Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from <decker.christian@gmail.com>) id 1UFVHY-00085X-Vn for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:54:45 +0000 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; Received: from mail-oa0-f48.google.com ([209.85.219.48]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1UFVHU-0005z9-Et for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:54:44 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f48.google.com with SMTP id j1so271486oag.7 for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:54:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.182.88.103 with SMTP id bf7mr13543236obb.7.1363118075109; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:54:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.76.162.226 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 12:53:55 -0700 (PDT) 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 X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (decker.christian[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1UFVHU-0005z9-Et Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Some PR preparation X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 19:54:45 -0000 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