Notice that tx 0018417e23... and fae8bfd6a2... on that address ledger spend the exact same output. It looks like a double-spend, but it's actually a less severe bug in the protocol that probably doesn't allow for any easy attacks. (Because the bug causes very strange behavior, though, it might allow for attacks that have not been thought of yet.)
These transactions actually broke Bitcoin Block Explorer when they first appeared because there was a database constraint preventing double-spends from being inserted into the database. I "fixed" it by removing the constraint, but this causes BBE to display these transactions strangely. A lot of code would need to be changed, but I might fix it fully some day.
Topic: Bitcoin in danger!? Received <Sent!?! - page 2. (Read 4944 times)
No worries.
Don't panic.
roconnor has been experimenting with spending "duplicate coinbase transactions" on the testnet. Block explorer is confused, and isn't seeing the 50 bitcoins generated to that address in testnet block 45,442 (because the generation transaction has the same ID as the generation transaction in block 45,333).
Expect code changes before the 0.6 release is final to discourage and eventually prohibit accepting blocks with duplicate coinbase transactions; although we can't see a way to exploit this weirdness to cheat anybody (it is easy to cheat yourself out of bitcoins using duplicate coinbase transactions that cannot be spent), it's definitely not a good thing.
roconnor has been experimenting with spending "duplicate coinbase transactions" on the testnet. Block explorer is confused, and isn't seeing the 50 bitcoins generated to that address in testnet block 45,442 (because the generation transaction has the same ID as the generation transaction in block 45,333).
Expect code changes before the 0.6 release is final to discourage and eventually prohibit accepting blocks with duplicate coinbase transactions; although we can't see a way to exploit this weirdness to cheat anybody (it is easy to cheat yourself out of bitcoins using duplicate coinbase transactions that cannot be spent), it's definitely not a good thing.
bip -1
to compete with the banking system, bitcoin now supports overdrafts. any overdraft will cost you in fees enough to pad a new bonus system to overly compensate the bitcoin executives at the top.
seriously though ..., this is a problem somewhere, right? (but is isolated to whatever code blockexplorer is using for testnet only, right?)
to compete with the banking system, bitcoin now supports overdrafts. any overdraft will cost you in fees enough to pad a new bonus system to overly compensate the bitcoin executives at the top.
seriously though ..., this is a problem somewhere, right? (but is isolated to whatever code blockexplorer is using for testnet only, right?)
negative balance.. oh dear
Are they testing out a new BIP? This could be due to a bug in a BIP someone is trying to implement and why I am an advocate of an excessive level of testing on testnet before it ever makes it to the real bitcoind.
Bitcoin test-net
See http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/address/mtoKs9V381UAhUia3d7Vb9GNak8Qvmcsme
Received BTC: 152.7792
Sent BTC: 202.7792
50BTC sent to more than got it!?!?
50 BTC block reward. See http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/address/mtoKs9V381UAhUia3d7Vb9GNak8Qvmcsme
Received BTC: 152.7792
Sent BTC: 202.7792
50BTC sent to more than got it!?!?
What is the difference of the Bitcoin and Bitcoin TestNet? Technically, nothing! So it can happen in Bitcoin
lol 
before anyone misunderstands ... this is on testnet and not the bitcoin blockchain
Doesn't that mean you gave it to the miner?
Bitcoin test-net
See http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/address/mtoKs9V381UAhUia3d7Vb9GNak8Qvmcsme
Received BTC: 152.7792
Sent BTC: 202.7792
50BTC sent to more than got it!?!?
See http://blockexplorer.com/testnet/address/mtoKs9V381UAhUia3d7Vb9GNak8Qvmcsme
Received BTC: 152.7792
Sent BTC: 202.7792
50BTC sent to more than got it!?!?
Jump to: