/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>27645804
it was a nothingburger just to fud and shake weak normie hands
at 2 confirmations there was no double spending

>>27645804
it was an actual double spend
anyone who knows how to do it can spend any amount of coin they want twice as long as its going to the same person/vendor

>>27645903
Normies wouldn't care about something like this anyway. Can u explain technically why it was a double spend?

>>27645987
wasnt*

>>27645987
>Can u explain technically why it was a double spend?
two blocks got mined and broadcasted at the same moment and someone spent the output coming from the orphaned block before waiting for an extra confirmation, literally a nothing burger, it can happen all the times
at 2 conf it was resolved, and 2 conf is the standard for considering a tx final (some exchanges wait until 6 conf)

>>27645804
There's no way to break Bitcoin like that, the best of the best have been trying for over a decade.

>>27645804
On January 21st a transaction from one set of addresses showed in both blocks with outputs of 0.00062063 and 0.00014499 BTC (total 0.00076562 BTC). The sending addresses had a total of 0.00071095 BTC only.

>>27648091
>showed in both blocks
and one of them was orphaned
nothing to see here
go back to school

>>27648091
It still wasn't a double spend so who gives a fuck about this number autism

>>27648429
So, to the BTC perfectionists, money was removed from a wallet, given to another, and the block was erased. Someone who received a transaction and had a block confirmation had their transaction reversed, but this is NOT news and NOT a double spend according to the high priests of BTC Core and their surrogates.

btc is completely broken and ignores the spv section of the whitepaper

>>27648491
Piss off FUDonger

>>27645804
ye if your wealthy you made a deal with the devil in one way or the other :)

>>27649014
https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1352305759854485505

Core developer Peter Todd says Andreas Antonopoulos is WRONG.
A #BTC double spend did happen.

Seems like everyone knows BTC is trash and BSV is Bitcoin. Any ideas on when prices will reflect this truth?

>>27649287
BSV accepts 0-confirmation payments for such small amounts quite easily and securely. because BSV miners work on a first seen rule (as opposed to highest paid fee rule). Wallets such as HandCash have built-in double-spend detection systems.

The tech will win in the end. BSV tech just blows away BTCs by any metric.

I find it really funny that you people brush this away as, "Well one transaction was orphaned, so it's working as intended."
Forest through the trees.
Yes, there is only 1 chain that survives, only 1 transaction that survives.
Yet, it can by all means be the wrong transaction that survives.

That is the problem here.

>>27645804
depends on your definition for double spend really.
there was a double spend event but bitcoin resolved it as designed and intended from the start.
so on the longest chain no coins were spend twice as per specification.
but there existed a time where 3 unconfirmed transactions were broadcast for the same inputs. and thee existed a time-frame where 2 competing longest chains had 2 different tx for the same inputs.

but that's nothing extraordinary really. it's rare like an albino zebra but it happens.

>>27648429
indeed

>>27648461
wrong
>>27649196
todd is correct and not... it's up to what you call a double spend really.

see >>27649764

>>27649764
So how do we know the correct transaction survived ?
BTC works on a highest paid fee rule. NOT on first seen as Sathshi told us that Bitcoin was supposed to use.

>>27646276
/thread

>>27649516
>BSV accepts 0-confirmation payments
nobody ever accused of the sv people of being smart

>>27649967
>todd is correct and not... it's up to what you call a double spend really
>semantics
standard commie

>>27649732
You're retarded, the network isn't going to agree on the chain with the double spend.

>>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.

>>27649983
>So how do we know the correct transaction survived ?
all three of them were correct. all three were valid. the other two only became invalid when they conflicted with a tx included in the longest chain.

>>27649983
The "correct transaction" is the one that eventually wins, by definition

>>27650076
Just not even an argument.

>>27649983
>BTC works on a highest paid fee rule.
it's more like an assumption than a fact. the truth is you don't know which tx will get confirmed it's nondeterministic.

>>27650245
>>27650274
and HOW exactly is the "Correct" transaction determined on the chain?
The 1st one entered or the one that got verified 1st ?

>>27650081
well apparently there is no consensus on what "double spend" means

>>27650401
>and HOW exactly is the "Correct" transaction determined on the chain?
the nakamoto consensus decides
the one that got included in the longest valid chain with most cumulative proof of work.

>>27650401
Neither
It's the transaction that collectively is decided on by other members following the protocol

>>27650335
Sure you do. Send a transaction with $125 fee and another with a $1 fee.
Tell me which one confirms.
That's why we all had to use Bitcoin Accelerators to Unstick BTC Transactions in 2017-2018.

Highest fee wins. Not 1st transaction as Satoshi explained to us.

>>27650563
>most cumulative proof of work.
Right , the one the miner decided to work on because it had the higher fee.

>>27650156
>also the first seen rule is retarded and does more damage than good.
So you disagree with Satoshi.. ok

Why does BTC allow for 2 versions of the same spend to exist on the network at the same time?

it wasnt a double spend. it was rbf replace by fee.
this happens like every block. just happened to be at the same time when 2 blocks were found at the same time.
2blocks found same time happens every week or 2weeks all the time.
literally a non event.

>>27652299
RBF allows for the attacker who has sybiled a mining node to switch the transaction at any time as long as the fee is higher. So it’s easier to game the timing and create a Double Spend. BTC is broken.

>>27652520
Holy shit you're right the double spend just flew over my house, this double spend is still on the main chain isn't it?

Oh wait it got removed on the next mine because the network won't include a double spend and everything moved forward as designed you fucking retard.

bitcoin transactions require multiple confirmations to assure finality. how many confirmations is up to the parties involved. it has always been like this.

>>27652715
Is it still on the chain ? Well one of the transactions is. Do you know if it was the correct one ? The one that was intended ?

This happened the 21st day at 21:21 UTC, in the 21st year of the 21st century on a network of 21 quadrillion units, there was a magically small exploit of US$21 on the BTC network, and nobody seems to care—at least not yet.

Just happenstances right ?
Figure out what time zone UTC and who exactly lives there, that would have an interest in this.

>>27645984
This. I've scammed so many vendors doing this lmfao

>>27650879
not what happened apparently
>>27650990
satoshi was not a retard like you he actually understood bitcoin

>>27650835
see >>27650156
oldest tx with lowest fees got confirmed

>>27653307
>satoshi was not a retard like you he actually understood bitcoin
You are the retard mate. Satoshi was very clear about this.
The network nodes only accept the first version of a transaction they receive to incorporate into the block they're trying to generate. When you broadcast a transaction, if someone else broadcasts a double-spend at the same time, it's a race to propagate to the most nodes first. If one has a slight head start, it'll geometrically spread through the network faster and get most of the nodes.

A rough back-of-the-envelope example:
1 0
4 1
16 4
64 16
80% 20%

So if a double-spend has to wait even a second, it has a huge disadvantage.

FIRST IN, not Highest fee moron

>>27653218
Who gives a fuck what they intended, the "correct" transaction is based off of when it occurred and the fees that were paid. As long as only one transaction lived on then the protocol worked.

Read the whitepaper brainlet

>>27653218
it's not what happened tho
the tx was broadcasted on the 18th and the amount is not $21 either and the tx broadcasted on 21:21 of 19th never made it to any block.

>>27645804
You are fucking retarded
Educate yourself cunt

>>27653289
no you haven't fucking larper
the double-spend chain dies and the vendor would receive the funds promised since he'd still be on the main (longest) chain.
you're a fucking moron.

>>27653575
>the "correct" transaction is based off of when it occurred and the fees that were paid
Wrong
The heaviest chain survives, That is the chain with the most fees.

>>27653481
he tried to theorize a way to do 0-conf but it never checked out.
satoshi knew damn well no order between transactions exist before they hit a block and no finality until confirmed n deep.

>>27653706
while i agree OP should research a bit more, saying "educate yourself" is a max leftist saying that you should avoid using.

>>27653810
Almost like that's exactly what I said you retard

>>27653843
Doesn't at all change the fact that miners are supposed to take first in first out.
Not heaviest chain survives.
BSV is do literally 10k transactions a day with 0 confs.

>>27653928
>Almost like that's exactly what I said you retard
Almost is the kjey word. You said

1) when it occurred
and
2) the fees that were paid

#1 is irrelevant. The heaviest chain wins. he timestamp as reported in a block is not necessarily accurate, as explained in Bitcoin’s Block Timestamp Protection Rules.

>>27653950
Hey Craig, how is trial prep going?

>>27653950
there is no hard rule because it's unenforceable.
the consensus ruleset is unable to validate off-chain data.

>>27649196
It’s not too hard to double spend, especially when 2 blocks get mined at the same moment, you can try partitioning the network if you broadcast two conflicting tx just before the new blocks are broadcasted
Happened after 1conf which is normal and it can happen the reason above
At 2conf the “bad” block was orphaned and every balance get credited the correct amount, still 21M BTC, not more

Guys host a sent node, quit reading this garbage.

>>27654240
When a Bitcoin block is produced there are essentially two times involved:
The timestamp in the block header, put there by the miner and the actual time the block was produced. As it happens, there are some incentives for miners to lie about the time. For instance, nefarious miners could add a timestamp which is in the future. For example, if a block took 10 minutes to produce, miners could claim it took them 15 minutes, by adding a timestamp 5 minutes into the future.
RBF allows for the attacker who has sybilled a mining node to switch the transaction at any time as long as the fee is higher. So it’s easier to game the timing and create a Double Spend.

but you all want to overlook the obvious. 21st day at 21:21 UTC, in the 21st year of the 21st century on a network of 21 quadrillion uni. That's just coincidence right ?

this was explained in the fucking whitepaper lmao it never fails to amaze me how few of you know how crypto works

>>27655234
indeed this event showcased the sheer mass of clueless retards out there

Peter Todd who has over 100 commits to the Bitcoin codebase says it was a double spend.
https://mastodon.petertodd.org/@pete/105594864941578492

>>27654533
Shut up bsv retarded bagholder, you don’t even need rbf to double spend, you can also double spend on BSV for instance, that’s why we keep telling you 0conf is pure bullshit
it’s not rocket science to double spend, that’s why everybody waits for 2conf

>>27656005
Show me a BSV double spend then...

>>27655743
yeah but it was not the sort of doublespend bitcoin aims to eliminate. same inputs were not spent twice in the end. nor was chain history altered like in a 51% double spend attack on a shitcoin.

>>27656541
>were not spent twice in the end
How many confirmations is the end ?

>>27656005
i can attest to that we used to double spend before rbf if a tx was stuck because too low fees. basically you cleared tx cache and force rescanned the blockchain for balance in the client and could spend again.

>>27656067
Lmao imagine being this fucking idiot, it’s even easier to double spend on bsv cause priority is always given to the first rx reaching the mempool, so if you broadcast the rx directly to a vendor you want to scam, you have a very high probability of succeeding.
You have no fucking clue on how this stuff works and you are talking technobabble copy pasted craig bullshits

>>27656677
6 is usually considered final enough 2 is pretty good finality for low amounts.
i would say its unthinkable for bitcoin to ever experience a 100 deep reorg so thats basically the limit for how long we should even keep block bodies.

>>27656918
>Lmao imagine being this fucking idiot, it’s even easier to double spend on bsv cause priority is always given to the first rx reaching the mempool
Then film yourself doing it. Post it on twitter.

BSV has a mutex (a traffic light that allows only one thing to be processed at a time) to ensure that only one TX at a time is run through their double-spend detector, which checks the inputs for any double spends, thereby eliminating a possibility that you start processing two conflicting transactions in parallel and don't detect a double-spend.

>>27657106
Right why is Peter Todd saying that it is a double spend. Does /biz/ know something he doesn't ?

>>27656918
i know what you mean and you are correct but not explaining it very well.

>>27657182
read my posts he is neither right nor wrong. but he is a cashie with an agenda.

>>27657124
>to ensure that only one TX at a time is run through their double-spend detector
that’s a vuln moron
if I broadcast the malicious tx to the vendor by talking directly with his node, the double spend is almost a certainty
IT’S EASIER TO DOUBLE SPEND ON BSV
and then you talk about 0conf, yeah, great job moron

>>27653758
ah man, see, this kind of retarded right here is why BTC keeps going up in value despite it being useless vaporware. good job faggot, you're shilling a dead boomercoin. fuck sakes.

>>27657402
its trivial to split the mempool with first seen rule yes. every tx broadcasted makes detection easier and faster but first seen is an anti spam measure.

>>27657402
Then DO IT and film it. I'm calling you out.
You cannot do it. It's bullshit.

>>27657652
anyone can

>>27657748
So do it and film it and upload it to twitter.

>>27657517
So why have you only been using this to get jordans instead of sending yourself tokens and becoming a billionaire in a month

>>27657922
how much BSV do you have?

>>27658099
This guy is a major bsv shill and easily identifiable by always posting this >>27648091 followed by 8,000 more posts about bsv

>>27658099
The same number of coins I have of BTC and every other fork.

>>27657922
let's say you are a vendor in africa accepting 0-conf bsv
i connect to a node in china an release a tx that spends to myself. 200ms later i release my payment tx to you locally which is a double spend but all the nodes around you wil see it first while all asian nodes and west coast us will see the other tx.
you think you got your money like a smug little niggrr you are then 10 minutes later it turns out you didn't.
oops.

>>27658244
and he gets btfo every time and sv keeps sinking like a rock.

>>27646276
ffs why do they have to make finance so complicated
>MUH CRYPTOGRAPHY
this is like the whole subprime thing all over again that crashed the financial markets. Stop making things in finance that requires a fucking Math PhD to understand. Short this thing now

>>27658302
Try it and tell me how it works out for you. Film it and show us.
There is a mempool acceptance code unlike in BTC...
But prove me wrong. Not conjecture, actually do it.

>>27658456
does it take a math degree to count to 2?

>>27658544
bitch you're clueless

>>27658697
Bitch do it. You can't. You can only talk bullshit.
The funds themselves must be considered to remain with the person making the payment until a transaction is verifiable in the mempool, Before it gets into the memepool it is checked against the mutex. It can't enter the memepool before that.

So if you think youcan double spend on BSV, I challange you to do it.
You have 24 hours. BTC will love it. it will be all over Twiiter and every crypto site.
Do it bitch or STFU.

>>27658456
nigga how is RSA Encryption hard to understand just look up some nerd explain it on jewtube

>>27645804
does this have anything to do with Q?

>>27659324
Q was the alleged double spender, all part of the plan

>>27658456
>short this thing now
Like I'm going to take investment advice from a literal brainlet who doesn't understand how a blockchain works

>>27659139
its like you don't even know basic physics... information travels with speed of light limitation

>>27659748
So do it at the speed of light. You have 24 hours to prove yourself.

>>27645903
This, if you know how bitcoin confirmations work then you could tell it was fun within seconds.

>>27659824
i don't have to prove shit its trivial to model how the mempool gets split based on geographic distance with first seen rule.

>>27659729
>>27659153
>>27658587
i just don't understand why they have to make finance so complex
warren buffett famously said derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction. Blockchain is potentially even worse. Just reduce things to buy and sell, ffs.

>>27659580
So trumps definitely coming back rrr-right goys

>>27660073
Nigger what are you talking about? You don't seem to understand why bitcoin exists

>>27659986
So you can't do it. That's OK neither can anyone else. BSV is shorted with billions of dollars. BILLIONS and all they actually have to do is show a double spend. They can't.

I guess what they need is any random autist on /biz/ to show them, because "It's easy"

lmfao

>>27657402
If this were true you would be too busy becoming a billionaire to be shitposting on /biz/

>>27658456
Design a better transaction system right fucking now.

>>27660200
anyone can do it just have to touch your filthy shitcoin if one can stomach that its easy from there

bitcoin is not a crypto-currency. not sure where that came from but

>>27660200
its just basic physics and graph theory really. if its beyond your mental faculties i can't help you.

>>27660678
See: >>27660378
You have a low IQ

>>27660678
>>27660828
why aren't you just doing it and filming it.
I'll go grab a wallet for you to doublespend on to yourself, I've even got a btc to sell you if you can do it.
Come on faggot I've got 36 grand to give your bitch ass if you can just prove your nonsense.
God I wish I could just fucking tokenize how retarded you are.

>>27661807
because i'm in bed half asleep and wouldn't touch your shitcoin anyhow.
but the example i outlined speaks for itself anyone not retarded will get it.

the first-seen rule is at best a minor anti spam measure there is nobconsensus 8n mempool every node has its own mempool and they can and will be in conflict and first is subjective.

>>27662215
Why are you still posting you fucking retard

>>27660562
>me have shiny rock
>me give shiny rock for meat
>everyone happy
done

Can your shitcoin do this ?
https://media.bitcoinfiles.org/a89cd6b4eb4d9f510a9a7adf21bfd84ee63e4d9a6e6f1da99e7d82718870a484

That's on the Genuine Bitcoin blockchain