Quote from: figmentofmyass on January 22, 2021, 08:22:37 PM

Quote from: cr1776 on January 22, 2021, 04:14:20 PM

I am just blown away how someone not knowing how bitcoin works with regard to double spends and re-orgs can start stupid stuff like that can be ever taken seriously again. BitMEX Research saying "It appears as if a small double spend of around..."[*1] One of the stupidest groups claiming to be experts, says something like that? My heavens they don't even know what a double spend is. That isn't a double spend and yet their tweet says it is.

andreas antonopoulos did have this to say in their defense: https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/1352285439621664768

Quote

For those screaming at @BitMEXResearch:

Wrong target. BitMEX offers a useful service that monitors for re-orgs. They are the messenger who said the right thing. Re-direct your ire at @Cointelegraph who "reported" sensationalist drivel and those who amplified it.

i suppose people use the term "double spend" in two different ways. one is at the protocol level and would mean the same coins could be spent/confirmed twice---obviously not the case here. the other is from the perspective of a transaction recipient who is sent inputs that are re-spent and confirmed in a conflicting transaction.

Hi,
I did see that, but andreas antonopoulos is just wrong in this case. Double spend has a well defined meaning, so BitMEXResearch saying there was a double spend is wrong too. If double spend means the second one above then every RBF is a double spend and their never was a "double spend" problem to solve. This would likewise mean that every reorg would also involve "double spends" just that most of these so-called double spends would be spend to the same address.

It was just stupid on BitMEXResearch's part to use the term double spend in the way they did when it was a perfectly normal event which happens all the time in the mempool and can happen like this until there are sufficient confirmations. 😀