Daniel P. Barron

A Minor Problem

Thursday, March 3, 2016 

There was a major revelation yesterday, and a Qntra article written. It was posted on various sections of that USG funded scam site masquerading as “social media” where, to nobodies surprise, idiots said a lot of nothing. Add to the list of mega-unsurprise: my comments that you would not have seen if I didn’t preserve them.

Originally posted here:

coupled with the idiocy of the paymaster in using 0 fee transactions.

The inputs in question were sufficiently old enough to not require any fee. It is a myth that transaction fees are payment to miners for including transactions, just like it is a myth that taxes are payments for services rendered.

The problem with the bitcoin protocol was that

The problem is that there isn’t a protocol. Everyone with no stake in bitcoin besides having said a whole lot of nothing that matters on various USG funded social media outlets seems to think it’s a cut and dry case of “Mircea shouldn’t have sent two payments hur dee dur” fail to realize that the first perfectly valid payment had already been signed, couldn’t be revoked, and couldn’t be replaced by intentional double spending as per the accusation that a cabal of colluding miners are intentionally withholding #bitcoin-assets properties transactions. No amount of re-signing and double spending can remedy this situation; the only ways around it are as follows:

  • buy a block and include the transaction yourself
  • change the proof of work and screw you colluding miners.

The first is no option at all seeing as how a group of colluding miners who control 51% or more of the hashing power can trivially reorganize your block out of the chain, although it would be an interesting way to expose such a cabal.

Originally posted here:

Why did they use different inputs for Transaction B?

Because the original inputs were seemingly black listed by the apparently single organization in control of at least 51% of the hash rate.

They should have kept using the same inputs and increase the fee

He did exactly this.

until Transaction A was confirmed.

Why should it ever get confirmed when it is a conspiracy among the majority hash rate to keep it from ever confirming?

so it’s not a double spend.

The author of the qntra article did not claim "double spend" but that is how whichever know-nothing derp on this scam of a platform decided to spin it, for the purpose of exactly this, that some other know-nothing derp (you) would reply that this isn’t that and so therefor nothing to see here move along.

Originally posted here:

This may be a stupid question, but why didn’t they keep trying with the same inputs and higher fees?

He did. At least 4 times.

Leave a Reply

Your criticism is welcome. Your name and website are optional. Some HTML tags are allowed.