what happened to putting little ASICs into everyday appliances so that the network would be less centralized?
I forget the name of the company that got investment a while back, but it seems to be needed more than ever at the moment.
This does sound like an exceptional case. Game over might be a slight over-reaction on the OPs behalf!
Topic: Game over! China double spent bitcoin! (Read 951 times)
That is not a double spend. its just the betting site fucking up.
He knows all that. This guy foolishly lost all his bitcoin and now posts crap like this all day from his Mom's basement. I have never seen anyone wish so hard for something that is just not gona happen. lolSoooooooooooooo lol, from his Mom's basement. Well now getting back to the topic, this is not at all an attack, is just the site Bitbet screwing it up big time. Next time choose a better site to play, as there are a whole lot more reputable sites for this activity. As a matter of fact I just learned for the first time for bitbet from this topic.
Many people got scammed by BitBet and they even don't want to add tx fee or deduct small amount bitcoin from player from tx fee.
Guess he also don't know BitBet reputation at all.
Yep, stuff like this comes up regularly from their side : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitbet-stole-7000-from-me-10-btc-339544 I would suggest you write a bad review on sites like this, http://bittrust.org/bitbet if you felt cheated or list them on this site as a bad bet. http://www.badbitcoin.org/
We should work together to highlight the dodgy Bitcoin sites on the internet.
The Double spent transaction (the first transaction sent out and missing for weeks): https://blockchain.info/en/tx/de9bc173174f5ae97e7fe0d2e171647cade189c76f9cbe48f37494c973aca2e4
No you are wrong. I can see that this transaction has no fees but still got confirmed!
And AFAIK, Bitbet is a long con
That is not a double spend. its just the betting site fucking up.
He knows all that. This guy foolishly lost all his bitcoin and now posts crap like this all day from his Mom's basement. I have never seen anyone wish so hard for something that is just not gona happen. lolSoooooooooooooo lol, from his Mom's basement. Well now getting back to the topic, this is not at all an attack, is just the site Bitbet screwing it up big time. Next time choose a better site to play, as there are a whole lot more reputable sites for this activity. As a matter of fact I just learned for the first time for bitbet from this topic.
That is not a double spend. its just the betting site fucking up.
He knows all that. This guy foolishly lost all his bitcoin and now posts crap like this all day from his Mom's basement. I have never seen anyone wish so hard for something that is just not gona happen. lolbut does he really think his thread would kill bitcoin? game over? from just his thread?
lol.
so foolish as you say.
That is not a double spend. its just the betting site fucking up.
He knows all that. This guy foolishly lost all his bitcoin and now posts crap like this all day from his Mom's basement. I have never seen anyone wish so hard for something that is just not gona happen. lol
That is not a double spend. its just the betting site fucking up.
If the Chinese bitcoin users actually believe this explanation, then they have no understanding on
how bitcoin works. The most probable explanation is that the betting site continued to send the
same tx with too low of a miner's fee (Txs number one through four).
Then the betting site, in their own words:
they created a second payment to these same users. This is a screw up by the betting site and has nothing to do with whether
there is "transaction nuking" or "cartels deliberately withholding blocks".
This was not a double-spend, this was two separate payments since there were two separate inputs.
Double-spends attempted against the receiver, this article tries so say that the sender was double-spent against. Weird.
how bitcoin works. The most probable explanation is that the betting site continued to send the
same tx with too low of a miner's fee (Txs number one through four).
Then the betting site, in their own words:
This fifth Bitcoin transaction used different inputs, yet the same outputs as all of the four previous transactions.
By them doing this while the fourth transaction was still pending in the mempool with too little of a fee for that time,they created a second payment to these same users. This is a screw up by the betting site and has nothing to do with whether
there is "transaction nuking" or "cartels deliberately withholding blocks".
This was not a double-spend, this was two separate payments since there were two separate inputs.
Double-spends attempted against the receiver, this article tries so say that the sender was double-spent against. Weird.
Chinese miners block Bitbet's transaction intentionally no matter how much fees Bitbet put in that transaction to force Bitbet to use different inputs. then they "double spent" the first transaction they used to block.
How can they do it? because they have more than 70% hash power plus most nodes.
They attacked Bitbet, they can attack anyone. this is just the start.
That makes no sense. Bitcoin does not work that way.
Chinese miners do not block transactions. (Are non-Chinese miners also blocking to help this conspiracy?)
Miners will place any transaction within a block, if that transaction carries a proper miner's fee.
Are you saying that the Chinese miner's forced you to send the different input transaction (fifth tx)?
Chinese miners block Bitbet's transaction intentionally no matter how much fees Bitbet put in that transaction to force Bitbet to use different inputs. then they "double spent" the first transaction they used to block.
They can attack Bitbet, they can attack anyone. this is just the start.
BitBet screwed up, that's the fact, simple as that.They can attack Bitbet, they can attack anyone. this is just the start.
This is just the start of what? Users being too dumb to use bitcoin?
Making a mistake should not be confused with 'an attack'.
How can they do it? because they have more than 70% hash power plus most nodes.
Dream on.1. United States - 2383 (33.87%)
If the Chinese bitcoin users actually believe this explanation, then they have no understanding on
how bitcoin works. The most probable explanation is that the betting site continued to send the
same tx with too low of a miner's fee (Txs number one through four).
Then the betting site, in their own words:
they created a second payment to these same users. This is a screw up by the betting site and has nothing to do with whether
there is "transaction nuking" or "cartels deliberately withholding blocks".
This was not a double-spend, this was two separate payments since there were two separate inputs.
Double-spends attempted against the receiver, this article tries so say that the sender was double-spent against. Weird.
how bitcoin works. The most probable explanation is that the betting site continued to send the
same tx with too low of a miner's fee (Txs number one through four).
Then the betting site, in their own words:
This fifth Bitcoin transaction used different inputs, yet the same outputs as all of the four previous transactions.
By them doing this while the fourth transaction was still pending in the mempool with too little of a fee for that time,they created a second payment to these same users. This is a screw up by the betting site and has nothing to do with whether
there is "transaction nuking" or "cartels deliberately withholding blocks".
This was not a double-spend, this was two separate payments since there were two separate inputs.
Double-spends attempted against the receiver, this article tries so say that the sender was double-spent against. Weird.
Chinese miners block Bitbet's transaction intentionally no matter how much fees Bitbet put in that transaction to force Bitbet to use different inputs. then they "double spent" the first transaction they used to block.
How can they do it? because they have more than 70% hash power plus most nodes.
They attacked Bitbet, they can attack anyone. this is just the start.
Clickbait title, non-sense text,
double-spending attacks are deposit attacks, not withdrawal ones (or withdrawal problems/casino fails, as they are shown here).
For everything else, read above.
double-spending attacks are deposit attacks, not withdrawal ones (or withdrawal problems/casino fails, as they are shown here).
For everything else, read above.
If the Chinese bitcoin users actually believe this explanation, then they have no understanding on
how bitcoin works. The most probable explanation is that the betting site continued to send the
same tx with too low of a miner's fee (Txs number one through four).
Then the betting site, in their own words:
they created a second payment to these same users. This is a screw up by the betting site and has nothing to do with whether
there is "transaction nuking" or "cartels deliberately withholding blocks".
This was not a double-spend, this was two separate payments since there were two separate inputs.
Double-spends are attempted against the receiver, this article tries so say that the sender was double-spent against. Weird.
how bitcoin works. The most probable explanation is that the betting site continued to send the
same tx with too low of a miner's fee (Txs number one through four).
Then the betting site, in their own words:
This fifth Bitcoin transaction used different inputs, yet the same outputs as all of the four previous transactions.
By them doing this while the fourth transaction was still pending in the mempool with too little of a fee for that time,they created a second payment to these same users. This is a screw up by the betting site and has nothing to do with whether
there is "transaction nuking" or "cartels deliberately withholding blocks".
This was not a double-spend, this was two separate payments since there were two separate inputs.
Double-spends are attempted against the receiver, this article tries so say that the sender was double-spent against. Weird.
Double-spending in the Bitcoin world is becoming a very rare occurrence, but that doesn't mean it is impossible to pull off this type of attack.
BitBet, an online gambling platform, fell victim to such an attack earlier today as a result of several of their transactions not being included in the Bitcoin Node mempool. This entire situation is sparking a lot of debate and conspiracy theories as to why one particular transaction was broadcasted twice on the network, although it is rather a stretch to claim malicious intent at this stage.
The fifth transaction gone through: https://blockchain.info/en/tx/bf77bf5ec7c02f4027caab024d5581d82bdea97ab8d7d97aac856169c038dd31
The Double spent transaction (the first transaction sent out and missing for weeks): https://blockchain.info/en/tx/de9bc173174f5ae97e7fe0d2e171647cade189c76f9cbe48f37494c973aca2e4
One theory is how large entities control most of the Bitcoin nodes, which would give them the power to refuse individual transactions for any reason they see fit. Such a process is called "transaction nuking" and could pose a significant threat to the Bitcoin network if this were to be the case.
Another possibility is how Bitcoin miners are forming a cartel to deliberately withhold blocks for a particular interval of time. This seems to be quite an outrageous statement, as it would require a ton of coordination to pull off these types of schemes. Last but not last, some remarks were made of how Antpool and F2pool could form a cartel and control over 51% of the mining power, allowing them to pull off these kinds of stunts.
http://bitcoinist.net/bitbet-falls-victim-to-strange-bitcoin-double-spend-behavior/
BitBet, an online gambling platform, fell victim to such an attack earlier today as a result of several of their transactions not being included in the Bitcoin Node mempool. This entire situation is sparking a lot of debate and conspiracy theories as to why one particular transaction was broadcasted twice on the network, although it is rather a stretch to claim malicious intent at this stage.
Quote
The goal of online gambling platforms such as BitBet is to pay out winnings as soon as possible. In this particular event, the company sent out a Bitcoin transaction with no fee attached, which is not a good way to ensure the information is picked up by Bitcoin Nodes and put into the mempool queue.
That BitBet transaction was not included in any of the mined blocks on the network, forcing the company to send a new transaction with a small fee. However, that fee amount was still too small to be noticed by the Bitcoin network, and the second transaction remained unconfirmed as well. Do keep in mind this delay had nothing to do with the kerfuffle going on with the Bitcoin network in the past 48 hours.
Increasing the fee in a third transaction seemed to be a right call at that time, but even that transfer was not included in any of the mined blocks on the Bitcoin network. Quite a strange situation, considering how a fee of over ten satoshis per byte should warrant inclusion in one of the next network blocks. Unfortunately, no dice for BitBet, forcing them to broadcast transaction number four.
What is of particular interest is how, according to the report, transaction number four included the same inputs as all of the previous three transactions. However, that did not yield many results either, and BitBet decided to try a different approach. Five times is the charm, as some sayings go.
This fifth Bitcoin transaction used different inputs, yet the same outputs as all of the four previous transactions. Lo and behold, this transaction was picked up by Bitcoin nodes rather quickly and confirmed within thirty minutes. The issue got finally sorted, and the winners got their payouts as promised, albeit with a slight delay.
Imagine their surprise when they received a second transaction shortly afterwards, which was the very first transfer sent by BitBet. That transfer had gone unconfirmed for close to a week now, and suddenly got broadcasted by Bitcoin Nodes. It remains unknown as to why this transaction was re-broadcasted, or who was responsible for this event, but it has cost BitBet a fair amount of money.
That BitBet transaction was not included in any of the mined blocks on the network, forcing the company to send a new transaction with a small fee. However, that fee amount was still too small to be noticed by the Bitcoin network, and the second transaction remained unconfirmed as well. Do keep in mind this delay had nothing to do with the kerfuffle going on with the Bitcoin network in the past 48 hours.
Increasing the fee in a third transaction seemed to be a right call at that time, but even that transfer was not included in any of the mined blocks on the Bitcoin network. Quite a strange situation, considering how a fee of over ten satoshis per byte should warrant inclusion in one of the next network blocks. Unfortunately, no dice for BitBet, forcing them to broadcast transaction number four.
What is of particular interest is how, according to the report, transaction number four included the same inputs as all of the previous three transactions. However, that did not yield many results either, and BitBet decided to try a different approach. Five times is the charm, as some sayings go.
This fifth Bitcoin transaction used different inputs, yet the same outputs as all of the four previous transactions. Lo and behold, this transaction was picked up by Bitcoin nodes rather quickly and confirmed within thirty minutes. The issue got finally sorted, and the winners got their payouts as promised, albeit with a slight delay.
Imagine their surprise when they received a second transaction shortly afterwards, which was the very first transfer sent by BitBet. That transfer had gone unconfirmed for close to a week now, and suddenly got broadcasted by Bitcoin Nodes. It remains unknown as to why this transaction was re-broadcasted, or who was responsible for this event, but it has cost BitBet a fair amount of money.
The fifth transaction gone through: https://blockchain.info/en/tx/bf77bf5ec7c02f4027caab024d5581d82bdea97ab8d7d97aac856169c038dd31
The Double spent transaction (the first transaction sent out and missing for weeks): https://blockchain.info/en/tx/de9bc173174f5ae97e7fe0d2e171647cade189c76f9cbe48f37494c973aca2e4
One theory is how large entities control most of the Bitcoin nodes, which would give them the power to refuse individual transactions for any reason they see fit. Such a process is called "transaction nuking" and could pose a significant threat to the Bitcoin network if this were to be the case.
Another possibility is how Bitcoin miners are forming a cartel to deliberately withhold blocks for a particular interval of time. This seems to be quite an outrageous statement, as it would require a ton of coordination to pull off these types of schemes. Last but not last, some remarks were made of how Antpool and F2pool could form a cartel and control over 51% of the mining power, allowing them to pull off these kinds of stunts.
http://bitcoinist.net/bitbet-falls-victim-to-strange-bitcoin-double-spend-behavior/
Jump to: