|
Beta-coiner1
|
 |
March 12, 2013, 10:43:35 PM |
|
Are you suggesting Bitcoin will be defeated by an older version of the code? Oh wait...!
Or Litecoin is the new Dragonborn.....every price dip is an arrow to the knee |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are several different types of Bitcoin clients. The most secure are full nodes like Bitcoin Core, which will follow the rules of the network no matter what miners do. Even if every miner decided to create 1000 bitcoins per block, full nodes would stick to the rules and reject those blocks.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
tpantlik
|
|
March 12, 2013, 11:16:21 PM |
|
You probably would've laughed even more if someone told you that some dude managed to double-spend BTC 211. I believe that was exploit played against OKPay's confirmation policy, not a doublespend on the blockchain. You're wrong. Did you actually read the damn post? All time UTC+08:00:
08:08 – Well before I knew what later have happened, I deposited $10000-worth Bitcoins to BTC-e over OKPAY's Bitcoin payment, I paid OKPAY address 12z2n8YCJw1BEsJhhQPLCTuLqwH341nKnE 211.9093 BTC and 0.0005 BTC as transaction fee.
09:30 – The transaction was included in version 0.8's fork, block 225446
10:08 – Deposit completed, $9800 credited to my BTC-e account
12:53 – After some study, I recognized, the transaction, though included in version 0.8's fork, was never confirmed by the pre-0.8 fork, so I decided to make two double spend transactions on two of the vins of the OKPAY transaction, and broadcasted them with the raw transaction API, 0.001 BTC transaction fee included in each transaction.
13:01 – The double spend transaction was included in pre-0.8 fork block 225446 this is more interesting - http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=5F4490C7-8846-4AA7-AF9B-9A02DDEC6245%40ceptacle.com&forum_name=bitcoin-development Looks like BDB strikes back. |
Gods sent us a powerful tool - cryptography - to fight with those who are trying to exploit us. USE IT!!
|
|
|
|
laughingbear
|
|
March 12, 2013, 11:18:42 PM |
|
You probably would've laughed even more if someone told you that some dude managed to double-spend BTC 211. I believe that was exploit played against OKPay's confirmation policy, not a doublespend on the blockchain. You're wrong. Did you actually read the damn post? All time UTC+08:00:
08:08 – Well before I knew what later have happened, I deposited $10000-worth Bitcoins to BTC-e over OKPAY's Bitcoin payment, I paid OKPAY address 12z2n8YCJw1BEsJhhQPLCTuLqwH341nKnE 211.9093 BTC and 0.0005 BTC as transaction fee.
09:30 – The transaction was included in version 0.8's fork, block 225446
10:08 – Deposit completed, $9800 credited to my BTC-e account
12:53 – After some study, I recognized, the transaction, though included in version 0.8's fork, was never confirmed by the pre-0.8 fork, so I decided to make two double spend transactions on two of the vins of the OKPAY transaction, and broadcasted them with the raw transaction API, 0.001 BTC transaction fee included in each transaction.
13:01 – The double spend transaction was included in pre-0.8 fork block 225446 Looks like BDB strikes back. this is more interesting - http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=5F4490C7-8846-4AA7-AF9B-9A02DDEC6245%40ceptacle.com&forum_name=bitcoin-developmentO shit... time for mtgox to lag out |
|
|
|
|
|
nimda
|
|
March 12, 2013, 11:43:06 PM |
|
These candlewicks lately...  |
|
|
|
|
|
redbeans2012
|
|
March 13, 2013, 12:00:21 AM |
|
You probably would've laughed even more if someone told you that some dude managed to double-spend BTC 211. I believe that was exploit played against OKPay's confirmation policy, not a doublespend on the blockchain. You're wrong. Did you actually read the damn post? All time UTC+08:00:
08:08 – Well before I knew what later have happened, I deposited $10000-worth Bitcoins to BTC-e over OKPAY's Bitcoin payment, I paid OKPAY address 12z2n8YCJw1BEsJhhQPLCTuLqwH341nKnE 211.9093 BTC and 0.0005 BTC as transaction fee.
09:30 – The transaction was included in version 0.8's fork, block 225446
10:08 – Deposit completed, $9800 credited to my BTC-e account
12:53 – After some study, I recognized, the transaction, though included in version 0.8's fork, was never confirmed by the pre-0.8 fork, so I decided to make two double spend transactions on two of the vins of the OKPAY transaction, and broadcasted them with the raw transaction API, 0.001 BTC transaction fee included in each transaction.
13:01 – The double spend transaction was included in pre-0.8 fork block 225446 this is more interesting - http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?thread_name=5F4490C7-8846-4AA7-AF9B-9A02DDEC6245%40ceptacle.com&forum_name=bitcoin-development Looks like BDB strikes back. Trying to understand that stuff. Can you explain it to me like I am 5. What is BDB anyways. |
|
|
|
|
|
bzzard
|
|
March 13, 2013, 12:03:13 AM |
|
I take it you didn't watch the whole movie....
don't bear me bro! |
|
|
|
Spaceman_Spiff
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001
₪``Campaign Manager´´₪
|
|
March 13, 2013, 12:03:48 AM |
|
Trying to understand that stuff. Can you explain it to me like I am 5. What is BDB anyways.
I know BDB stands for Berkeley Database, but that's all I have got. I 'ld like a TL;DR version too  . |
|
|
|
|
arklan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1778
Merit: 1008
|
|
March 13, 2013, 12:14:31 AM |
|
Trying to understand that stuff. Can you explain it to me like I am 5. What is BDB anyways.
I know BDB stands for Berkeley Database, but that's all I have got. I 'ld like a TL;DR version too . my BASIC understanding is that in .7 and before, BDB was the database system used for ...well, the blockchain, which of course is a database of transactions. this was changed so that in .8 and up, something called LevelDB handles the blockchain. in some way beyond my full understanding, a large block under .8 was made with a large number of input transactions (this being the important factor, apparently, rather then the block size itself) and was rejected by the .7 nodes. this lead to a blockchain fork, which has now been corrected by having miners revert to .7. i think. |
i don't post much, but this space for rent.
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
March 13, 2013, 01:04:04 AM |
|
And it seems that by putting the soft limit back to 250kb, we will have have more unconfirmed transactions and this will cause the mem-pool to get overly big (if we keep seeing an increase in transactions), so there is some haste needed to solve the mem-pool issue it seems. That's what advocates of a fixed block size don't acknowledge. If the demand for transactions exceeds what the block space the miners are allowed to supply the excess gets left behind. Even if this causes users to pay higher fees, the increase in transaction fees does not reduce the number of transactions get left behind - it only alters which ones get left behind. |
|
|
|
|
|
laughingbear
|
|
March 13, 2013, 01:54:10 AM |
|
who else is waiting on this slow ass sell wall to go away, before you buy?
|
|
|
|
|
|
mccorvic
|
|
March 13, 2013, 02:13:02 AM |
|
who else is waiting on this slow ass sell wall to go away, before you buy?
I'll will be purchasing my normal weekly amount. |
|
|
|
thezerg
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1246
Merit: 1010
|
|
March 13, 2013, 02:27:42 AM |
|
I already bought some (admittedly not much) but I haven't bought since around 10..
|
|
|
|
|
|
mccorvic
|
|
March 13, 2013, 02:48:18 AM |
|
Also litecoin at 75 cents, people are starting to understand why we use bitcoin as our testnet:)
Notice how LTC went down last night as BTC went down, then up as BTC went up. That's because LTC is only good to buy BTC. I mean, I did help pump the market today and made 10BTC doing it, so thanks LTC. I mean, you're markets so small that I could even manipulate it! |
|
|
|
elux
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1458
Merit: 1006
|
|
March 13, 2013, 02:55:45 AM |
|
I have not bought with fiat since 3.5. However I have traded stuff for BTC since then.
Did you forget the part where you ran a feeder fund (several?) for Bitcoin Savings and Trust, and spent the better part of a year marketing, helping Pirateat40 pull off the biggest scam in Bitcoin to date?
Also litecoin at 75 cents, people are starting to understand why we use bitcoin as our testnet:)
Welcome back. |
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 13, 2013, 03:03:13 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mccorvic
|
|
March 13, 2013, 03:04:08 AM |
|
I have not bought with fiat since 3.5. However I have traded stuff for BTC since then.
Did you forget the part where you ran a feeder fund (several?) for Bitcoin Savings and Trust, and spent the better part of a year marketing, helping Pirateat40 pull off the biggest scam in Bitcoin to date?
Also litecoin at 75 cents, people are starting to understand why we use bitcoin as our testnet:)
Welcome back. LTC: The official stamp of approval from Pirateat40 resellers everywhere! |
|
|
|
|
|
notme
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 13, 2013, 03:23:15 AM |
|
I haven't forgot, I just have no interest in lending btc and being repaid based on dollar value. |
|
|
|
|
oakpacific
|
|
March 13, 2013, 03:27:43 AM |
|
Also litecoin at 75 cents, people are starting to understand why we use bitcoin as our testnet:)
Notice how LTC went down last night as BTC went down, then up as BTC went up. That's because LTC is only good to buy BTC. I mean, I did help pump the market today and made 10BTC doing it, so thanks LTC. I mean, you're markets so small that I could even manipulate it! Not to say their network is far far away from facing problems that Bitcoin network has to face, and yeah, they could keep copying everything that bitcoin developers implemented, and giving back no appreciation but taunts. |
|
|
|
BitcoinTate
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 224
Merit: 100
DigiByte Founder
|
|
March 13, 2013, 03:28:37 AM |
|
who else is waiting on this slow ass sell wall to go away, before you buy?
Got $1000 I am ready to dump when it disappears. |
- aka The "DigiMan"
|
|
|
|
