Topic: GHash.IO and double-spending against BetCoin Dice - page 13. (Read 112084 times)

Jane is also Ghash.io.

The account that you do the double-spend to.

I don't believe they are doing this... maybe its one of the employee?

Sure. Imagine 3 sisters (let's call them the Potters).

Annie owns 1 doll.  Sally owns 1 doll.  Jane owns no dolls.

Now of course, doll ownership in the Potter household is only as good as to when Annie, Sally, Jane, Mom and Dad agrees to who owns what. Annie can't just take Sally's doll, as everyone knows it's not hers and will just restore rightful ownership.


However, Annie comes up with a plan. She makes a bet with Sally at school. She rolls a dice, with the terms that if Sally wins Sally would get Annie's doll when they get home. If Annie wins, she would get Sally's doll.

Let's say Sally is honest but Annie is not. The roll the dice. If Annie happens to win, Sally gives her the doll. They're both happy... well, except for Sally - but they're in agreement at least.

However, if Annie happens to lose, she quickly goes running to Jane and say: "Hey Jane, remember that doll that I have, I can trade it to you for your bottle of Corona". Jane says ok, so then they phone up mom and dad, and say: "Hey mom, Annie's doll now belongs to Jane, and Jane's Corona now belongs to Annie".  Mom and Dad says ok, so now Annie's doll now belongs to Jane, and Annie starts her long journey of Corona addiction that ends with her turning tricks on Hollywood Boulevard until one very unfortunate night with Gary Busey... but more about that at another time.

Meanwhile, Sally gets home and finds that she's not getting Annie's doll. Since everybody else now thinks that Annie doesn't have a doll anymore, and it now belongs to Jane. Sally can complain like she wants, but mom and dad doesn't understand why Sally would make a bet with Annie against a doll that really belongs to Jane. Of course, in real life Sally would now beat up Annie with a baseball bet, which is why a stunt like this works better in BitCoin land than in Vegas (well, except if you cross DPR.).

Can someone explain this to me like a 5yr old please

this is serious research required

Indeed, a Dice site setup properly wouldn't be vulnerable to this.

(this is not an endorsement of the double spending)

Taking irreversible actions on unconfirmed transactions is not safe. This is not news.  Big hashpower consolidations are not safe. This is not news.

While I'm sympathetic about losses and don't support theft— it appears that many Bitcoin gambling services are run from places where their legality is probably questionable, and as a result getting help from the courts may not be an option— and even if it is, it's very expensive and takes a long time. Your best bet is to protect yourself by not transacting in a way which is insecure relative to the network that exists today.

The operators of high transaction inefficient gambling services (the ones with two transactions per tiny bet) have many times responded to the Bitcoin community members concerned about their services abusing our common network resources and costing money node operators saying that we should all be thankful for the valuable "test" they are performing and the encouragement it provides to improve the infrastructure. Some parallels could be drawn from people exploiting insecure unconfirmed transaction behavior …

cex.iohave recently registered as a UK company - could this action (if them) be down to an employee taking advantage?  Seems like the cex.io buiness plan looks profitable - not worth messing with gambling perhaps?

Thoughts?

Investigation recommended as well

Whether the accusation could be proven or not, I second that it deserves an investigation.

It is interesting how you buy & sell from cex.io. They keep all the bitcoin and control all the Gh. You have to 'withdrawl' BTC.  One interesting quirk, you can setup your workers to autopayout in 0.1BTC increments based on a 'shareholder' concept.

I agree.  Very well worth investigating.

Oh shit this look so serious if true...

I second this. This MUST be looked into immediately,and if found to be true & legitimate, an explanation demanded from ghash.io/cex.io