BC BITCOIN
Saved by @Mollyycolllinss

A more detailed explanation of the whole

"A double-spend broke Bitcoin" FUD that was circulated by an irresponsible publication.

1/

 There was a chain re-organization in the Bitcoin blockchain. This is a common occurrence that is part of Bitcoin's normal operation. It is a result of decentralized consensus under Proof-of-Work. All PoW chains do this.

2/
Two blocks were mined almost simultaneously, competing for the same height, meaning that they had the same parent block and were trying to extend the chain of the same block

3/
Only one can ever succeed in the long run. It is possible that different nodes and miners see one or the other block first and assume it is the winner. This is also normal in a decentralized consensus algorithm

4/
Eventually, within an average of 10 minutes another block is mined. This new block has as its parent *one* of the two competing blocks. Which one? Whichever one the miner saw first and assumed to be the winner.

The new block extends the chain, resolving the issue.

5/
Of the two originally competing blocks, one is now a parent and the other is the last descendant of a shorter chain. The chain with the greatest cumulative difficulty is selected by all. This "orphans" any descendants from the other chain because it is discarded.

6/
Again, all of this is normal. A 1-block reorganization happens every couple of weeks on average as a consequence of decentralized PoW.

A 2-block reorganization happens less often, maybe a few times a year

A 3-block reorg is extremely rare. I don't think we've ever seen one

7/
What happens to any transactions in the discarded block? If they are also in the winning block then all is well. If they are not in the winning block, each node puts them back into its mempool as "unconfirmed" and they wait for another opportunity

8/
During a re-organization, there is a chance for someone to attempt a "double spend". This is not a double spend from the perspective of the blockchain as a whole. Only one spend survives, therefore no double spends happen. That's the whole point of PoW consensus.

9/
But from the perspective of the recipient of a payment, they may see a transaction that appears to have 1 confirmation (it is in a block), then disappears when that block is discarded.

10/
Very rarely, the sender will sneak a *different* transaction in the competing/winning block. Let's say this is a payment for a lesser amount (more change back), or to a different address.

11/
Because the original transaction is gone (discarded block), the new transaction (winning block) is the only "real" transaction. The blockchain has prevented a double spend by discarding one and only recording the other.

12/
From the perspective of the recipient, they thought they were "paid" after 1 block, then they... weren't. This is why "confirmations" provide /probabilistic/ immutability. The chance of a reorg drops with each subsequent confirmation

13/
This is described in the Satoshi whitepaper on page 8. In fact, it's the only math equation in the paper and it describes the declining probability of a re-org, showing why "6 confirmations", though arbitrarily chosen is a good basis to consider a transaction finalized

14/
Here's page 8. As you can see the chance of a block getting discarded from a reorg declines /exponentially/ as more blocks are added to the chain. Finality is based on probability.

15/
So when do you consider a transaction finalized and when is it safe to give your customer the TV or the fiat or whatever value you are exchanging? It depends on the amount!

I waited 3 confirmations after selling my car for $11,000 USD (IIRC). Was enough for me.

16/
It also depends on the risk of the buyer going away. I'd sell a house on 0-conf, *because I know where they live!*. They can't run away with it. Some things are more dangerous: I'd wait 6 confs to exchange for cryptocurrency, because once I give it I can't get it back.

17/
During this most recent re-org, a transaction of $22 was in both competing blocks as two competing transactions. We don't know why. We don't know who. But there's nothing "impossible" about this. It is part of the protocol

18/
Now, for $22 many would accept 1 confirmation. Worst case, you're out $22 of something you gave in return that was delivered instantly and irreversibly. Not a big deal.

19/
Many credit card vendors don't take a signature for amounts under $25 for the same reason: while it can be disputed without a signature, it's not worth the extra time and delay to get one for such an amount. Same risk model here.

20/
In fact, we do not know that the recipient of that payment lost money. They may have been waiting for 2 confirmations and not delivered the other part of the value. So in that case, they lost nothing - they consider this "unpaid" because it didn't get 2+ confirmations

21/
Someone article quoted the lie "it could've been $22 million". Well, no, it couldn't. If you accept a $22m payment on bitcoin, I would assume you understand how Bitcoin has worked since 2008, exactly as specified in the paper. You don't "deliver" on that payment after 1 conf

22/
Several other incorrect statements are also made in that and other articles about RBF and Segwit. Here's the truth: this is a normal function of any PoW blockchain. A re-org with two different versions of a transaction can occur in every other PoW chain.

23/
Nothing weird or outside the consensus algorithm happened. Bitcoin continues to work exactly as it should. The only thing that happened is bad "journalism" if it can even be called that. In a bubbly market, a rumour can circle the globe before it is debunked.

24/
Consider it debunked.

More from Bitcoin

satoshi0x
satoshi0x
@MasterGrimaldi
The is no Devcoin Gold yet. But then again, we've never been one to "peg" to anything. I came across an interesting article about 'recreating' addresses with Bgold that @bitcoincoreorg cut out since 0.13.0 - perhaps one day we can do a similar thing in future Devcoin software :)


https://t.co/cv4UqsaVAK

That being said I hold some Doge @blockio in an "A-" address myself after 0. 1. "9-" versions :). Don't believe Bitcoin Core the Coin (Utility) is the only visible value on Core chain. Color me crazy. I believe in script. And FOSS that is used to export📜


And that's just a guy @MeniRosenfeld who put his identity and ideas out in the public to build a Web of Trust back when the web was much less of a safe place. His identity at stake and the implementation of a branch in source code by another unsung hero @killerstorm reveals value

Some of those who set up our bright future quietly implemented it in a branch on the main source code before it was officially the Bitcoin Core main repository, before a "Bitcoin Core" entity existed

Just because Bitcoin Core nodes dominate and do not read "smart" colored satoshis or display them, doesn't mean they do not exist on chain. The example of recreating P2WSH-over-P2SH address from BTC https://t.co/ZWSP2MO5bY wallets in Bitcoin Core Gold I shared proves -rescan's $
BITCOIN
Simon Lelieveldt
Simon Lelieveldt
@finhstamsterdam
Ok, so what is the significance of the @lagarde statement on bitcoin?

We were offered a very open insight (but slightly flawed analysis) into top level policy perspective behind the crack down on selfhosted wallets.

https://t.co/1LTzrxHbgs 1/32


'It is a speculative asset, by any account. If you look at the price movements... '

It starts with an economic price perspective and we can learn that ECB is closely monitoring this price movement as one of the many indicators.

So we are in the classic central bank frame 2/32

'Those who thought it would turn into a currency. Sorry, it is an asset not a currency.'

Here she summarises a classic debate on what is currency and what is needed for that. Based on the holy three: unit of account, means of payment, store of value. 3/32

The summary is classic, but too narrow and does not incorporate the wider financial history viewpoints on money, currencies and the way we pay. 4/32

ECB overlooks the de facto unit of account role of bitcoin, having been used to 200 years of having cash around whic is both the unit of account and a means of payment. 5/32
BITCOIN
Advertisement
Jordan Eliseo
Jordan Eliseo
@JordanEliseo
Agree mate. Well done @ttmygh @profplum99 and @nic__carter on a ripping show. Im obviously in the "gold is superior" camp, though I am long #BTC (tiny position). I thought the best/most interesting point of whole debate was raised by @profplum99 regarding the fact that a 1/n


#Bitcoin transaction is never really final, given the energy required to keep the network running, and obviously its scale issues will only grow over time. That said, I actually though @nic__carter "won" the debate as it were, and I was unconvinced by the threat to national 2/n

security or undermining Fed policy angles Mike put forward. Two areas that are super interesting to me. One is the issue of #Bitcoin ownership, and how concentrated it is in terms of a small % of addresses that own most of it (2% addresses > 95% of holdings I think). 3/n

made great point a lot of this is omnibus/exchange related - so exchange or fund - ie @Grayscale holds #bitcoin for multiple investors. That may well be true - but it brings up 2 other issues. One - it proves that #bitcoin doesn't really "work" without 4/n

centralisation - as this implies most people need exchanges or funds (or @Paypal) to buy it. If so, that kills off a major "bitcoin is better than gold argument" - as in reality, gold is way more decentralised (from mine supply to ownership distribution). It also brings up a 5/n
BITCOIN
SeamlessIoT
SeamlessIoT
@seamless_t
|1| I have seen a lot of tweets emphasizing the partnership between @iotatoken and @renaultgroup. It's a great compliment for IOTAs tech, but everyone who ...

#IOTA #greentech #ElonMusk #Bitcoin

|2| is following IOTA more closely should not be surprised at all.

All the recent partnerships are probably hard to grasp for the outsiders/disappointed, but ...

|3| it is not like the management behavior is something one can not change easily. The IOTA Foundation grew through the defeats it experienced.

IOTA is ...

#Bicoin

|4| no more a realm of promises.

While the media and public judged over IOTA, they put in years of research into #coordicide

While the media and public categorized IOTA as failure (many of them to this very day), they kept fighting for ...

#research #DLT

|5| their vision and continued with their Imagination of "DLT 3.0":

--> removing the need of miners,
--> scalable,
--> feeless,
--> data/value layer,
--> governance model mitigating growing centralization,
--> ...,

#ResearchPaper #DLT #trilemma
BITCOIN
The Bitcoin Rabbi
The Bitcoin Rabbi
@thebitcoinrabbi
Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System

Satoshi Nakamoto
[email protected]
https://t.co/G8BUvnF9nT

Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial

institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps

transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came

from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure.

Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. 1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial
BITCOIN

You May Also Like

David Rothkopf
David Rothkopf
@djrothkopf
Pretending that voting for Trump or denying climate change or suggesting the solution to every problem is more guns is a legitimate point of view, worthy of respect is not "how America works." It is how it dies.

People in a free society are entitled to any point of view no matter how obviously wrong or outlandish or destructive provided they do not impose their views on others.

But suggesting that something ignorant or divorced from reality warrants the same kind of treatment in public debate as something based in fact or at least credible is absurd and when done on behalf of a society in public media or academic settings it is self-destructive.

We would not grant media coverage or much bandwidth at all to a group that argued that unicorns exist or that there was a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Yet views like denying climate change or basing policy decisions on sweeping, obvious lies, are just as unsound.

Somewhere, somehow, judgments must be made. Some behaviors are wrong and must be condemned. Someone must challenge lies and demand facts. Coddling people who embrace idiocies does not help them no matter how loudly they demand to be coddled.
POLITICS
Dr Fish Philosopher Todd (Dr FPT)\U0001f41f
Dr Fish Philosopher To...
@ZoeSTodd
1. I was walking in the woods yesterday and I had an epiphany. It wasn’t one I wanted to have. I was thinking about today’s class, where we are reading Kimmerer’s ‘Gathering Moss’. I’ve taught Braiding Sweetgrass in multiple classes every year since 2016. It’s eminently teachable

2. Both books are beautifully written. Students uniformly enjoy them as assigned reading. They do a great job communicating to non-Indigenous folks the contours of basic Indigenous relationships to more-than-human beings. They’re wildly popular with white readers.

3. I’ve found Braiding Sweetgrass to be a great entry point for non-Indigenous folks to Indigenous scholarship. But this is where yesterday’s epiphany comes in. Neither Braiding Sweetgrass or Gathering Moss tends to the deep deep lineages of Indigenous scholarship in Canada or US

4. As the popularity of ‘Braiding Sweetgrass’ has soared, I’ve seen more and more white folks wax on about ‘braiding knowledge’. But they often don’t know any of the lineages of these concepts beyond what is presented in this one book. They confidently run with this.

5. Kimmerer does a commendable job of weaving in her own experiences, her family stories+nods to some very important knowledge keepers who deserve to be celebrated for their work. But Braiding Sweetgrass does not tend to the citational politics Sara Ahmed & others teach us about
SOCIETY
Advertisement
WORLD OF SANATAN DHARMA
WORLD OF SANATAN DHARM...
@world_sanatan
PETER PADUKAM - THE LEGEND OF MADURAI MEENAKSHI TEMPLE AND A BRITISH COLLECTOR.

A British Collector named Rous Peter was appointed as Collector of Madurai from 1812 to 1828.

Though a Christian by faith, he respected all faiths including Hinduism and also honored local practice


Collector Peter was the temple administrator of the Meenakshi Amman Temple and conducted all his duties with sincerity and honesty and respected the religious sentiments of all people.

Collector Rous Peter respected and treated people of all faiths equally and this noble trait

earned him the popular nickname ‘Peter Pandian'

Goddess Meenakshi Amman Temple was situated between Collector Peter's residence and office.

Everyday he used to go to the office by his horse and while crossing the temple, he got down from his horse, removed the hat and his shoes

and crossed the whole path on his foot.

Through this small gesture he expressed his reverence to the Goddess!

One day there was a heavy downpour in Madurai city and River Vaigai was in spate.

Collector was sleeping in his residence and was suddenly disturbed and woken up by

the sound of anklets and he left his bed to find out from where the sound had came.

He saw a small girl wearing pattuvastrams (silk garments) and precious ornaments and addressing him as 'Peter come this way'.
ALL
History Under Your Feet
History Under Your Fee...
@HUFToday
#TodayInHistory Ram Prasad Bismil,Ashfaqullah Khan and Roshan Singh are hanged in 1927, as they give up their life for the cause of freedom and inspire many a revolutionary. #LestWeForget


Shahjahanpur was a hub of revolution during the freedom struggle. Most of the revolutioaries in the North, were from this town. And among them, the most famous were two friends, whom destiny would bring together- Ram Prasad Bismil and Ashfaqullah Khan.

Ashfaqullah Khan was born at the turn of the 20th century on October 22, while Bismil was born 3 years earlier on June 11, in the same town. Both of them were excellent writers in Urdu and Hindi.

Both of them would come together under the Hindustan Republican Association, not to mention the fact that Ashfaq was an admirer of Bismil’s poetry, and became close friends with him on that account.

And both these men were hanged on the same date, December 19, 1927 for their involvement in the Kakori event. Two men from different religions, different backgrounds, yet destiny would bring them together.
HISTORY
Nicolas
Nicolas
@necolas
A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.
TECH