Regarding the recent rumors that the Bitcoin network has been “double spent”, there are too many shocking misinformation circulating on the market. Clear the source: It is not a double spend, but just a common “fee substitution” transaction.
Source: Lucas Nuzzi, Coin Metrics Network Data Product Manager Compiler: Perry Wang
1. Regarding what happened on the Bitcoin network yesterday, and whether any funds were “double spent”, there are too many shocking misinformation (caused by the media). I’m here to explain everything you need to know.
2. On January 18, a user broadcasted a very low-cost transaction.
When users pay too low a fee, their transactions are stuck because miners can choose to make more profit.
This user now has two options:
a) Wait until the cost level drops
b) Tell the miners that they will increase the payment
3. The most popular way to increase fees for broadcast transactions is through “fee substitution” (RBF) transactions.
In short, RBF is a copy and paste of the original transaction, but it increases the handling fee and clearly instructs the miners to support the new transaction.
4. Nearly a day after this famous user broadcasted the original transaction, the miner did not write the original transaction into the block.
Therefore, the user decided to release the RBF on the 19th, increasing its processing fee… But it was not high enough!
The transaction is stuck again…
5. After a few hours, the user decided to increase the cost again through the second RBF!
This time the user paid enough fees.
6. So, to recap, the user broadcasted 3 transactions in total:
1) December 18th UTC (the handling fee is 1 sat / b)
2) 21:22 UTC on December 19 (the handling fee is 9.4 sat / b)
3) 00:32 UTC on December 20 (the handling fee is 14.3 sat / b)
This is why things get complicated
7. At approximately 1:18 AM UTC, the Bitcoin blockchain is divided into two versions. This is completely normal, and this is a basic part of the working principle of Bitcoin.
When this happens (more than once a month), miners need to concentrate on processing a single version of the event, which usually takes about 1 block, about 10 minutes.
8. But… when the user broadcasted the third transaction, the fee level had stabilized, and the Bitcoin blockchain was split:
—A miner chose the first (low-fee) transaction for its chain version
—Another miner chose the third transaction (the RBF transaction with the highest cost)
9. The problem with RBF is that they are completely optional. The miner decides which transaction to choose.
In this case, it may look a bit like a malicious “double flower”, but this is a completely normal event.
10. The Bitcoin blockchain split within a period of 1 block (again, this is normal), but the miner who processed the lower fee transaction in one branch eventually won.
The important thing to know is that yes, there may be different versions of the same transaction, but in the end only 1 transaction is accepted.
11. Twitter user @0xB10C used @coinmetrics data to make a timeline about the incident, which can help everyone understand the specific situation:
12. Once again, the RBF in the old block is just normal.
There is no reason to be scared. There is no inflation, and there is no real confirmation of “double spending.” The outside world just spreads a lot of ignorance and misinformation.
13. These rumors are a wake-up call to encrypted media.
14. Add another piece of clarifying evidence: @BitMEXResearch passed forkmonitor.info and txstats.info
Made an amazing contribution to the Bitcoin community
Their description of what happened was accurate. Unfortunately, their posts were seriously distorted as bait to manipulate the market…
15. Please be sure to check @hasufl_s’s excellent article on this matter (I don’t know why I didn’t see it at the time), which details what happened: https://insights.deribit.com/market-research/was-there -a-bitcoin-double-spend-on-jan-20-2021/
Source link: twitter.com
Disclaimer: As a blockchain information platform, the articles published on this site only represent the author’s personal views and have nothing to do with ChainNews’ position. The information, opinions, etc. in the article are for reference only, and are not intended as or regarded as actual investment advice.
