At no point was there a double spend in the longest chain - page 2.

K1773R

legendary

Activity: 1792

Merit: 1008

/dev/null

Quote from: move_zig on March 13, 2013, 06:07:48 AM

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on March 13, 2013, 05:58:59 AM

There's no other name for it. That's the definition of a double spend.

I think a double spend, in theory, is when you send the same money to two people and neither is reversed. This should be impossible with bitcoin. What happened was a blockchain fork and one of the spends was reversed when the older fork became the "true" fork.

So I agree that this is not a double spend.

thats not possible (atleast not on the BTC chain)

Tirapon

hero member

Activity: 898

Merit: 1000

It was a double spend. All forms of double spending involve forking the blockchain.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Double-spending

mornaner

member

Activity: 65

Merit: 10

Quote from: move_zig on March 13, 2013, 06:07:48 AM

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on March 13, 2013, 05:58:59 AM

There's no other name for it. That's the definition of a double spend.

I think a double spend, in theory, is when you send the same money to two people and neither is reversed. This should be impossible with bitcoin. What happened was a blockchain fork and one of the spends was reversed when the older fork became the "true" fork.

So I agree that this is not a double spend.

Say I buy something from you and pay with BTC. The transaction gets six confirmations and then you send me the item I bought. Then, the transaction gets reversed because the fork and I get the BTC back. You lost the item and the Bitcoins and now I'm able to spend them again.

The transaction was reversed, but the merchant lost an item due to a network error, he didn't anything wrong. Call it as you want, but effectivelly it is a double spend.

move_zig

member

Activity: 60

Merit: 10

Quote from: Stephen Gornick on March 13, 2013, 05:58:59 AM

There's no other name for it. That's the definition of a double spend.

I think a double spend, in theory, is when you send the same money to two people and neither is reversed. This should be impossible with bitcoin. What happened was a blockchain fork and one of the spends was reversed when the older fork became the "true" fork.

So I agree that this is not a double spend.

Stephen Gornick

legendary

Activity: 2506

Merit: 1010

Quote from: lucif on March 13, 2013, 04:44:31 AM

no matter call you it double spend or not double spend.

I've no idea how that is anything but a double spend. A merchant received a payment. That payment got six confirmations from the latest release of the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind client that had sync. Then later that transaction reverted to 0 confirmations and will eventually disappear as if it had never been made.

The coins that OKPay thought it got have since been sent by the customer somewhere else.

Spend #1 of a coin: to address of OKPay's hosted (shared) EWallet
Spend #2 of same coin: to address under customer's control.

There's no other name for it. That's the definition of a double spend.

lucif

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Clown prophet

In any case it is a fuckup for the merchant - no matter call you it double spend or not double spend.

And this $10k fuckup is not caused by merchant, but by network - no matter call you it double spend or not double spend.

intel-core-i7

member

Activity: 86

Merit: 10

This is a short summary of a neighbour thread:

Quote from: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1619287

Whole thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/10k-double-spend-152363

"this wasn't a double spend - it was a single spend on two different blockchains - I'm not sure why everyone is so concerned about this - the spend only existed once in the longest chain, it just happened that the longest chain changed, and it changed after 6+ confirmations had already happened in a previous longest chain. The issue here was that the merchant ignored or did not know about the advice to not accept confirmed blocks from the currently longest chain (the 0. because the 0.7 chain was going to outgrow it and invalidate those transactions.

At no point was there a double spend in the longest chain, which is exactly how bitcoin is designed to work.

Will"

So stop the "double spend panic" ... Nothing near a 2-spend happened really.

Topic: At no point was there a double spend in the longest chain - page 2. (Read 2256 times)