What's going on with this address? (spending bitcoins that haven't arrived yet?)

[Lorenzo]

How is it possible for an address to have an initial transaction of -0.1 BTC before receiving 0.1 BTC?

https://blockchain.info/address/1E984zyYbNmeuumzEdqT8VSL8QGJi3byAD



It seems that both transactions were made seconds apart and were included in the same block.

What's going on here?

[sandykho47]

I think the order are wrong 
And the first & second transaction only have different 2 second

Or rather, blockchain.info have made small mistake

[opossum]

The address was not really able to spend any inputs prior to it receiving an input. If you look closely you will see that, according to blockchain.info it spent an input two seconds prior to it receiving the input that it spent. This was likely the result of the 1st received transaction being propagated by a node and then the spending transaction being propagated prior to the 1st transaction being fully propagated. Blockchain.info's node likely "saw" the 2nd transaction first

[Lorenzo]

The address was not really able to spend any inputs prior to it receiving an input. If you look closely you will see that, according to blockchain.info it spent an input two seconds prior to it receiving the input that it spent. This was likely the result of the 1st received transaction being propagated by a node and then the spending transaction being propagated prior to the 1st transaction being fully propagated. Blockchain.info's node likely "saw" the 2nd transaction first

Ah, sounds reasonable then. I guess whoever controlled that address decided to move the coins only a second or two after receiving them while the receiving transaction was still unconfirmed. That sending transaction reached Blockchain.info first before the recieving transaction was able to reach it.

I've found that transactions tend to be visible (albeit unconfirmed) almost instantaneously after being broadcast so whoever controlled that address must have been in quite a hurry.

[icem3lter]

I guess whoever controlled that address decided to move the coins only a second or two after receiving them while the receiving transaction was still unconfirmed.

With Bitcoin Core, you can create more transactions when your disconnected from internet. After you connect, all transactions are broadcasted at once

[Jamie_Boulder]

The address was not really able to spend any inputs prior to it receiving an input. If you look closely you will see that, according to blockchain.info it spent an input two seconds prior to it receiving the input that it spent. This was likely the result of the 1st received transaction being propagated by a node and then the spending transaction being propagated prior to the 1st transaction being fully propagated. Blockchain.info's node likely "saw" the 2nd transaction first

Good catch, this looks to be like the most reasonable explanation to me.

[SatshiFan]

Both transactions will probably confirm at the same time, so essentially they were simultaneous. And bitcoin supports transactions that build on each other so they have no problem to confirm. I can sign a transaction and "fund" it a few minutes later. They are both unconfirmed anyway until they can both confirm.

[scarsbergholden]

The address was not really able to spend any inputs prior to it receiving an input. If you look closely you will see that, according to blockchain.info it spent an input two seconds prior to it receiving the input that it spent. This was likely the result of the 1st received transaction being propagated by a node and then the spending transaction being propagated prior to the 1st transaction being fully propagated. Blockchain.info's node likely "saw" the 2nd transaction first

Ah, sounds reasonable then. I guess whoever controlled that address decided to move the coins only a second or two after receiving them while the receiving transaction was still unconfirmed. That sending transaction reached Blockchain.info first before the recieving transaction was able to reach it.

I've found that transactions tend to be visible (albeit unconfirmed) almost instantaneously after being broadcast so whoever controlled that address must have been in quite a hurry.

It is not uncommon for someone to receive a transaction and then instantly spend the same funds to another address(es). This could potentially make it more difficult to trace the origin of particular inputs as additional inputs (from other addresses) are often added to the transaction and the output amounts will not match either of the input amounts. Sometimes this is also done in order to expedite the confirmation of a transaction as someone could potentially send a 2nd TX with a larger TX fee on the 2nd transaction and if the miner wants to claim the 2nd TX fee, they will need to confirm both transactions, this is a way that the receiving party can effectively pay the TX fee.

[snarlpill]

My thoughts on it being spent immediately: it could be a BTC payment received for an order on a unique generated payment address, and then immediately "forwarded" to the owner's wallet- such as with blockchain.info's Receiving Payments API.

[Argwai96]

Both transactions will probably confirm at the same time, so essentially they were simultaneous. And bitcoin supports transactions that build on each other so they have no problem to confirm. I can sign a transaction and "fund" it a few minutes later. They are both unconfirmed anyway until they can both confirm.

Both did confirm at the same time so for blockchain purposes both did happen at the same time. Blockchain.info also attempts to keep track of the time the network first "saw" the transaction and in this case they clearly made a mistake