/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>30070590
>Look deep into the double spend that never happened. It did and it proves that segwit can be exploited.
lol
there were no segwit inputs involved whatsoever. also the double spend fud always assumes the tx with the highest fee will get mined instead of the first seen one. but alas it's all bullshit.

both first seen rule and rbf are the same thing: they are anti dos measure for managing mempool space nodes need a rule by which tx they keep in the mempool when there is a conflict. there is no guarantee about an agreement or an order between transactions in the mempool. it's all bullshit.

>>29611648
the tx confirmed was broadcasted on the 18th
wtf kind of hostile "doubles spend" attack that was in your brainlet opinion?

>>28771706
yes of course we will believe your larp without you proving anything like signing with an address that had balance in 2014 or something... that's how it obviously works in your mind.

also there was no real double spend, the tx that got confirmed was not broadcasted on 21th, and the amount was not $21. no other problems with that made up bullshit.

how much further do you wish to embarrass yourself?

>>27649516
>BSV miners work on a first seen rule (as opposed to highest paid fee rule)
the tx that got confirmed ironically is the first seen tx not the highest fee tx.
also the first seen rule is retarded and does more damage than good.

>>27401359
>the code is garbage and the double spend proved it
1 no it's not
2 the "double spend" didn't prove anything we haven't already known fora decade except for one thing: even if you bump the fee it's still possible for the first transaction to get confirmed and incorporated to the longest chain.

>>26407780
>The two copies of the same payment weren't part of the accepted longest blockchain history.
that's not true for a moment there was 2 longest chain. and two different versions of the tx.

and it was a reverse double spend where the first tx with the lower fee got confirmed 2 deep.

>>26338837
not only this was not a doubles spend but miners confirming the lowest fee of the 2 transactions actually makes any future attempt at malicious double spend riskier.

>>26330555
>>26330701
this looks like a desperate attempt to get confirmation. and i see no reason why this couldn't be random coincidence.