Published on: 2013-03-12T20:09:17+00:00
Christian Decker, a Bitcoin developer, reported that out of 430 transactions confirmed in the alt-chain, only seven transactions were true double spends. The conflicting transactions were confirmed with their respective amounts: 261 BTC, 0.06 BTC, 0.01 BTC, 0.05 BTC, 0.61 BTC, 1.62 BTC, and 0.81 BTC. The one transaction that caused the most damage was published on BitcoinTalk. Although some of the 423 transactions still have a chance of being doublespent, the situation is not as bad as initially feared. It is essential to confirm that no one has been ripped off, even though there might have been attempts. For a complete list of transactions, see http://pastebin.com/wctJU3Ln.In a post on the BitcoinTalk forum in March 2013, user Peter Vessenes asked if anyone had determined if there were any double-spend attempts related to the recent blockchain fork that occurred. Gregory Maxwell responded and agreed that it would be good to confirm that no one was ripped off, even though they couldn't say for certain that there weren't any attempts. It is unclear from this context whether any further action was taken to investigate possible double-spends.In an email conversation, Alan Reiner asked about the risks involved in a rejected block while transactions remained unaffected. A flood of duplicate transactions announcing both spends to multiple nodes could cause conflicts in both chains, which would eventually result in one chain being popped and transactions being undone for anyone on that side. This attack would not require any particular resources and only enough technical sophistication to run something like pynode to give raw txn to nodes at random. However, interest in attacking and lack of good targets who hadn't shut down their deposits were major barriers. In response to a query by someone regarding double-spend attempts, it was confirmed that there were circulating double-spends during the fork as visible on blockchain.info. It is unknown whether any conflicts made it into the losing chain. Checking consumed inputs in the losing fork can determine if any have been consumed by different transactions now. Even though no one knows if there weren't any attempts, it would be good to confirm that no one was ripped off.The discussion revolves around the possibility of any double-spend attempts during a recent Bitcoin test. Some individuals believe that it is unlikely that such an attempt was made, while others argue that the risk was real and should not be downplayed. Despite this, many people agree that the test was successful and credit goes to everyone who contributed to it. One participant in the discussion suggests that contacting larger payment processors might be necessary, as some individuals could have been scammed even with standard precautions. However, others argue that the risk was minimal, as executing a double-spend would require an exceptional amount of resources way outside the scope of regular users. In conclusion, the discussion highlights the importance of thorough testing and the need to address potential risks to ensure the safety and security of Bitcoin transactions.In an email exchange, Luke-Jr expressed concern about the risk of double-spending during a brief period when transactions could have received up to N confirmations and then still been reversed. There was a possibility that people trying to buy/sell on OTC could have been scammed even by taking standard precautions. However, another participant in the exchange argued that the risk was not as great as it appeared because any valid transactions hitting the network would get added to everyone's memory pool and mined in both chains. Thus all nodes would still reject double-spend attempts. Majority mining power on one of the chains was required, and both had non-negligible computing power on them, so double-spending still required an exceptional amount of resources, just not the normal 50% that is normally needed. It required at least 10%, which limited the number of potential attackers. In addition, a victim needed to be found that hadn't seen the alert, was willing to execute a large transaction, and was on the wrong side of the chain. This made the attack outside the scope of regular users.On March 12, 2013, Alan Reiner expressed concern about the potential negative attention that could arise from an event involving Bitcoin. He believed it was important to prepare PR comments in advance to combat any inaccurate or exaggerated reporting. Reiner emphasized that the event was a short and harmless lapse in network consensus that caused transaction delays rather than a threat to the safety of coins. However, Luke cautioned against downplaying the reality of the situation as transactions could have been reversed and scams were still possible even with standard precautions. The event received media attention due to Bitcoin's rising popularity at the time.Bitcoin suffered a short and harmless lapse that caused transaction delays of a few hours due to a bug that was fixed. The coins are safe, and it would have been difficult to exploit the incident for gain.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T04:31:51.724187+00:00