Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Dusty]

The problem is that miner nodes are (much) more important than other nodes...

 

[Lee Adams]

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

I see why you were banned. It's '"You shall not bear segregated witness against your neighbour."

 

[Richy_T]

The problem is that miner nodes are (much) more important than other nodes...

Quite. I'm looking to see how Rocks' fork goes.

@rocks, is your branch safe against replay attacks on the legacy chain vs yours (and vice versa)?

 

[cypherdoc]

fascinating timing with tonite's futures in oil and stocks. note how the Dow futures may be stopping it's relentless advance just shy of the 11/4/15 high of 17906:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-17/oil-futures-plunge-38-handle-open

 

[cypherdoc]

 

[freetrader]

 

[Fatman3002]

Phew! We're saved!

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-01/helicopter-money-might-be-closer-than-you-think

 

[Norway]

@Fatman3002

I have painted an H on the rooftop just in case

 

[Dusty]

Don't bother doing it: if they'll follow this way their fiat money will be worthless much faster than people will able to understand...

 

[bluemoon]

@Fatman3002

Maybe time to get into the wheelbarrow business?
[doublepost=1460971010][/doublepost]

Graeber: “Say a king wishes to support a standing army of 50,000 men. Under ancient or medieval conditions, feeding such a force was an enormous problem… On the other hand, if one simply hands out coins to soldiers and then demands that every family in the kingdom was obliged to pay one of those coins back to you [to pay taxes], one would, in one blow, turn one’s entire national economy into a vast machine for the provisioning of soldiers, since now every family, in order to get their hands on the coins, must find some way to contribute to the general effort to provide soldiers with the things they want.”

If bitcoin ransomware becomes widespread, perhaps it will kickstart the bitcoin economy?

 

[freetrader]

Original apple core image by PictureButNotPerfect:
http://picturebutnotperfect.deviantart.com/art/Apple-Core-and-Worm-481108735

---

​

Fork, Alex Fork: https://news.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-trademark-russia/

 

[adamstgbit]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1441450.0

BOOM CENSORED!

 

[Dusty]

What thread was that?

 

[adamstgbit]

there was a thread about this http://bitcoinist.net/bitbet-falls-victim-to-strange-bitcoin-double-spend-behavior/
and then the mods deleted it for some reason...
which sucks i had just posted a nice comment.

not sure why they would delete this, it seems very much ontopic...

 

[Bagatell]

@Dusty

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:dUWYuVk3JF8J:https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1441450.0+https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1441450.0&hl=en&ct=clnk

 

[adamstgbit]

TL;DR;

bitbet sent out a TX for a payout but the fee was too small and it seemed to never confrim, so they send out another TX ( with different inputs ), that TX got confirmed, and eventually the one with very low fees also confirmed, so bitbet paid out twice

 

[Dusty]

The thread could also have been deleted by the author, who knows. Also, this is old news, if I recall correctly.

Anyway, I think it's really stupid from their part to do multiple tx using different inputs: this kind of behaviour is to be expected, malevolent or not.

EDIT: Definitely old news (1st of March): https://blockchain.info/en/tx/bf77bf5ec7c02f4027caab024d5581d82bdea97ab8d7d97aac856169c038dd31

 

[freetrader]

So how was that a double-spend if they used different inputs?

However, I can see how this whole issue of fees being problematic to estimate may cause companies more such troubles in a small-block future...

 

[Dusty]

New So how was that a double-spend if they used different inputs?

That's the point: a double spend is when you use the same inputs, so only one of the two (or more) txs can go in the blockchain, and that can burn you if you zero-trust the wrong one.
If I'm understanding correctly, in this case it's not really a double spend, but a double payment: they were expecting the first transaction to be lost, while instead not being so (and this is to be expected).

However, I can see how this whole issue of fees being problematic to estimate may cause companies more such troubles in a small-block future...

Yes. A small block with a sudden influx of new tx like it already happened is really a PITA.

 

[adamstgbit]

The thread could also have been deleted by the author, who knows. Also, this is old news, if I recall correctly.

Anyway, I think it's really stupid from their part to do multiple tx using different inputs: this kind of behaviour is to be expected, malevolent or not.

EDIT: Definitely old news (1st of March): https://blockchain.info/en/tx/bf77bf5ec7c02f4027caab024d5581d82bdea97ab8d7d97aac856169c038dd31

agreed, it's expected behaviour, as far as the network is concerned they did 2 TX one with a low fee and one with a high fee.
It just goes to show that bitcoin isn't idiot proof. and being unable to determine a fee size that will make it into a block while making sure you dont over pay, only makes it easier for users to make mistakes.

here their mistake was assuming that the low fee TX would never confrim and get dropped. it should have... the miner mempool SHOULD HAVE dropped this TX, but it was rebroadcast, by someone a week later.
[doublepost=1460993831,1460993227][/doublepost]maybe, common sense rules need to be applied to miners, like: TX with a timestamp of >72 hours are not valid candidates for block inclusion
[doublepost=1460994012][/doublepost]do TX even include a signed timestamp? wtv point is, this kind of fuck-up is easy to do and small blocks with high fees only make it easier.