Everyone paid out
http://fr.anco.is/2016/bitbet-proposed-settlement-transaction
https://blockchain.info/tx/a0f12a33413ec3a38e3ae931068febec133b083d72810fc586a8b1c5f0d7922a
Topic: [2016-03-02] BitBet Falls Victim To Strange Bitcoin Double-Spend Behavior (Read 1257 times)
April 20, 2016, 02:14:08 PM
April 16, 2016, 03:15:18 PM
Mircea has paid up. Settlement is expected Wednesday: http://fr.anco.is/2016/bitbet-proposed-settlement-transaction
April 08, 2016, 12:58:23 PM
Auction is over and the winning bid was 86 BTC (a surprisingly large sum for for the assets imho) bringing total Bitcoin under Davout's control to ~841. Popescu owes about another 200 BTC, which he said he would disperse some time next week after analysing the records. Assuming he does, then bettors should be reimbursed in full by Davout.
April 04, 2016, 02:49:40 PM
April 01, 2016, 09:57:04 AM
Update on proceedings: the auction for the code and domain is taking place here. As the highest bid is currently 9 BTC, and David Francois (forum user davout) is charging 13.37 BTC as receiver, there is currently another 4.37 BTC deficit for creditors.
*URL http://fr.anco.is/2016/bitbet-receivership-first-progress-report/ (yours got clipped).
In other news, MP abandons #bitcoin-assets
April 01, 2016, 05:14:36 AM
Update on proceedings: the auction for the code and domain is taking place here. As the highest bid is currently 9 BTC, and David Francois (forum user davout) is charging 13.37 BTC as receiver, there is currently another 4.37 BTC deficit for creditors.
March 23, 2016, 01:04:57 PM
Yes, looks positive. Once the fee is taken off, and losses are accounted for, winning bettors should receive the majority of their funds back.
March 23, 2016, 09:21:27 AM
BitBet receiver hired
http://qntra.net/2016/03/bitbet-receiver-hired/
The receiver, David Francois, is in receipt of 750.5 BTC
https://blockchain.info/address/1DavouTAsveznCFHsz688xvbrRAq4u2qm8
From his application, here is what he intends to do:
The actual implementation of the liquidation would consist of the following steps, as per Mircea Popescu’s description:
construction of the list of existing claims,
certification or rejection of each individual claim,
open sale of the disposable assets (either as a package, or separately),
payment of the liabilities on a best-effort basis, ordered by priority (certified bills, bet winnings & refunds, shareholders)
http://qntra.net/2016/03/bitbet-receiver-hired/
The receiver, David Francois, is in receipt of 750.5 BTC
https://blockchain.info/address/1DavouTAsveznCFHsz688xvbrRAq4u2qm8
From his application, here is what he intends to do:
The actual implementation of the liquidation would consist of the following steps, as per Mircea Popescu’s description:
construction of the list of existing claims,
certification or rejection of each individual claim,
open sale of the disposable assets (either as a package, or separately),
payment of the liabilities on a best-effort basis, ordered by priority (certified bills, bet winnings & refunds, shareholders)
March 17, 2016, 01:54:46 AM
What are your thoughts on this mysterious re-broadcasting of a week-old transaction? Who could be behind this type of attack?
Double-spending in the Bitcoin world is becoming a very rare occurrence, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible to pull off this type of attack. BitBet, an online gambling platform, fell victim to such an attack earlier today as a result of several of their transactions not being included in the Bitcoin Node mempool. This entire situation is sparking a lot of debate and conspiracy theories as to why one particular transaction was broadcasted twice on the network, although it is rather a stretch to claim malicious intent at this stage.
http://bitcoinist.net/bitbet-falls-victim-to-strange-bitcoin-double-spend-behavior/
Double-spending in the Bitcoin world is becoming a very rare occurrence, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible to pull off this type of attack. BitBet, an online gambling platform, fell victim to such an attack earlier today as a result of several of their transactions not being included in the Bitcoin Node mempool. This entire situation is sparking a lot of debate and conspiracy theories as to why one particular transaction was broadcasted twice on the network, although it is rather a stretch to claim malicious intent at this stage.
http://bitcoinist.net/bitbet-falls-victim-to-strange-bitcoin-double-spend-behavior/
There is no attack. There is no Chinese cabal. They sent a transaction with 0 fees - what did they think was going to happen?
In further news, looks like they've now gone in to receivership over the matter.
March 03, 2016, 02:23:50 PM
...
Seriously, screw whoever is perpetuating this obvious shilling.
Seriously, screw whoever is perpetuating this obvious shilling.
Mircea Popescu, a notable Bitcoin enthusiast & small-block advocate. Not sure what he's shilling this time tho, explain?
The only thing notable about that guy is he runs a Bitcoin exchange, and at times, posts things that are way beyond loony. Lets just say he's in love with his own "genius".
March 02, 2016, 09:09:42 AM
...
Seriously, screw whoever is perpetuating this obvious shilling.
Seriously, screw whoever is perpetuating this obvious shilling.
Mircea Popescu, a notable Bitcoin enthusiast & small-block advocate. Not sure what he's shilling this time tho, explain?
March 02, 2016, 08:43:42 AM
Yet another goddamned example of someone complaining about the Bitcoin network, when THEY are at fault, not Bitcoin.
See the problem? Oh right, NO FEE USED.
So there wasn't a DOUBLE SPEND, because if your transaction doesn't CONFIRM, then you haven't SPENT YOUR FUCKING BITCOINS properly. Any subsequent transaction depends on the inputs from the prior transaction being confirmed, and when this isn't the case, THAT transaction will be delayed too until the earliest one is done. (And until it does, or if it just goes into limbo - the coins are still in your balance.)
But again, we have people taking Bitcoin terminology and applying it in such a way as to cast doubt on the ENTIRE network.
Seriously, screw whoever is perpetuating this obvious shilling.
Quote
In this particular event, the company sent out a Bitcoin transaction with no fee attached, which is not a good way to ensure the information is picked up by Bitcoin Nodes and put into the mempool queue.
See the problem? Oh right, NO FEE USED.
So there wasn't a DOUBLE SPEND, because if your transaction doesn't CONFIRM, then you haven't SPENT YOUR FUCKING BITCOINS properly. Any subsequent transaction depends on the inputs from the prior transaction being confirmed, and when this isn't the case, THAT transaction will be delayed too until the earliest one is done. (And until it does, or if it just goes into limbo - the coins are still in your balance.)
But again, we have people taking Bitcoin terminology and applying it in such a way as to cast doubt on the ENTIRE network.
Seriously, screw whoever is perpetuating this obvious shilling.
March 02, 2016, 03:41:51 AM
What are your thoughts on this mysterious re-broadcasting of a week-old transaction? Who could be behind this type of attack?
Double-spending in the Bitcoin world is becoming a very rare occurrence, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible to pull off this type of attack. BitBet, an online gambling platform, fell victim to such an attack earlier today as a result of several of their transactions not being included in the Bitcoin Node mempool. This entire situation is sparking a lot of debate and conspiracy theories as to why one particular transaction was broadcasted twice on the network, although it is rather a stretch to claim malicious intent at this stage.
http://bitcoinist.net/bitbet-falls-victim-to-strange-bitcoin-double-spend-behavior/
Double-spending in the Bitcoin world is becoming a very rare occurrence, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible to pull off this type of attack. BitBet, an online gambling platform, fell victim to such an attack earlier today as a result of several of their transactions not being included in the Bitcoin Node mempool. This entire situation is sparking a lot of debate and conspiracy theories as to why one particular transaction was broadcasted twice on the network, although it is rather a stretch to claim malicious intent at this stage.
http://bitcoinist.net/bitbet-falls-victim-to-strange-bitcoin-double-spend-behavior/
Jump to: