Dublati-va btc

[AerosoI]

Trimiteti bani de pe o adresa pe alta si o sa aveti o surpriza.Numai ca propagarea e 0% acu ca sunt rupti.

Sa vedeti pretul la btc diseara.

[sirianu]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ng4p9/why_is_bitcoin_protocol_not_fixed_against_tx/ Edited October 4, 2015 by sirianu

[QuoVadis]

Vrajeala.. am efectuat cateva tranzactii aseara si imi spunea ca mai exista o tranzactie identica, potential frauda, bla-bla.. dar in cateva ore a revenit totul la normal. Pierdere de vreme si de satoshi

@AerosoI dovada ca habar nu ai cum functioneaza bitcoinul

Edited October 4, 2015 by aa7670

[malsploit]

Trimiteti bani de pe o adresa pe alta si o sa aveti o surpriza.Numai ca propagarea e 0% acu ca sunt rupti.

Sa vedeti pretul la btc diseara.

Nu o sa se intample nimic cu pretul. O sa fluctueze in limitele normale. Nu este prima oara cand reteaua Bitcoin este supusa unor teste de genu. Se creeaza presiuni pentru adoptarea fork-ului XT si implicit marirea blocului.

[TAJ]

Nu se dubleaza nimic ma

Double spending transaction. Nu se confirma.

[AerosoI]

Vrajeala.. am efectuat cateva tranzactii aseara si imi spunea ca mai exista o tranzactie identica, potential frauda, bla-bla.. dar in cateva ore a revenit totul la normal. Pierdere de vreme si de satoshi

@AerosoI dovada ca habar nu ai cum functioneaza bitcoinul

Banii apareau de 2 ori , au fost sterse tranzactiile dupa.Nu am habar cum functioneaza?Da-mi o adresa de-a ta de btc sa iti trimit de pe ale mele sa vezi ca am tranzactionat peste 2 milioane din 2011 pana acu.

[QuoVadis]

Banii apareau de 2 ori , au fost sterse tranzactiile dupa.Nu am habar cum functioneaza?Da-mi o adresa de-a ta de btc sa iti trimit de pe ale mele sa vezi ca am tranzactionat peste 2 milioane din 2011 pana acu.

- Daca tranzactionezi bitcoin nu inseamna automat ca si intelegi conceptul. Parerea mea ramane la fel.

- 2 milioane de ce? Satoshi? 2 milioane de lei vechi?

[AerosoI]

- Daca tranzactionezi bitcoin nu inseamna automat ca si intelegi conceptul. Parerea mea ramane la fel.

- 2 milioane de ce? Satoshi? 2 milioane de lei vechi?

Bine ca ai tu bani si altii nu.Cum ti-ai dat seama ca-s sarac?

Daca trimiteai adresa vedeai daca erau milioane de lei vechi sau $ din Zimbabwe.

Subiect inchis.

Edited October 5, 2015 by AerosoI

[bDyds]

Bine ca ai tu bani si altii nu.Cum ti-ai dat seama ca-s sarac?

Daca trimiteai adresa vedeai daca erau milioane de lei vechi sau $ din Zimbabwe.

Subiect inchis.

Nice! Dublati-va BTC, trimite-ti pe adresa lui @AerosoI

[sirianu]

Several sources of malleability are known:

Non-DER encoded ECDSA signatures Right now, the Bitcoin reference client uses OpenSSL to validate signatures. As OpenSSL accepts more than serializations that strictly adhere to the DER standard, this is a source of malleability. Since v0.8.0, non-DER signatures are no longer relayed already.

Non-push operations in scriptSig Any sequence of script operations in scriptSig that results in the intended data pushes, but is not just a push of that data, results in an alternative transaction with the same validity.

Push operations in scriptSig of non-standard size type The Bitcoin scripting language has several push operators (OP_0, single-byte pushes, data pushes of up to 75 bytes, OP_PUSHDATA1, OP_PUSHDATA2, OP_PUSHDATA4). As the later ones have the same result as the former ones, they result in additional possibilities.

Zero-padded number pushes In cases where scriptPubKey opcodes use inputs that are interpreted as numbers, they can be zero padded.

Inherent ECDSA signature malleability ECDSA signatures themselves are already malleable: taking the negative of the number S inside (modulo the curve order) does not invalidate it.

Superfluous scriptSig operations Adding extra data pushes at the start of scripts, which are not consumed by the corresponding scriptPubKey, is also a source of malleability.

Inputs ignored by scripts If a scriptPubKey starts with an OP_DROP, for example, the last data push of the corresponding scriptSig will always be ignored.

Sighash flags based masking Sighash flags can be used to ignore certain parts of a script when signing.

New signatures by the sender The sender (or anyone with access to the relevant private keys) is always able to create new signatures that spend the same inputs to the same outputs.

The first six and part of the seventh can be fixed by extra consensus rules, but the last two can't. Not being able to fix #7 means that even with these new consensus rules, it will always be possible to create outputs whose spending transactions will all be malleable. However, when restricted to using a safe set of output scripts, extra consensus rules can make spending transactions optionally non-malleable (if the spender chooses to; as he can always bypass #8 and #9 himself).

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0062.mediawiki

"just pointing out weaknesses in the bitcoin protocol. Better to have a bitcoiner doing this now so we can fix it instead of a central bank or a government doing it in 5 years once they feel threatened by bitcoin. "

Edited October 5, 2015 by sirianu