have resulted in a negative balance. If you read it bottom-to-top, then the 2nd TX from the top should have resulted in a negative balance.

[Bobsurplus]

Looking at the timestamp the coins were recived before they were sent to another address. The order blockchain.info is showing thoses ttransacions is back-to-front.

Either way, something is wrong. If you read it from top-to-bottom, the 3rd tx from the top should have resulted in a negative balance. If you read it bottom-to-top, then the 2nd TX from the top should have resulted in a negative balance.

Just noticed this. How would this happen?

[whtchocla7e]

Wow, that's pretty catastrophic. What's next, 1+1 = 3?

[yogi]

Looking at the timestamp the coins were recived before they were sent to another address. The order blockchain.info is showing thoses ttransacions is back-to-front.

Either way, something is wrong. If you read it from top-to-bottom, the 3rd tx from the top should have resulted in a negative balance. If you read it bottom-to-top, then the 2nd TX from the top should have resulted in a negative balance.

Look at the time of the transactions, not the order blockchain.info is showing them in.

This is a problem with blockchain.info not bitcoin. So no need to worry.

[BTC-TK]

The 2nd transaction from the top was created and broadcast (at the time invalid) before the address received the balance, this is possible, stop spreading FUD.

[kolev]

http://blockr.io/address/info/19VAb9zAhpWLaWfEuqw9HXup2zaNoNPPyE shows something different.

[12648430]

Timestamps are informational and not depended upon by the protocol. The clock of the computer that broadcast the spend from that address is a little ahead of the clock of the computer that spent into it. The same thing happens with block timestamps; blocks are often timestamped before the blocks they are built on. It is of no consequence. Nice thread title, lol.

[theonewhowaskazu]

Looking at the timestamp the coins were recived before they were sent to another address. The order blockchain.info is showing thoses ttransacions is back-to-front.

Either way, something is wrong. If you read it from top-to-bottom, the 3rd tx from the top should have resulted in a negative balance. If you read it bottom-to-top, then the 2nd TX from the top should have resulted in a negative balance.

Look at the time of the transactions, not the order blockchain.info is showing them in.

This is a problem with blockchain.info not bitcoin. So no need to worry.

Yes, you're probably right, esp. because blockr.io is showing something different. Didn't notice the timestamps. However, just to dig a bit deeper, maybe there isn't something wrong with the protocol, but perhaps there is something wrong (or at least, unintuitive) with the client?

Blockchain.info probably runs some Bitcoind variant, right?
Maybe bitcoind listtransactions command is causing the transactions to get listed out of order?

[Phinnaeus Gage]

Looking at the timestamp the coins were recived before they were sent to another address. The order blockchain.info is showing thoses ttransacions is back-to-front.

Either way, something is wrong. If you read it from top-to-bottom, the 3rd tx from the top should have resulted in a negative balance. If you read it bottom-to-top, then the 2nd TX from the top should have resulted in a negative balance.

Look at the time of the transactions, not the order blockchain.info is showing them in.

This is a problem with blockchain.info not bitcoin. So no need to worry.

Unless you have tens of thousands in blockchain wallets?

I guess that explains why a handful of bitcoiners stated to me privately that they're no longer using blockchain.info wallets. This sucks, for I'm getting InstaWallet flashbacks of which, luckily, is in the process of being resolved... but not again!

[Analyticse]

some guys know prognose for future btc
if you know say for our studio guys bitcoin scene internacionals i am interest

[vervolioman]

Wow, that's pretty catastrophic. What's next, 1+1 = 3?

I doubt it is catastrophic, every user has bit different time on his computer, so unavoidable to happen. All you need to do is use different way to showing transactions, not based on time only but in what order these transaction can happen as well

[Sonny]

Wow, that's pretty catastrophic. What's next, 1+1 = 3?

I don't really get that.
The tx time is wrong, and the transactions are arranged according to the faulty timestamp.
What is catastrophic here?