Topic: Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics - page 151. (Read 482395 times)
February 22, 2012, 09:30:24 PM
Wallet seems to be having issues.
February 22, 2012, 06:39:27 AM
About the "Warning! this bitcoin address contains transactions which maybe double spends. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this address. ":
- ignorant of how p2pool works.
- pathetic.
- discriminating.
- unprofessional.
To sum it up, sod off, blockchain.info.
- ignorant of how p2pool works.
- pathetic.
- discriminating.
- unprofessional.
To sum it up, sod off, blockchain.info.
It happens quite often that I read a post, am annoyed by it, look to the left and see your profilename.
Please reduce your rudeness and generally calm down.
Ente
February 22, 2012, 06:02:51 AM
Can someone point me to an address where this bug is occurring please.
February 22, 2012, 05:52:23 AM
About the "Warning! this bitcoin address contains transactions which maybe double spends. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this address. ":
- ignorant of how p2pool works.
- pathetic.
- discriminating.
- unprofessional.
To sum it up, sod off, blockchain.info.
- ignorant of how p2pool works.
- pathetic.
- discriminating.
- unprofessional.
To sum it up, sod off, blockchain.info.
It's obviously a bug; do calm down.
February 21, 2012, 09:19:52 PM
About the "Warning! this bitcoin address contains transactions which maybe double spends. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this address. ":
- ignorant of how p2pool works.
- pathetic.
- discriminating.
- unprofessional.
To sum it up, sod off, blockchain.info.
- ignorant of how p2pool works.
- pathetic.
- discriminating.
- unprofessional.
To sum it up, sod off, blockchain.info.
February 21, 2012, 02:41:24 PM
Same shit here, WTF?
February 21, 2012, 02:36:40 PM
I still see "Warning! this bitcoin address contains transactions which maybe double spends. You should be extremely careful when trusting any transactions to/from this address." on my p2pool payout address. I only received payments from p2pool there, from nowhere else, and didnt transfer funds away yet.
Ente
Ente
February 21, 2012, 11:37:35 AM
Site will be up and down for the next few hours. Making some schema changes.
February 20, 2012, 03:51:59 PM
Can you add a graph that show the most active countries by transactions? ( on days/months/... )
Are you asking for charts of this data?
- http://blockchain.info/nodes-globe
As far as transactions though? Bitcoin, as a peer-to-peer network doesn't reveal the ip address or geographic info. To explain this, do a transaction yourself, and then look at what blockchain.info shows as the "Relayed by ip" -- chances are it is not yours nor a node in the same geographic area as you.
February 20, 2012, 09:35:49 AM
Can you add a graph that show the most active countries by transactions? ( on days/months/... )
February 17, 2012, 05:33:12 PM
This looks pretty nifty. I noticed on that BTCServ hack that the small part gets spent twice to merge into a 40 BTC address. It would be useful to know what addresses payments get combined with as that may give clues about wallet (like a "back-link" on an address). I have no idea how it could be fit in a diagram because it would get "hairy" fast.
My hypothesis is that the coins change hands at the 40 BTC merge as the ip addresses switch from Germany to U.S. Maybe you could hover over a node to show any new inputs. Also the "Purity" of the coins (i.e. how much they have been mixed with the other transactions) could be represented by the thickness of the line.
So, that means the hacker either is close topologically by default or has added manually BTCServ IP as a peer? If the hacker is manually relaying thru BTCServ that's a bit like rubbing salt in a wound! Or another interpretation is that it's still controlled by BTCServ, though obviously not provably.
Or maybe the attacker sent some change back to BTCServe for some reason. I guess no matter how good future tools like this get it will still be almost impossible to prove anything.
The 0.63 transaction was a legit withdrawal. I think its displayed because it was happend at the same block count. Also the 419 transaction has been relayed by an US ip, apparently Tor Network. The 0.63 transaction did go out from btcserv.net ip
February 16, 2012, 01:21:57 PM
piuk: do you need Chinese localization service? i'll do it for free. 
February 16, 2012, 01:19:51 PM
I see. But that leaves me in the dark about the cause!
I wasn't checking whether the outpoint of an input was null, so all newly generated coins were showing as double spends. It was a problem with the site, nothing to do with spinner. The bug was only active for a minute or two, before Rassah reported it.
Down again?
Looks like tomcat may have stalled for a bit, a rogue spider is causing heavy load.
February 16, 2012, 12:58:39 PM
Down again?
February 16, 2012, 12:15:46 PM
I see. But that leaves me in the dark about the cause! Was it because of using spinner as your P2Pool wallet?
Edit: I'm just curious because at some point I will probably use spinner as my P2Pool address.
Edit: I'm just curious because at some point I will probably use spinner as my P2Pool address.
No, I was mining to bitcoind to my own address
February 16, 2012, 11:52:55 AM
That's strange, mine aren't. Are you still using spinner as your P2Pool wallet? I wonder if that has anything to do with it?
Two minutes after I posted that I got an email reply that he fixed it
February 16, 2012, 11:31:56 AM
There have been an increasing number of double spends recently. I'm worried this could be an attempt to exploit blockchain.info's liberal display of transactions. Any address page or transaction will now have a warning attached when a double spend is detected:
https://blockchain.info/tx/591b3e1d38e928d35bfef19751da0377b16646ba8af482422d6a0983598da0b9
q/getreceivedbyaddress may include unconfirmed double spends in some circumstances. You should use this to process payments, or at the very least cross check with blockexplorer as well.
https://blockchain.info/tx/591b3e1d38e928d35bfef19751da0377b16646ba8af482422d6a0983598da0b9
q/getreceivedbyaddress may include unconfirmed double spends in some circumstances. You should use this to process payments, or at the very least cross check with blockexplorer as well.
Every one of my mined P2Pool transactions is marked as a possible Double Spend. I sent an email about that to the person on the contact page. If that's a bug, then the increase in double spends may just be due to increasing popularity of P2Pool.
February 16, 2012, 10:59:04 AM
I assume you aren't planning to backload more accurate timestamps (e.g. the time from the block header) and that I should work around this myself?
Sorry no, I don't have any automated way to fix this. You could work around it by fetching the block and getting the correct timestamp.
I suppose that is slightly better. It's still one factor authentication though.
The email has to come from the email address registered with the account and the Secret phrase can be as long/random as you want it to be.
I'm open to suggestions for better ways to verify the true owner of an account, but this is an anonymous service so asking for any real life identification is out of the question.
-----
There have been an increasing number of double spends recently. I'm worried this could be an attempt to exploit blockchain.info's liberal display of transactions. Any address page or transaction will now have a warning attached when a double spend is detected:
https://blockchain.info/tx/591b3e1d38e928d35bfef19751da0377b16646ba8af482422d6a0983598da0b9
q/getreceivedbyaddress may include unconfirmed double spends in some circumstances. You should not use this to process payments, or at the very least cross check with blockexplorer as well.
February 16, 2012, 04:18:03 AM
Let's remember that it is there to prevent someone who has your password gaining access. But if they have the password you'll disable two factor anyway.
The secret phrase is not the same thing as the password. It is a separate phrase that you can optionally set under Account Details.
I suppose that is slightly better. It's still one factor authentication though.
February 15, 2012, 03:02:14 PM
He just said pool stats would be messed up for a little while.
Thank you. I was kind of worried.
Jump to: