1\ There is an alarming amount of misinformation (fueled by the media) on what exactly happened to Bitcoin yesterday, and whether funds were "double spent"

Here's everything you need to know 👇

2\ On the 18th, a user broadcast a transaction with very low fees.

When users underpay fees, their transactions gets stuck because miners have more profitable opportunities.

Users are left with 2 options:

a) wait until fee levels drop
b) tell miners they will increase fees
3\ The most popular way to (b) increase fees of an already-broadcast transaction is through a "Replace By Fee (RBF)" transaction.

Put simply, RBF is a copy-and-paste of the original transaction with higher fees and an explicit instruction to favor the new transaction instead.
4\ Nearly a day passed after our infamous user broadcast the original transaction and miners did not include it.

So the user decided to issue an RBF on the 19th with higher fees... but not high enough!

And the transaction was again stuck...
5\ A couple of hours later, the user decided to bump fees up again via a second RBF!

This time around the user paid enough fees.
6\ So, to recap, the user broadcast a total of 3 transactions:

1) Dec 18th 22:11 UTC (1 sat/b)
2) Dec 19th 21:22 UTC (9.4 sat/b)
3) Dec 20th 00:32 UTC (14.3 sat/b)

And here's where things get a bit more complex
7\ At around 1:18AM the blockchain split into 2 versions, which is an entirely normal occurrence; a fundamental part of how Bitcoin works.

When this happens (1+ times per month), miners need to converge on a single version of events, which often takes around 1 block, or 10 min.
8\ However... by the time the user broadcast the third transaction, fee levels had quieted down and the chain was split:

-One miner picked the first (low fee) transaction for their version of the chain
-The other miner picked up the third (highest fee RBF transaction)
9\ The thing about RBFs is that they're entirely optional. Miners decide which transaction to pick.

In this occasion it might have looked like a malicious "double spend" (inflation), but it is a completely normal event.
10\ The chain was split for 1 block (again, normal), but ultimately the miner on the branch with the low fee transaction ended up winning.

The important thing to know is that, yes, there might be different versions of the same transaction, but ONLY 1 will ultimately be accepted.
11\ @0xB10C (follow this man) made a helpful timeline of events using @coinmetrics data:
12\ Again, RBFs in stale blocks is business as usual.

No reason to freak out. No inflation, no "double-spend" was actually confirmed. Just a ton of loud ignorance and misinformation.
13\ This is a wake up call for crypto media. Looking at you @crypto and @Cointelegraph

You benefit by serving crypto adds. I urge you to at the very least understand your responsibility and step up your technical game.

How about sponsoring a bitcoin developer?
14\ Another clarifying point: @BitMEXResearch is doing an amazing job for the community with https://t.co/k9MhseACnP and https://t.co/0gjizyXMy7

Their depiction of what happened was accurate. Unfortunately, their post was grossly misrepresented misrepresented for clickbait...

More from Bitcoin

The #Bitcoin fundamentals of four generations of inflation, entitlements, and regulations are separate and apart from #Bitcoin the technological innovation. If we had sound money there would be little demand for Bitcoin. (1/13)


The notion that gold futures hold down the physical gold price or subjects the gold price to long-term manipulation is a canard. CME gold futures deliveries are settled with warrants meeting exact specifications met by approved refineries, carriers, and warehouses which (2/13)

ensures the integrity of delivery apart from the exchange. https://t.co/CpV1OBSsAT One need look no further than the 1980 Hunt Silver fiasco which illustrates how deliverable futures contracts provide for the discovery of an untapped silver supply resting in people's homes.(3/13)

Not so for Bitcoin. The CME Bakkt Bitcoin contract is for Bakkt Bitcoin. It is not Bitcoin. Bakkt Bitcoin is a cash-settled monthly futures contract. While the Bakkt Bitcoin has geographically storage of private keys, they are not your private keys. (4/13)


Not your keys, not your bitcoin. The Bitcoin Warehouse is an internal ledger The internal ledger operates separate and apart from the Bitcoin blockchain. The only interaction with the public blockchain is during the deposit of bitcoin into the Bakkt Warehouse and the (5/13)

You May Also Like

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.