Topic: MtGox withdrawal delays [Gathering] - page 156. (Read 908727 times)

It's because the Bitcoin cultist foundation wouldn't want to have people recognize that Bitcoin is imperfect and sell. Paid shills will do what paid shills do. Damage control.

20:28 < sturles> Question: I have an autobuy system where I give each seller an unique address to transfer to when selling, and use a
                 -walletnotify script to trigger a price check when someone transfer coins to their address.  When the transaction

Or rather services using bitcoind programmed by clueless programmers like you, who accept transactions with zero confirmations.

Services using bitcoind, like mine, may be vulnerable as well.

Hm, wonder if this explains why I've heard all other exchanges updating their systems as well. I believe this mutability issue is not as "insignificant" as the core dev team is attempting to convey.

.....

dear fellow friend,

i do feel with you. i also have a terror queen at home.
can we sell them for BTC?
anyone?


edit: and yes, gox sucks...:/ lost about 4k...

He did.  And bitcoin-qt is affected as well.  E.g. here and more about this problem here.

Anyway, TL;DR version of the press release is:
We have discussed this solution with the Bitcoin core developers and will allow Bitcoin withdrawals again once [a workaround involving a different hash for transaction tracking purposes] has been approved and standardized.

No bug has to be fixed, nothing has to be implemented by anyone else yet, they just want a standard general solution to be approved before implementing this solution and resuming withdrawals.

The #bitcoin protocol and network are just fine today.  Let's not over-react about a technical issue in one custom implementation.

“There are certain security practices that sites like Mt. Gox need to follow. Most notably, customer support staff and related software must not assume that transaction IDs are unchangeable, prior to being confirmed in the block chain.

“Confirmation in the block chain is bitcoin’s core security mechanism.”

I'm looking fwd to mining $2 coins, that way my wife can STFU about 'IT'S NOT JUST A HOBBY, YOU ARE MAKING MONEY'
that will put her in her place  

Conclusion: Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind does not track changed transactions properly.  Changed transactions will show up as a new transaction, and I would need the  "new txid" thing to track those properly.  It is not only MtGox.  Services using bitcoind, like mine, may be vulnerable as well.

He did.  And bitcoin-qt is affected as well.  E.g. here and more about this problem here.

Anyway, TL;DR version of the press release is:
We have discussed this solution with the Bitcoin core developers and will allow Bitcoin withdrawals again once [a workaround involving a different hash for transaction tracking purposes] has been approved and standardized.

No bug has to be fixed, nothing has to be implemented by anyone else yet, they just want a standard general solution to be approved before implementing this solution and resuming withdrawals.

Transactions are always tracked properly by the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind software

20:28 < sturles> Question: I have an autobuy system where I give each seller an unique address to transfer to when selling, and use a
                 -walletnotify script to trigger a price check when someone transfer coins to their address.  When the transaction
                 confirms, it will write details to a file I send to the bank to do payments.
20:28 < sturles> How will this work if a tx is changed?
20:29 < sturles> Will bitcoind be able to track the changed confirmed transaction and connect it to the unconfirmed one I received?
20:29 < sturles> Otherwise the seller will get the wrong price.
20:29 < sturles> Just noticed Gavin's claim that "Transactions are always tracked properly by the Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind software".
20:29 < sturles> If that is correct, I have nothing to worry about.
20:30 < Luke-Jr> A new txid is treated as a separate transaction
20:31 < sturles> This is what I feared.  So it is not strictly true that bitcoind will track those transactions properly.
20:31 < Luke-Jr> depends on what one means by "properly" I suppose
20:33 < sturles> I use walletnotify to notify a script, and the script checks the current price.  It notes the time as well, but my current
                 time.
20:33 < gavinandresen> sturles: if you are doing this at zero confirmations, then that is a very bad idea.
20:33 < Luke-Jr> sturles: ok, same thing in this case
20:34 < Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: only the price is determined by receive time, in his example
20:34 < gavinandresen> sturles: if you are only transferring money when the transaction has more than one confirmation, then no
                       worries
20:34 < Luke-Jr> I presume he waits for it to confirm before actually sending
20:34 < sturles> I check the price at zero confirmations, and write to a file which is going to the bank when the transaction is confirmed.
20:34 < sturles> I do not pay out at zero confirmations.
20:35 < Luke-Jr> sturles: for a quick fix, I suggest applying sipa's patch and matching up the "new txid" thing
20:35 < sturles> Users want to get as close to the current price as possible.  
20:35 < Luke-Jr> sturles: be aware your system can be gamed though..
20:35 < Luke-Jr> sturles: I send a transaction that won't confirm on its own; if price drops, I double-spend. if it goes up, I confirm it
20:36 < Luke-Jr> or vice-versa might actually be the bad case..
20:36 < sturles> Wouldn't this be possible with the payment protocol as well?
20:36 < gavinandresen> If the "you" is a mining pool, then you can do this even if transactions were immutable.
20:36 < Luke-Jr> sure, that's the risk of doing 0 confirm for price
20:36 < gavinandresen> (even if transaction IDs were immutable, I mean)
20:36 < Apocalyptic> indeed
20:37 < Luke-Jr> gavinandresen: for example, CPFP could make a transaction mined only when a user decides
20:37 < sturles> I will log the unconfirmed tx and can ban users who try double spending tricks.  No problem really.
20:38 < Luke-Jr> sounds like a plan to me
20:38 < sturles> So I will need sipa's patch to track changed transactions properly in my case?
20:39 < Luke-Jr> that will protect your customers from third parties, yes
20:39 < Luke-Jr> it will still break if your users do CoinJoins, but that's less urgent I guess
20:39 < gavinandresen> sturles: see also:  https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/3354
20:40 < sturles> I still do manual checks before anything is going to the bank, and the system will warn strongly if the balances don't match
                 up (e.g. confirmed transaction reversal).
20:42 < Luke-Jr> it would probably be best if B-Qt in the future tracked when TxnA is replaced by TxnB and treated them as the same in a UI
                 sense
20:42 < Luke-Jr> but that's a lot of coding/review/etc

I guess I need a little help understanding what to me seems obvious.

Why doesn't Gox just invest in some mining hardware dedicated exclusively to confirming only Gox withdrawals.  It seems to me that they could queue up all Gox withdrawals for processing to this new Gox miner, which when completed, the withdrawal transactions would show up in the blockchain the first time with one confirmation already in place.

Plus they'd get to keep all those pesky mining fees they keep deducting.... assuming they're not already doing this.

What am I missing here?

Only if the ship goes down, which wouldn't surprise me.


I hope those two get this tool kicked out the Foundation.

So is everything on gox stuck forever ?

Garzik told CoinDesk: “There are certain security practices that sites like Mt. Gox need to follow. Most notably, customer support staff and related software must not assume that transaction IDs are unchangeable, prior to being confirmed in the block chain.

“Confirmation in the block chain is bitcoin’s core security mechanism.”

It just goes to show also that it would be an easy fix to provide alternative means to withdrawls to allow customers access to money but proves because of Serpeles unwillingness to do this they are indeed bankrupt and don't have the money.

Igor is long ignored and biggest troll I have ever seen he has not posted one comment of any worth or substance just taking delight in other peoples misfortunes .