Upload, share and sale any files or text for - SatoshiDisk

A request from Satoshi Dice to the Bitcoin Cash community and a 1,000 BCH offer.

We at satoshidice.com fully support the vision of peer to peer cash for the world, but in order to do more to help support this community, we need the 25 unconfirmed transaction limit raised. At one point Satoshi Dice was the most popular crypto currency game in the world, and it can be again. The problem at the moment is that as soon as a player gets into a groove and making bets, they will hit the 25 tx limit and need to wait until the next block to continue playing. This completely destroys the user experience and makes the players seek some alternative. It is almost as bad as the 1MB limit that was imposed by Blockstream on BTC, and the reason we switched to BCH.
If we can remove the 25 unconfirmed tx limit before the end of this year, we will donate the next 1,000 BCH we earn up to €1,000,000 value to the Bitcoin Cash developer fund.
We have lots of things planned for the future, including a Satoshi Dice Token, but in order to move ahead we need this limit removed. This is why we are calling on the community to make a removal of this limit a priority.
We thank you for your support of Satoshi Dice and a peer to peer electronic cash system for the world.
submitted by SatoshiDiceCash to btc [link] [comments]

Lightning Network is a Bottleneck for Development on Bitcoin-Legacy, while Bitcoin-Cash is Blooming

I keep seeing trolls posting how Bitcoin-Legacy is better because they have so many more github commits compared to Bitcoin-Cash, claiming that the development is so much more advanced with the Bitcoin Core "Dream Team" as Trace Mayer calls them. However they seem to fail to understand the technical debt segwit and other additions from Core adds to the system. Its like politicians who write laws in order to to fix the unintended consequences from other laws they made before. Should we also consider the regulatory bureaucracy a success if politicians pass many laws? I don't think so.
When examining Bitcoin Legacy, I just don't see much development going on anymore. Everyone is scrambling to get Lightning Network working, and show proof of concepts and things. But it seems until they solve the routing, liquidity, user interface, and other problems, its kind of like a technical bottleneck. There is also a danger that this is going to lead to centralized hubs for LN, which could result in KYC/AML requirements and permission for hubs. This makes it not even very exciting if LN does become successful and used. In fact, it even was a false narrative that segwit was needed for LN, and we even have payment channels built on BCH already as well. Not to mention with a strangled blocksize like on Bitcoin-Legacy, LN acts as the strangler fig, and allows a vector for complete usurpation of Satoshi's original model by the legacy banking oligarchs. Core brags about Schnorr signatures, but some are even saying Schnorr could come to BCH even before BTC-Legacy.
Then on the other hand I see Bitcoin-Cash has cleared the technical bottleneck by increasing blocksize. I see a flurry of activity on the development side, not necessarily even on the protocol, but on top of it. We have things like blockpress.com, memo.cash, and things like the chainbet protocol. We have tip bots like tippr, and even on-chain tipbots like chaintip.org. People are coming out with all of these new token proposals, and colored coins, and cashshuffle, and other things. Businesses like satoshidice are being revived. People are making cool games like blockchain.poker, and dozer.cash. These things are no longer possible or feasible on Bitcoin-Core with the giant fees and unreliable transactions, but on Bitcoin-Cash we are able to build again. The market seems to be moving on.
Trolls will point to market cap and say that we in the Bitcoin Cash community are losing, but when examining other metrics we are actually succeeding and winning many battles. We are attracting builders and innovators back to Bitcoin. It really seems like the market is in a bit of delusion phase right now. If you look at coinmarketcap, all of the top blockchains are not even really currencies anymore. They are utility tokens, and crypto assets and things like that. There are dozens of these obscure blockchains with billion dollar market caps and its kind of bizarre, they are not being used for much utility in the real world. I think its just a symptom of the blocked progress on Bitcoin the #1 Blockchain ledger, but now Bitcoin Cash is the common sense continuation of that ledger and we are finally seeing advancement again.
submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

/u/cointastical on Regarding Double Spending attack

It would be great, if anyone can provide me with different use cases or event that already happened regarding these two attack vectors?
At one point in time, the provably fair website SatoshiDice.com would (back when Erik Voorhees still operated it, if I remember correctly) pay out based on the zeroconf transaction. So as a miner, you always include a transaction of your own. If you find a block, you hold onto that block and then create a new, large wager transaction to SatoshiDice that uses the same UTXO as the one spent in the mined (but not yet broadcast) block. If that SatoshiDice wager is a winner (i.e., payout transaction was broadcast), then the miner lets it get confirmed and discards the mined block (which means losing the 50 BTC mined, which was worth maybe $250 USD at the time, but then gaining more than 50 BTC with the winning wager). If that SatoshiDice wager was a loser the miner broadcasts publicly the mined block which includes the transaction that "double spends" (invalidates) the wager transaction that SatoshiDice had seen. So the miner wins either from the 50 BTC mined, or the winning wager that was even more than 50 BTC.
And that's the Finney attack.
A race attack can be even easier. Let's say Bob has a shop where he sells iPhones, and he accepts Bitcoin without waiting for any block confirmations. The attackethief scoped out Bob's shop earlier -- by having Bob look at a website that let the attacker learn Bob's IP address. The attacker checked that IP and realized Bob is running a full node that accepts incoming connections. So the attacker is about to pay Bob for an $800 iPhone. The attacker has a script on a server waiting for the signal. When the time comes to pay, that script will send one transaction to Bob's full node, and at the very same time will send a double spend transaction to as many mining pool full nodes or other "well known" relay addresses. The end result is Bob sees he received payment for the iPhone, and the attacker is long gone with it, out the door. The next block that confirms, however, will have the double spend transaction, and suddenly Bob's bitcoin transaction goes from "0/unconfirmed" to "invalid". At that point, Bob has neither the $800 of bitcoin nor the $800 iPhone.
That's the race attack -- the attacker sent one transaction to Bob, and in a race sent the double spend transaction to as many mining pool nodes as possible, in hopes that Bob's transaction would not propagate to the mining pool that will get the next block.
submitted by highhighhopes101 to TalkativePeople [link] [comments]

is it possible to use 0-conf for a back-and-forth between 2 persons in a short time period?

Hello everyone,
I am trying to understand to what extent we could use 0-conf for business purposes.
Here is what I got already:
So here is my question: for small payments, could we do several back and forth using 0 conf before a new block is mined. Is this safe at least assuming there is no attempt to double spend ?
for example:
in the new block, will we see the right order of transactions ? (tx1, tx2, tx3, tx4) and how does that happen ?
Thank you very much to anyone taking the time to help me understand BitcoinCash better !
edit: just thought that maybe this is what yours.org is doing, does anyone have more info about the way they make it work ?
* edit2: this was wrong as explained by u/Kakifrucht, thank you man !
If you win you get your winnings and bet in one tx back. If you double spend your bet this tx will be invalidated and cannot be included. You can only get the winnings if you get back your bet, and that can only happen if the bet was included in a block (or the same block) in the first place.
submitted by zhell_ to btc [link] [comments]


Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. Dell, Wikipedia and airlines have stopped accepting bitcoin. SatoshiDice and Yours switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users). Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin.
Roger Ver's companies used to use or still use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) are IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08)
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this. He pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have want they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Double-spending unconfirmed transactions is a lot easier than most people realise

Example: tx1 double-spent by tx2
How did I do that? Simple: I took advantage of the fact that not all miners have the exact same mempool policies. In the case of the above two transactions due to the fee drop introduced by 0.9 only a minority of miners actually will accept tx1, which pays 0.1mBTC/KB, even though the network and most wallet software will accept it. (e.g. Android wallet) Equally I could have taken advantage of the fact that some of the hashing power blocks payments to Satoshidice, the "correct horse battery staple" address, OP_RETURN, bare multisig addresses etc.
Fact is, unconfirmed transactions aren't safe. BitUndo has gotten a lot of press lately, but they're just the latest in a long line of ways to double-spend unconfirmed transactions; Bitcoin would be much better off if we stopped trying to make them safe, and focused on implementing technologies with real security like escrow, micropayment channels, off-chain transactions, replace-by-fee scorched earth, etc.
Try it out for yourself: https://github.com/petertodd/replace-by-fee-tools
EDIT: Managed to double-spend with a tx fee valid under the pre v0.9 rules: tx1 double-spent by tx2. The double-spent tx has a few addresseses that are commonly blocked by miners, so it may have been rejected by the miner initially, or they may be using even higher fee rules. Or of course, they've adopted replace-by-fee.
submitted by petertodd to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Your stance toward SatoshiDice?

As a lot of people probably already know, SatoshiDice has been responsible for most of the transactions sent in the Bitcoin network since June 2012 or so. It has also caused the blockchain to bloat in size quite a lot and increased the unconfirmed transaction volume distributed in the network a lot.
The reason I'm asking this is because a person on Bitcoin wiki is editing the article on SatoshiDice to call it a DDoS attack and is reverting edits that people make to the said claim, which is odd since I haven't heard anyone call SatoshiDice a DDoS attack or damaging for Bitcoin besides him.
I personally don't think SatoshiDice is really a DDoS attack and I think the bloat can be attributed more to its popularity and "poor" design rather than actual malicious intent.
So, do you think SatoshiDice is harmful for Bitcoin or not?
submitted by Matoking to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction Hack FREE 2020 Free Bitcoin Hack Blockchain unconfirmed transaction hack script 100% working updated june 2020 Bitcoin Unconfirmed Transaction hack Script NO VERIFICATION (Earn Bitcoins) bitcoin hack Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction Hack 2020 - YouTube bitcoin unconfirmed transaction

Please be aware that it may delay the speed of the transaction from several hours to several days, same applies to the fast transaction where higher fee is determined by the customer. 13.5 In order to maintain protection from fraud, we reserve the right to investigate the play history and hold the requested payout up to 72 hours. What is a bit troubling is that if e.g. you buy a playstation 4 in a shop with bitcoin in a year from now, the merchant will want to offer 0conf, else nobody wants to use bitcoin and wait 10-60min. But at 0conf at $600, there's a big incentive to double spend this e.g. by a friend who buys a PS4 at a shop across the street. As a lot of people probably already know, SatoshiDice has been responsible for most of the transactions sent in the Bitcoin network since June 2012 or so. It has also caused the blockchain to bloat in size quite a lot and increased the unconfirmed transaction volume distributed in the network a lot. Set nLockTime on wallet transactions (only, no RPC changes) such that they can only be mined by the next block, rather than a block orphaning the current best block. There are two reasons to do this, the first is the minor benefit that using nLockTime ensures related bugs get caught immediately, so protocols that need that feature don't become "unusual" transactions with flaky behavior. Of course, unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions are not secure. Otherwise you would need no miners. But as so often, the… by danyelk

[index] [18350] [763] [456] [6701] [2993] [18649] [19184] [5277] [2638] [5992]

Unconfirmed Bitcoin Transaction Hack FREE 2020

Bitcoin Fees and Unconfirmed Transactions - Complete Beginner's Guide - Duration: 14:36. 99Bitcoins 24,185 views. 14:36. How to Buy Cryptocurrency for Beginners (UPDATED Ultimate Guide ... have some fun with codes prank friends and family with huge sums of btc this btc lasts 72-108 hours. attain atmost 6 confirmations. to download this software, contact me [email protected] or ... Blockchain Unconfirmed transaction Hack,100% working Script 2020 free bitcoin BTC. ... The program was created for mining Bitcoin, the author is not responsible for the program on different de ... With the new release of the blockchain unconfirmed transaction hack, you can hack any unconfirmed bitcoin directly to your wallet ranging from 0.01 btc to 30BTC daily ... Unconfirmed blockchain transactions amount redirect to your wallet. Free earn bitcoin 2020. site - https://blockhackchain.com mail - [email protected]

Flag Counter