Quote from: mccorvic on March 12, 2013, 08:15:07 PM

Quote from: Micon on March 12, 2013, 08:05:47 PM

Excuse my non-technical, conceptual-only questions / thoughts / checking if I have this right in my head:

1) There was no *permanent* "double spend" right? i.e. the transaction on the .8 fork would have eventually been orphaned / dumped / never credited to the address specified in the .8 block?

2) The risk here (and reason why SwC shut off all deposits / withdraws for a few hrs until this was resolved) was that during this very odd period a sophisticated user could use multiple 0-conf services that would all at the same time believe they were getting the same coins, but after the blockchain becomes 1 again only 1 of the transactions would actually be included in the "real" blockchain?

Your points are my understanding. The double spend was allowed only because the service provider here wasn't on the ball.

Yeah, I think it's important to distinguish here for non-techie people that this is not a double-spend within the merged blockchain, this is a double-spend against OKPAY because of their clearing policy and the unusal circumstances of last night. This does not violate the promise that the blockchain prohibits double spends.