Topic: Double Spend? Or What happen? (Read 1569 times)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

When you do not add fees, sometimes it takes time for the nodes to relay the transactions.

Bitcoin itself is a gambling. Someone wanted to stamp himself as a "first segwit address owner on mainnet"
For more information:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5f34rl/convert_normal_1_address_to_new_segwit_address/

LOL.

I'm wondering why people do these experiments with 2500 $ worth of bitcoin on mainnet, even though it is likely that they just lose the bitcoins.

Perfect!

1) I doubt bc.i ever knows about segwit today. they can not support op_return output scripts for years.
supporting segwit is much more difficult for bc.i and other block-explorers.
2) I didn't include signatures because I do not have the private keys for these addresses

It's a standard SegWit P2WPKH over P2SH transaction.  However, I guess amaclin didn't include any signatures (witness), when pushing it to Blockchain.info.  So this transaction will never be confirmed by segwit-enabled miners.

Since SegWit isn't activated yet, it should be possible to include it in a block or even double spend it.  Are there any pools that accept non-standard transactions and that don't support segwit?  Looks like amaclin is betting 3.37 Bitcoin that nobody can easily double-spend them.

Here is a related thread and check the trust ratings  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-magic-doubler-segwit-beta-test-1710442

I don't know why no one has said this clear yet:
blockchain.info shows these transactions as "non-standard" because they have been send from or to a multisignature bitcoin address (addresses starting with 3) there is nothing not-normal here.
the signature in these transactions are unlike other transactions maybe that is why it says "non-standard"!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.15924033

Sometimes these questions are helpful for others - willing and able - to find the answer on their own. To say it with a Goethe quote they recently posted themselves (IIRC).


You could say its a way of answering questions that is no longer common.

no

I am not asking questions here and now.

You are an alt of the OP, yes?

edit: I am not sure why you ask these types of questions -- you already know the answer

Have a deep look to the transaction inputs.
Don't you see there any scripts already discussed here?

i always get the "none standard input" from kraken withdrawal
im not sure if its normal, but its always got confirmed

No. It isn't.

It's a non-standard transaction.


Most miners and block explorers recognize that it is a non-standard transaction.  Therefore they reject it.  Blockchain.info has a rather buggy implementation so they tend to be fooled occasionally into displaying transactions or blocks that are non-standard or invalid.  This is one of those times.


If there are any miners (or mining pools) out there that are intentionally including non-standard transactions in their blocks, then this transaction could eventually be confirmed, but it is very unlikely.  This nonstandard transaction was created by a hacker intentionally for the purposes of sending transactions that will probably never confirm. This is why it is important NOT to exchange any product or service until a transaction is confirmed unless you have a trust relationship with the sender.


It is impossible to say for certain if or when it will confirm, but since it is non-standard, there's a good chance that it might not ever confirm.


This particular one is designed to allow senders to receive a non-standard transaction back that will never confirm. Then they can send bitcoins from that unconfirmed transaction to someone else and hope that the recipient is foolish enough to send a product or service in exchange for the unconfirmed bitcoins.


Exactly.  Like I said, it's a non-standard transaction.  Most nodes will reject it.  Blockchain.info appears to not notice that it is non-standard.


Not new, but yes, it is an exploit that takes advantage of the fact that valid, but non-standard, transactions are displayed by blockchain.info and hopes that there aren't any miners confirming non-standard transactions.


Then either the person that sent you the payment is trying to steal from you, or someone else already stole from them and they are trying to pass on the loss to you.

If they didn't to this to you intentionally (and they are the victim) then the person that sent the transaction to you needs to be informed that they should never spend unconfirmed bitcoins.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/44y88x/bitcoin_magic_doubler_ask_me_anything/

I'm not tech savvy enough to give you a conclusive answer, but it seems there is a problem with the signature... I don't think it would qualify as an exploit, since it seems the transaction isn't included in a block by any miner eventough it has sufficient fees.

Is this a new exploit that only affects on blockchain.info? I did not create this transaction I receive a payment that trace back from this transaction.

This is strange... I tried to push your transaction trough my node, but got this message:
64: non-mandatory-script-verify-flag (Witness program hash mismatch).

Mind sharing how you created this transaction?

Thanks for your quick reply. I'm already waiting for more than 3 hours on this transaction. It only show on blockchain.info.

No, it's a normal transaction... It probably didn't reach any other nodes yet, but it will probably be included in a block in due time...

It's 172 bytes, 20.000 satoshi's fee = 116 satoshi's per byte... SO it won't probably take to long since https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ only recommands 90 satoshi's per byte at the time of writing...

The only thing that worries me is that the outputs are going to an address with label "Bitcoin Magic Doubler"... You do know that 99,999999999999% of those doublers are ponzi's or straight up scams???