Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics - page 153.

BkkCoins

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1009

firstbits:1MinerQ

Quote from: piuk on February 11, 2012, 07:30:22 PM

The majority of "hacked" coins (419 BTC) got sent to 1E3PdhC1ARtxkDmq8LmYQeXqXNp2pSfQu3 which hasn't been spent. However the small amount sent to 1CrDpobPFbLvNtB2hnBtThu9qHJ2hpbwPz has been spent. The odd thing is both transactions got relayed by the ip 81.169.165.107 - which is BTCServe's ip.

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.

Funny, when I saw the 1Cr... address it tweaked my memory and I thought it was the current BitLotto address but I was wrong - that's similar but different.

BkkCoins

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1009

firstbits:1MinerQ

Quote from: piuk on February 11, 2012, 03:00:16 PM

Added Dendrogram links on transaction pages. Useful for visualising how bitcoins moved to different addresses after being spent, more specifically for tracking stolen coins.

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.

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

I've just noticed something a little odd about that BTCServ transaction

The majority of "hacked" coins (419 BTC) got sent to 1E3PdhC1ARtxkDmq8LmYQeXqXNp2pSfQu3 which hasn't been spent. However the small amount sent to 1CrDpobPFbLvNtB2hnBtThu9qHJ2hpbwPz has been spent. The odd thing is both transactions got relayed by the ip 81.169.165.107 - which is BTCServe's ip.

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

Quote from: teste on February 11, 2012, 02:14:53 PM

Piuk,

On escrow transactions i would like to know if you could implement
something like:

1- I create a key
2- I create a group folder with 100 pre definied keys
3- I just can spend the btc of 1 if 60% of 2 agree with it.

Obs: could exist configs like:

1- people have 5 days to vote
2- the percentage of vote include or not the ones that didn't vote.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. A voting system with 100 different keys? Unfortunately it isn't feasible to do multi sig with more than 3 keys at the moment. You could spilt a key using http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamir's_Secret_Sharing but I don't know what you would do about the time limit.

------

Added Dendrogram links on transaction pages. Useful for visualising how bitcoins moved to different addresses after being spent, more specifically for tracking stolen coins.

Alliinvain theft: http://blockchain.info/tree/3433298

BTCServ hack: http://blockchain.info/tree/15066392 (Unspent)

Spread of payouts from P2Pool Block #165896 http://blockchain.info/tree/15296863

Click a node to load its children. Blue nodes mean the output is unspent and size of the circle represents the amount. It does not show yet when new coins entered the mix.

teste

sr. member

Activity: 312

Merit: 250

Piuk,

On escrow transactions i would like to know if you could implement
something like:

1- I create a key
2- I create a group folder with 100 pre definied keys
3- I just can spend the btc of 1 if 60% of 2 agree with it.

Obs: could exist configs like:

1- people have 5 days to vote
2- the percentage of vote include or not the ones that didn't vote.

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Inaba on February 10, 2012, 09:25:57 AM

I've added the string EclipseMC to the coinbase for blocks mined by EMC.

Great, I've added it.

Inaba

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

I've added the string EclipseMC to the coinbase for blocks mined by EMC.

finway

hero member

Activity: 714

Merit: 500

Quote from: piuk on February 10, 2012, 06:52:20 AM

Yes, somebody mining as part of P2Pool then if they find a valid block submit it as their own instead of sharing the reward.

If this can happen, then this is a serious bug.

terrytibbs

hero member

Activity: 560

Merit: 501

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: piuk on February 10, 2012, 06:52:20 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Are you suggesting a solo miner is putting some of his hash rate toward P2Pool and not submitting blocks, while continuing to submit his own valid non-P2Pool blocks?

Yes, somebody mining as part of P2Pool then if they find a valid block submit it as their own instead of sharing the reward.

That can't be done. They can withhold a block (as they can with any pool), but they can not submit it and receive the entire reward themselves.

This is correct. I believe there's even a small reward for submitting it.

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

Quote from: ?? on ??

Never-the-less, they are reported incorrectly. I was under the impression you were using the strange first txOut to identify P2Pool blocks. Perhaps if you only used that as an identifier for P2Pool blocks, it would be accurate?

I'm using both now, I'm not going to fully abandon the "First relayed" method just incase the something changes in how the blocks are formatted.

Quote

Are you suggesting a solo miner is putting some of his hash rate toward P2Pool and not submitting blocks, while continuing to submit his own valid non-P2Pool blocks?

Yes, somebody mining as part of P2Pool then if they find a valid block submit it as their own instead of sharing the reward.

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Maged on February 09, 2012, 10:15:03 PM

Dear God, this is awesome! It looks like a very strong majority of the transactions that hit you a second after the first one were ultimately rejected by the network.

Perhaps the tactic is to send out a large volume of double spends then every so often you'll get lucky and have both confirmed in a natural chain split (They have been occurring about once a day recently). This way you can get a one confirmation reversal without needing any hashing power. So which merchants accept payments after one confirmation?

Quote from: ?? on ??

166062, 165904, and 165552 (not P2Pool blocks) found their way into the list. Looks like there is a bug.

These were blocks relayed by an ip who was detected as part of P2Pool. Perhaps they left the network and decided to solo mine, or perhaps they are withholding their own winning blocks from the P2Pool network.

Maged

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1015

Quote from: piuk on February 09, 2012, 01:21:07 PM

Theres been a ton a double spends showing recently http://blockchain.info/double-spends. Are there any merchants accepting 0 confirmations transactions who might be being exploited?

Dear God, this is awesome! It looks like a very strong majority of the transactions that hit you a second after the first one were ultimately rejected by the network.

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

Quote from: ?? on ??

Don't all the P2Pool blocks say "Unable to decode input address" on your website? Aren't they the only blocks that say this? Is there any way you could use this to identify them?

Sorry if this is way off base, I'm kind of out of my league here. But I really want to see accurate reporting of P2Pool blocks!

Yes you are right. Any block from an unknown ip with the first txOut in its coinbase being strange will now be marked as P2Pool.

http://blockchain.info/blocks/P2Pool

or as json:

http://blockchain.info/blocks/P2Pool?format=json

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

Theres been a ton a double spends showing recently http://blockchain.info/double-spends. Are there any merchants accepting 0 confirmations transactions who might be being exploited?

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Andrew Vorobyov on February 09, 2012, 02:58:58 AM

Please take it back online - http://blockchain.info/charts/bitcoin-days-destroyed-min-month

Just calculating now.

Andrew Vorobyov

hero member

Activity: 558

Merit: 500

Please take it back online - http://blockchain.info/charts/bitcoin-days-destroyed-min-month

Inaba

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Ah good plan. I will make that happen.

piuk

hero member

Activity: 910

Merit: 1005

Quote from: Inaba on February 07, 2012, 01:30:10 PM

Some of EMCs found blocks are being attributed to Bitclockers. Is there a particular reason for that?

Could be a number of reasons, none that I have much control over. If you want your blocks to always be accurate insert an identifier in the coinbase (e.g. "EclipseMC") - Slush, BTC Guild, Eligius and a couple of others do this.

-----

There is now links to some new charts on address pages and in My Wallet. Some of interest:

Deepbit number of transactions per day: (up to 1/4 of all bitcoin transactions)
http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?timespan=60days&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=1&address=1VayNert3x1KzbpzMGt2qdqrAThiRovi8

Instawallet number of transactions per day:
http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?address=1CDysWzQ5Z4hMLhsj4AKAEFwrgXRC8DqRN

Strongcoin number of transactions per day:
http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?address=1STRonGxnFTeJiA7pgyneKknR29AwBM77

My Wallet number of transactions per day
http://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions?address=1A8JiWcwvpY7tAopUkSnGuEYHmzGYfZPiq

Wikileaks BTC Received per day:
http://blockchain.info/charts/received-per-day?address=1HB5XMLmzFVj8ALj6mfBsbifRoD4miY36v

Inaba

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1000

Some of EMCs found blocks are being attributed to Bitclockers. Is there a particular reason for that?

gnar1ta$

donator

Activity: 798

Merit: 500

I don't know if this will help but according to this post in the p2pool thread https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.722338

Quote

...you can expect the 1Kz5QaUPDtKrj5SqW5tFkn7WZh8LmQaQi4 address to be present in the "To" side of all coins generated by p2pool.

Topic: Blockchain.info - Bitcoin Block explorer & Currency Statistics - page 153. (Read 482395 times)