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

cryptograffiti
cryptograffiti
@cryptograffiti
With Philadelphia now up, the billboard photo thread that teaches those about #Bitcoin as an alternative to our broken financial system is complete

Those in the 12 Federal Reserve Bank cities who see them are directed to the thread below as copied from @BTCvsFED ⬇️


Not long ago, the dollar was backed by gold

This meant you could redeem your dollar for gold & the government had to have enough gold to match the number of dollars they printed

“The Gold Standard” ended in 1971 b/c the US ran low on gold & needed more $ for war & welfare


Without a cap on how much money could be printed, The Federal Reserve (USA’s central bank) was now free to create unlimited quantities of dollars

When the Fed prints money, inflation occurs & prices go up b/c all dollars are worth less

If your earnings don't keep up w/ the rate of inflation the purchasing power of your dollars melts away

Imagine the economy is a pizza & The Fed gives you a slice ($1)

When printing new money, they cut your🍕into more pieces to give out


Yes, you still have a slice ($1) but you’re hungrier b/c that $1 doesn’t go as far

Many Americans hold dollars b/c they can’t afford a home & w/ bills to pay they can’t risk the stock market

Meanwhile, the wealthy move $ into real estate & other assets that better hold value
BITCOIN
Preston Pysh
Preston Pysh
@PrestonPysh
Here’s my thoughts with BTC lending as this cycle heats up. During the previous cycle we saw BTC prices jump from 10,000 to 20,000 in 16 days. This means that if the borrower overcollateralized with an LTV of 50%, their escrow will be liquidated (unless margin is met)...1/

within half a month. Now, what happens if this cycle produces growth that keeps running at double the price action in another 16 days from there? Well, it means those that just met the previous margin calls, now only have 4 days to respond to the next. So what does 2/

this mean for spreads? It means borrowers start to disappear from the market...which also means the spreads in the derivative market don’t get market makers to service the short-side of the trade. For lending/borrowing platforms that are completely overcollateralized, there 3/

shouldn’t be any problems for the depositors, but if lending/borrowing platforms are cutting corners for some of their borrowers (and they aren’t overcollateralized), the borrowers ability to meet margin calls due to counter-party risks in other parts of their portfolio mix ...4/

could cause systematic risk for all participants of the borrowing/lending platform. This is why transparency on borrowing/lending platforms are paramount to long-term trust and growth in the industry. I suspect the risk to lending/borrowing platforms is actually....5/
BITCOIN
Advertisement
Rocketboom
Rocketboom
@Rocketboom
Hello and good Friday, January 28, 2021, I’m Drew and this is Rocketboom [chair breaks]

I see many people are missing why ‘digital currency’, e.g. #Bitcoin is an important disruption in the world. It's not actually about stock trading. It’s waaaaaaaaaay bigger than that.

I USED TO DO A THING. I wrote scripts to break down these kinds of topics. I felt compelled to come back out and explain because its such a big idea...and too many people are not seeing it.

TLDR; Digital currencies allow people living in impoverished nations to transcend the failures of their individual governments, such that their work and purchase power becomes more equal in potential to those in the wealthiest countries.

Examples are always nice. Lets. [cut to voice over]
BITCOIN
Mayank Narula
Mayank Narula
@Mayank_Narula1
#Bitcoin weekly RSI is at the same level as it was during the March'20 crash.

Two possibilities:

1) Reversal
2) Crash to test the lower bound of the channel or even lower, as most of the crashes are preceded by oversold readings.

As of now, 2 has a higher probability.
BITCOIN
balajis.com
balajis.com
@balajis
The defi matrix

As each asset class goes on-chain, it can be stored in a digital wallet. And it can be traded against other such assets. Not just cryptocurrencies, but national digital currencies, personal tokens, etc.

We’re about to enter an age of global monetary competition.

The defi matrix is the table of all pair wise trades. It’s the fiat/stablecoin pairs, the fiat/crypto pairs, the crypto/crypto pairs, and much more besides.

Uniswap-style automatic market making for everything. Every possession you have, constantly marked to market by ~2040.

More liquidity, less currency?

This is an interesting point. Cash doesn’t make you money. In fact, it can lose you money in an inflating environment.

Reliable, 24/7 mark-to-market on everything is hard — but if achieved, means less % of assets in cash.


AMMs boost BTC. Here's why.

- All assets trade against all assets in the defi matrix
- Automated market makers give liquidity for rare pairs
- Everything is marked-to-market 24/7
- Value of cash drops, as you can liquidate instantly
- The new no-op is to keep your assets in BTC

Basically, automated market makers like @Uniswap boost BTC in the long term, because they allow *everything* to be priced in BTC terms, and *anyone* to switch out of BTC into their asset of choice.

Though in practice this may mean WBTC/RenBTC [or ETH!] rather than BTC itself.
BITCOIN

You May Also Like

f1talks.pl
f1talks.pl
@f1talks
Oleg Karpov pisze, że gdyby Siergiej Sirotkin zdobył w pierwszej części sezonu więcej punktów od Strolla, to jego kontrakt z automatu zostałby przedłużony na kolejny sezon. Tak się nie stało i Williams ma możliwość szukania innych opcji i to właśnie robi. #F1pl

Czego w artykule brakuje, to informacji, że SMP prawdopodobnie przekazało Williamsowi część środków na sfinansowanie sezonu 2019. W przypadku zakończenia współpracy ekipa z Grove będzie musiała zwrócić te środki. #F1pl

To tłumaczy wysokie kwoty jakich Williams ma oczekiwać za fotel od nowego kierowcy. Jest pewnie próg opłacalności i dopóki nie zostanie osiągnięty, to zmiana z finansowego punktu widzenia nie będzie się zwyczajnie opłacała. #F1pl

Tyle można znaleźć w oświadczeniach prasowych... 😂😂😂
SPORT
The Light - Truthpaper
The Light - Truthpaper
@LightTruthpaper
Latest update from @TheBernician

1/19

Hancock, Whitty, Vallance & Ferguson Stand Accused of Pandemic Fraud.

After yet more damning evidence arose last week, further additions had to be made to the court papers, which we are now aiming to lay in the coming week.

2/19

The four defendants will be Matt Hancock, Chris Whitty, Patrick Vallance and Neil Ferguson, each of whom has inextricable and ultimately incriminating connections with Bill Gates and Big Pharma.

3/19

As well as three counts of fraud by false representation and seven counts of fraud by non-disclosure, under sections 2 and 3 of the Fraud Act 2006, we can now also prove that the entire worldwide scamdemic originated on these shores.

4/19

In fact, we can show that, without the dishonest statements and non-disclosures of the four defendants we are initially proceeding against, COVID-1984 would not have transpired.

5/19

Furthermore, the 1st defendant, Matt Hancock, cannot rely upon the defence of Parliamentary Privilege, on the ground that none of the evidence relied upon by the prosecution is capable of preventing parliamentarians from carrying out their lawful business in Parliament.
CULTURE
Advertisement
STEALTH JEFF
STEALTH JEFF
@drawandstrike
Ok I was wrong about theHouse. 2 years of legislative gridlock = not fun. Few bills passing.

Control of the House is useless when it comes to keeping Trump from declassifying all the SpyGate docs. Or stopping an Inspector General from releasing a report.

Trump still gets control of judicial appointments so we can expect another 100 judges over the next two years. This time there’ll be no McCain or Flake playing the Maverick role with their swing vote.

That new margin in the Senate is huge if another Supreme Court seat comes open.

So from the responses I’m getting, people seem to think if Trump declassifies the Spygate stuff now, nothing happens.

Are you under the impression federal prosecutors have to wait until CONGRESS finishes an investigation and makes criminal referrals before the DOJ can act?

There’s a federal grand jury on McCabe right now. Did Congress ever finish it’s investigation and make a referral to the DOJ against him?

No.

BUT INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ DID. On finishing his McCabe leak report.

Funny how nobody remembers that.
POLITICS
Engineer Who
Engineer Who
@Engr_Who
A long but must read thread. Udaybhan Rathore and myth making in Maratha history: An analysis. This is the thread on Udaybhan Rathore, who he was and how over the time period, his life was portrayed in maratha chronicles and pseudo history. (1/n)

Udaybhan rathore was the head of Bhinai thikana (84 villages) in Ajmer. He was the direct descendant of the famous Rao Chandrasen, Raja of Marwar (4th generation) who resisted Akbar all his life and never made any alliance with mughals like Maharana Pratap. (2/n)

Later in 1783, Maharaja of Jodhpur gave title of Raja to Bhinai family for their military service. Bhinai family and their direct descendant Raja Sh Mayuraj Singh still lives in Ajmer. Anyway coming to Udaybhan Rathore and story of Tanaji. (3/n)

Jai Singh's march on Shivaji and treaty of Purandar (1665) is a well known episode to repeat here. After getting the hill forts from Shivaji under the treaty, Jai Singh didn't have enough man-power to man every one of the small forts because of his next (4/n)

campaign against Bijapur. Jai Singh personally took over a couple of important forts like Kondhana (Sinhgarh), Purandar etc. Others were given to some mughals or their fortification walls destroyed. Jai Singh died in 1667 near Burhanpur while enroute to the north. (5/n)
INDIA
Anu Satheesh
Anu Satheesh
@AnuSatheesh5
Importance of Famous Payyannur Pavithra Mothiram or Ring

Payyanur Sri Subramanya Swami Temple 🚩
Kerala

Temple, constructed by Parasurama is known as the 'Pazhani' of Kerala.The place got its name from 'Payyante Ooru' where Payyan is another name by which Subramanya was called.


There are references about this temple in Brahmanda purana. Muni Garga mentions this temple and the place to  the Pandavas when they were in Vanavasa. Temple was destroyed two times, once due to fire and then during the attack of Tipu Sultan.


Important tradition here is wearing of Pavithram by the temple priest. Pavithram is a sort of  ring worn during performing Vedic rituals or during the "pithrubali". Usually worn while performing Tarpana or Shradham. The traditional Pavitram is usually made of Dharbha grass
ALL