Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 209.85.219.48 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.219.48;
	envelope-from=decker.christian@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-oa0-f48.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQVLb1L=LZvYz_rf7Auim_oKRmVp+6NC+5AFjyD9NQe5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <513ED35A.8080203@gmail.com> <201303121210.34515.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CALf2ePwae8Y0KxYqcZxEk_KZjUcQN=jaAp=QWa20QeZtJU7UAA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgSZfsAbfWqst+DVjKpaJ5dh7u934rp4p=AE8pbni_VSiw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAAS2fgQVLb1L=LZvYz_rf7Auim_oKRmVp+6NC+5AFjyD9NQe5A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Christian Decker <decker.christian@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 20:53:55 +0100
Message-ID: <CALxbBHXdPJXoGp-W8y8ynUTCsSY5L0yN1juya-UhB9KhMYpfmg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Some PR preparation
Precedence: list

Just a quick and dirty check if something bad actually happened. 430
transactions that were confirmed in the alt-chain, are not confirmed
in the true blockchain. The good news is that as far as I can tell
most of them are low volume transactions destined for SD.

7 transactions were true double spends, or to be more precise
transactions in which an conflicting transaction was confirmed in the
new chain (with their respective amount):

12814b8ad57ce5654ba69eb26a52ddae1bff42093ca20cef3ad96fe7fd85d195 261 BTC
cb36ba33b3ecd4d3177d786209670c9e6cdf95eb62be54986f0b49ca292714af 0.06 BTC
7192807f952b252081d0db0aa7575c4695b945820adaf7776b7189e6b3d86f96 0.01 BTC
355d4ea51c3b780cf0b10e8099a06a31484e0060bc140b63f3d6e5fb713ace5e 0.05 BTC
b961bc0c663a46893afd3166a604e7e2639533522d9fec61fdb95eb665e86f5a 0.61 BTC
138063e4bdb76feaa511f1e7f9c681eb468ef9140c141671741c965e503b84c6 1.62 BTC
a10bd194cdbf9aa4c12eb0b120056998a081a9b0d93d70570edff24dec831f90 0.81

So the one transaction that really hurt was the one published on
BitcoinTalk. We're not yet out of the woods as some of the 423
transactions still have a chance of being doublespent, but looks like
it's not that bad after all.

Cheers,
Chris

P.S.: For a complete list of transactions see http://pastebin.com/wctJU3Ln
--
Christian Decker


On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 7:39 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:09 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter Vessenes <peter@coinlab.com> wrote:
>>> Can some enterprising soul determine if there were any double-spend attempts?
>>> I'm assuming no, and if that's the case, we should talk about that publicly.
> [snip]
>> I agree it would be good to confirm no one was ripped off, even though
>> we can't say there weren't any attempts.
>
> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152348.msg1616747#msg1616747
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we.
> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics
> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today:
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_mar
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development