Both transactions will probably confirm at the same time, so essentially they were simultaneous. And bitcoin supports transactions that build on each other so they have no problem to confirm. I can sign a transaction and "fund" it a few minutes later. They are both unconfirmed anyway until they can both confirm.
Both did confirm at the same time so for blockchain purposes both did happen at the same time. Blockchain.info also attempts to keep track of the time the network first "saw" the transaction and in this case they clearly made a mistake 
Topic: What's going on with this address? (spending bitcoins that haven't arrived yet?) (Read 1326 times)
November 24, 2014, 02:10:07 AM
November 23, 2014, 07:46:35 PM
My thoughts on it being spent immediately: it could be a BTC payment received for an order on a unique generated payment address, and then immediately "forwarded" to the owner's wallet- such as with blockchain.info's Receiving Payments API.
November 23, 2014, 07:33:22 PM
The address was not really able to spend any inputs prior to it receiving an input. If you look closely you will see that, according to blockchain.info it spent an input two seconds prior to it receiving the input that it spent. This was likely the result of the 1st received transaction being propagated by a node and then the spending transaction being propagated prior to the 1st transaction being fully propagated. Blockchain.info's node likely "saw" the 2nd transaction first
Ah, sounds reasonable then. I guess whoever controlled that address decided to move the coins only a second or two after receiving them while the receiving transaction was still unconfirmed. That sending transaction reached Blockchain.info first before the recieving transaction was able to reach it.
I've found that transactions tend to be visible (albeit unconfirmed) almost instantaneously after being broadcast so whoever controlled that address must have been in quite a hurry.
November 23, 2014, 06:38:23 PM
Both transactions will probably confirm at the same time, so essentially they were simultaneous. And bitcoin supports transactions that build on each other so they have no problem to confirm. I can sign a transaction and "fund" it a few minutes later. They are both unconfirmed anyway until they can both confirm.
November 23, 2014, 10:22:27 AM
The address was not really able to spend any inputs prior to it receiving an input. If you look closely you will see that, according to blockchain.info it spent an input two seconds prior to it receiving the input that it spent. This was likely the result of the 1st received transaction being propagated by a node and then the spending transaction being propagated prior to the 1st transaction being fully propagated. Blockchain.info's node likely "saw" the 2nd transaction first
Good catch, this looks to be like the most reasonable explanation to me. November 23, 2014, 06:19:08 AM
I guess whoever controlled that address decided to move the coins only a second or two after receiving them while the receiving transaction was still unconfirmed.
With Bitcoin Core, you can create more transactions when your disconnected from internet. After you connect, all transactions are broadcasted at once
November 23, 2014, 02:02:49 AM
The address was not really able to spend any inputs prior to it receiving an input. If you look closely you will see that, according to blockchain.info it spent an input two seconds prior to it receiving the input that it spent. This was likely the result of the 1st received transaction being propagated by a node and then the spending transaction being propagated prior to the 1st transaction being fully propagated. Blockchain.info's node likely "saw" the 2nd transaction first
Ah, sounds reasonable then. I guess whoever controlled that address decided to move the coins only a second or two after receiving them while the receiving transaction was still unconfirmed. That sending transaction reached Blockchain.info first before the recieving transaction was able to reach it.
I've found that transactions tend to be visible (albeit unconfirmed) almost instantaneously after being broadcast so whoever controlled that address must have been in quite a hurry.
November 23, 2014, 01:54:51 AM
The address was not really able to spend any inputs prior to it receiving an input. If you look closely you will see that, according to blockchain.info it spent an input two seconds prior to it receiving the input that it spent. This was likely the result of the 1st received transaction being propagated by a node and then the spending transaction being propagated prior to the 1st transaction being fully propagated. Blockchain.info's node likely "saw" the 2nd transaction first
November 23, 2014, 01:54:15 AM
I think the order are wrong 
And the first & second transaction only have different 2 second
Or rather, blockchain.info have made small mistake
And the first & second transaction only have different 2 second
Or rather, blockchain.info have made small mistake
November 23, 2014, 01:32:30 AM
How is it possible for an address to have an initial transaction of -0.1 BTC before receiving 0.1 BTC?
https://blockchain.info/address/1E984zyYbNmeuumzEdqT8VSL8QGJi3byAD
It seems that both transactions were made seconds apart and were included in the same block.
What's going on here?
https://blockchain.info/address/1E984zyYbNmeuumzEdqT8VSL8QGJi3byAD
It seems that both transactions were made seconds apart and were included in the same block.
What's going on here?
Jump to: