|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
tacotime
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
|
 |
February 05, 2015, 09:06:58 PM |
|
|
XMR: 44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns |
|
|
|
|
|
johoe
|
|
February 05, 2015, 10:06:49 PM |
|
In some sense Blockchain.info is right. Only one of the two transactions is spendable. To put it another way, there is only one transaction that just occurred in two blocks. |
Donations to 1CF62UFWXiKqFUmgQMUby9DpEW5LXjypU3
|
|
|
|
micaman
|
|
February 05, 2015, 11:45:48 PM |
|
In some sense Blockchain.info is right. Only one of the two transactions is spendable. To put it another way, there is only one transaction that just occurred in two blocks. So who did this just "ignored" 50 deserved coins by overwritting previous unspent ones? |
|
|
|
|
domob
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1135
Merit: 1161
|
|
February 06, 2015, 06:45:46 AM |
|
In some sense Blockchain.info is right. Only one of the two transactions is spendable. To put it another way, there is only one transaction that just occurred in two blocks. So who did this just "ignored" 50 deserved coins by overwritting previous unspent ones? Yes, exactly. That was presumably a bug in their mining setup (and not done intentionally). |
Use your Namecoin identity as OpenID: https://nameid.org/Donations: 1 domobKsPZ5cWk2kXssD8p8ES1qffGUCm | NMC: NC domobcmcmVdxC5yxMitojQ4tvAtv99pY BM-GtQnWM3vcdorfqpKXsmfHQ4rVYPG5pKS | GPG 0xA7330737 |
|
|
gmaxwell
Moderator
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 4158
Merit: 8382
|
|
February 06, 2015, 07:03:00 AM |
|
I don't trust blockchain.info as much as before.
BC.i frequently shows outright incorrect information. Some of it is because some of the data they show is "unphysical" e.g. it's some synthesis of data in the blockchain, and the actual operation of the system is not well matched to the model the site presents, so the corner cases produce weird results. E.g. there was (and still is? unsure) a bunch of "addresses" showing negative "balances". It's less surprising to see errors like that when you understand that there is nothing really like an "address balance" in the Bitcoin system itself. |
|
|
|
|
newIndia
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2198
Merit: 1049
|
|
February 06, 2015, 09:29:11 AM |
|
I don't trust blockchain.info as much as before.
BC.i frequently shows outright incorrect information. Some of it is because some of the data they show is "unphysical" e.g. it's some synthesis of data in the blockchain, and the actual operation of the system is not well matched to the model the site presents, so the corner cases produce weird results. E.g. there was (and still is? unsure) a bunch of "addresses" showing negative "balances". It's less surprising to see errors like that when you understand that there is nothing really like an "address balance" in the Bitcoin system itself. I see this statement time and again. What I understand that an address has its input & output transactions. So, by deducting output transaction balance from input transactions, what we get is address balance. True, it is a derived parameter, but it is there... is not it ? |
|
|
|
amaclin
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1019
|
|
February 06, 2015, 10:23:05 AM |
|
I see this statement time and again. What I understand that an address has its input & output transactions. Wrong. So, by deducting output transaction balance from input transactions, what we get is address balance. True, it is a derived parameter, but it is there... is not it ? There are no "addresses" in raw bitcoin protocol. There are "outputs" and "output scripts". The trivial example is escrow output: You sent some funds to an escrow script of Alice, Bob and Charley. Each two of them (2-of-3) can decide what to do with these funds. OK, but what is the balance of you, Alice, Bod and Charley after you sent your funds? Who is an owner? Sorry, I can not explain it in good English. |
|
|
|
|
piotr_n
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2053
Merit: 1354
aka tonikt
|
|
February 06, 2015, 06:02:38 PM |
|
it wasn't initially the case for coinbase transactions.
now in blocks version 2 they must be unique, but the transactions you're talking about are from blocks version 1.
back then it was still possible for two coinbase transactions to have the same id.
|
Check out gocoin - my original project of full bitcoin node & cold wallet written in Go.PGP fingerprint: AB9E A551 E262 A87A 13BB 9059 1BE7 B545 CDF3 FD0E
|
|
|
|
hhanh00
|
|
February 06, 2015, 07:24:27 PM |
|
I don't trust blockchain.info as much as before.
BC.i frequently shows outright incorrect information. Some of it is because some of the data they show is "unphysical" e.g. it's some synthesis of data in the blockchain, and the actual operation of the system is not well matched to the model the site presents, so the corner cases produce weird results. E.g. there was (and still is? unsure) a bunch of "addresses" showing negative "balances". It's less surprising to see errors like that when you understand that there is nothing really like an "address balance" in the Bitcoin system itself. I see this statement time and again. What I understand that an address has its input & output transactions. So, by deducting output transaction balance from input transactions, what we get is address balance. True, it is a derived parameter, but it is there... is not it ? True, but blockchain.info is notorious for doing the calculation poorly, i.e. including double spends, orphaned blocks, ignoring address versions, etc. |
|
|
|
|
jbrnt
|
|
February 07, 2015, 03:01:41 AM |
|
it wasn't initially the case for coinbase transactions.
now in blocks version 2 they must be unique, but the transactions you're talking about are from blocks version 1.
back then it was still possible for two coinbase transactions to have the same id.
The transaction in question is from 2010, that explains it. Found out version 2 was introduced in September 2012. Thanks for the insight. |
|
|
|
|
poblico (OP)
Member
Offline
Activity: 75
Merit: 10
|
|
February 07, 2015, 11:04:11 PM |
|
I came across this with a Blockchain sync tool I am working on so this data exists on the blockchain its not a blockchain.info bad data mapping.
I see that in the early versions of the protocol this was possible so make sense as its an old transaction.
Thanks for the reply and help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
