Bitcoin zero confirmations
Bitcoin Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for Bitcoin crypto-currency enthusiasts. It only takes a minute to sign up. Connect and share knowledge within a single location that is structured and easy to search. I sent BTC from my blockchain. It is still at 0 confirmations.
We are searching data for your request:
Bitcoin zero confirmations
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.
Content:
- Mastering Bitcoin by
- BitGo Announces Launch of BitGo Instant for Zero-Confirmation Bitcoin Transactions
- Why Zero Confirmation Transactions Is Accepted By Bitcoin Community?
- Zero Confirmation/Unconfirmed Transaction
- 0 Confirmations & Now accepting Bitcoin Cash as a payment method.
- Why the ‘Big Short’ Guys Think Bitcoin Is a Bubble
- Bitcoin Fees
- Double-spending prevention for Bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions
- Scale with Speed: The Bitcoin Lightning Network Explained
Mastering Bitcoin by
Roughly every ten minutes, a new page is added to the ledger that includes most of the latest transactions. When your bitcoin transaction is added to this ledger, it is called a "confirmation".
Instead, they accept your transaction as soon as it is widely broadcast over the network, which takes only about a second after you send your money.
The danger, of course, is that the payment never makes it into this ledger, which basically means the transaction is invalidated, and the money "was never sent". This only happens in unusual circumstances can't get into them all in this short explanation and is only a small risk. And with cc you get dinged with a penalty and lose the money. I don't think many five-year-olds would understand that, but I appreciate the attempt. Isn't this exploitable by forging a transaction?
The way I thought the ecosystem worked was that bitcoin mining verified the authenticity of transactions of the page, thus creating the "confirmation".
Couldn't a malicious party create a fraudulent transaction to namecheap if they aren't verifying that it's real? MichaelGG on July 15, root parent next [—].
Even if it was easy to forge, what's the point? As soon as it is clear that it's not a valid transaction, they can just cancel your order. It's only an issue if you are giving the buyer something irreversible. It's essentially no greater risk than accepting credit cards; any buyer can do a chargeback and get their money back at a moment's notice, but it happens fairly infrequently and when it does happen, you just revoke their rights to the service and ban them if necessary.
JoshTriplett on July 15, root parent prev next [—]. As I understand it, in order to forge a transaction and construct a double-spend scenario, you have to have the ability to rapidly mine a bitcoin block, and then not submit it, thus forfeiting the 25BTC reward you'd normally get for the block. Clarifying edit: I don't know if that's accurate for zero-confirmation double-spends; it's accurate for non-zero-confirmation double-spends.
Not quite. The essence of a double-spend attack is creating two transactions spending the same bitcoin: one to the merchant call it A and one to another of your accounts call it B. You send A to the merchant and secretly submit B to another node.
A looks valid to the merchant, so they accept it. Now it's basically a chance of which transaction will make it into the ledger and which will be rejected as invalid because the input was already spent. However, there is no reason you would need to forfeit any reward if you personally mine the block with the transaction in it. Confirmations shift the probabilities back towards the merchant, since no honest node will mine on a chain not already including A because the one including A is longer.
In this case you must mine secretly on the chain including B until it exceeds the length of the chain including A. But again, if you can get the length of chain B up to the point where it exceeds chain A, the block rewards in chain B are yours and those in chain A are forfeit. As I understand, if they wait seconds and listen to the network to make sure no conflicting transaction is broadcast, the odds of a successful double spend drops to very very low. VMG on July 15, root parent prev next [—].
Although the transaction is not yet confirmed in a block, the receiving party can verify that the transaction is at least a valid transaction. This is complicated to answer in detail, but the short answer is "It is easier to make gold out of lead than forge a bitcoin transaction. And of course that's wrong.
If you want to have a constructive discussion you need to contribute more specifics on what your complaint is. This is a perfect use case for zero confirmation transactions. Less friction for a legit customer and no real loss for the business if they need to roll back the transaction if it doesn't confirm. Edit: for. Funny this got to the front page today - this morning I bought a domain name from namecheap. First I tried to use my credit card.
It was denied, for no apparent reason as I keep it paid off. Then I used my debit card, and it went through. However, later today BOTH my cards were temporarily suspended, and I had to wait on hold twice to verify that, yes, I did authorize a payment to namecheap. Nothing else in my recent purchase history was out of the ordinary, which makes me think that namecheap.
Sounds like the first denial was due to an automated fraud check with a false positive. When that happens, it's a good idea to call your credit card company right away - if it was such a fraud check, they can usually reactivate it right away and whitelist the merchant you tried to buy from, allowing you to retry the transaction - and more importantly, ensuring that your card isn't suspended and later declined again at an inopportune time.
As an interesting note, I used the free Namecheap domain coupon I got at the Bitcoin conference to register NeoCities. Thanks guys! Great service, highly recommended. I didn't see this in my bag from the bitcoin conference!
This certainly seems to make more sense in a case like this - where deployment takes some time and the user is relying on continued service.
Plus domain registrars get to roll back transactions over 14 days, I think. I think the limit is shorter these days more like 2 or 3 days , and there's a penalty for using it too often. Still plenty for these purposes, though. Five days as far as I know. This could be done by everyone delivering service, rather than products. Not really. If it's a situation where having the service for a brief period of time is valuable, and which can be active before a double-spend would be detected, you'll probably see as much fraud as for a physical good of a similar value.
On the flip side, requiring confirmations before physically shipping a product but not before beginning provisioning would likely be doable. Who actually uses bitcoins and what for? Last time I checked, I couldn't buy bitcoins with my Paypal account or credit card. The only way I see it being useful is if I get paid for some hacking job or botnet then spend the money on Namecheap domain and hosting What am I missing?
Well, you can go to my bookstore cointagion. You used to be able to buy lindens via credit card and pay bitcoin via lindens, but I'm not sure if that has gotten harder to do. Also, I suspect a lot of miners are looking for ways to spend their BTC.
I just see that more and more people adopt bitcoin, that it's anonymous, distributed and secure, and it's been described as the next best thing since banknotes - I just can't see the usefulness While most people want Bitcoin to replace the US dollar, I think that as a secure, decentralized payment method, it's more useful as an alternative to Paypal.
Like everything else, it's usefulness is tied to the number of people who adopt it. Amadou on July 15, root parent prev next [—]. Do you use cash in real life to avoid telling companies what you spend, where you spent and what you spent it on? If your answer is no, then you probably won't find much value in doing the same online with bitcoins.
I'd love to hear more about the decision trade off they made. On the one hand, you want to have a minimum of at least a handful of confirmations to verify that the btc aren't being double-spent. This means a delay of several minutes or longer. Alternatively, you can accept on faith with zero-confirmations that the btc is legit. In this case, it sounds like Namecheap decided the ease of use is economically more valuable than the threat of being cheated.
I like this line of thinking. Further, it could be that it's not really a risk for Namecheap, because they can reverse a domain name purchase afterwards if the btc payment is fraudulent. I wouldn't usually worry about accepting zero confirmation transactions on a website.
Most digital orders are reversible and physical orders take some time to process packaging, shipping, etc. However, with brick and mortar stores, 0-confirmations transactions are much more problematic for the business.
The customer could be long gone with your product by the time you notice the double-spend. OTOH, the 10 minutes delay is also much more problematic for the customer with physical stores imagine a customer having to wait for 10 minutes to buy a pack of gum.
One interesting solution for making zero-confirmations safer to accept is fidelity bonds [1], where you would "sacrifice" some Bitcoins from your address, a sort of "safe deposit" that you never get back. From that point on, until that address is seen to commit a double-spend, merchants can accept zero-confirmation payments from it knowing that attempting to double-spend would make the customer's initial deposit invalidated.
As long as the deposit is larger than the transaction amount, it'll make double-spending unprofitable. Edit: Another interesting aspect is that fidelity bonds can also be used to make other kinds of fraud unprofitable, not only double-spending. However, while its easy to determine when a user committed a double-spend attack just show two signed transactions paying the same coins to two different places , its not that straight forward to prove other kinds of fraud.
Fidelity bonds are interesting, but it seems to me there are a couple of alternative solutions that are much easier to understand and hence more likely to get traction. The most interesting alternative solution right now to make zero-confirmation transaction safe is rather counter-intuitive: "However we can make zero-confirmation transactions safe without complex trusted identity systems, ironically by making it easier to double-spend.
If we implement replace-by-fee nodes will always forward the transaction with the highest overall fee including parents even if it would double-spend a previous transaction. All replace-by-fee miners will mine that transaction, rather than the one sending the funds back to the fraudster, and there is nothing the fraudster can do about it other than hope they get lucky and some one mines their double-spend before they hear about the counter spend.
The transaction can also be constructed such that the payee pays slightly more in advance, with the merchant refunding the extra amount once the transaction confirms, to ensure that a double-spend will result in a net loss for the fraudster. In English, if you want to reverse a transaction, IE cancel a payment, the most you can steal from the person you paid is the value of the transaction itself.
But if we implement a system where you can change a transaction after the fact, sending more of the fees to miners, the merchant can always outbid you, so it's almost impossible to actually get away with the theft and gain anything. You'll still pay for whatever you stole, thus turning what was a profitable attack, into a unprofitable attack that at best is simple vandalism. Disclaimer: I'm working on implementing this feature in Bitcoin, although it's John Dillon's idea. With traditional green addresses, you would have to use 3rd party services to prove you're honest.
Those services would have to charge fees in order to operate. With fidelity bonds, you would prove you're going to be honest by making it unprofitable to act otherwise.
BitGo Announces Launch of BitGo Instant for Zero-Confirmation Bitcoin Transactions
Every confirmed bitcoin transaction is irreversible. But is it possible to cancel unconfirmed bitcoin transactions? An unconfirmed bitcoin transaction occurs when a given transaction fails to receive a confirmation on the blockchain within 24 hours. All bitcoin transactions must be confirmed by miners. They need a minimum of three confirmations to be considered fully confirmed. There are two main reasons your bitcoin transaction may end up remaining unconfirmed.
Why Zero Confirmation Transactions Is Accepted By Bitcoin Community?
The cryptocurrency was invented in by an unknown person or group of people using the name Satoshi Nakamoto. Bitcoins are created as a reward for a process known as mining. They can be exchanged for other currencies, products, and services. Bitcoin has been criticized for its use in illegal transactions, the large amount of electricity and thus carbon footprint used by mining, price volatility , and thefts from exchanges. Some investors and economists have characterized it as a speculative bubble at various times. Others have used it as an investment, although several regulatory agencies have issued investor alerts about bitcoin. The word bitcoin was defined in a white paper published on 31 October The unit of account of the bitcoin system is the bitcoin. The bitcoin blockchain is a public ledger that records bitcoin transactions. A network of communicating nodes running bitcoin software maintains the blockchain.
Zero Confirmation/Unconfirmed Transaction
BitGo Inc. Along with its announcement of BitGo Instant, the company has also announced its launch partners for instant transactions. At the end, we had All of these guys are signed up to receive BitGo transactions. Anyone with a BitGo wallet will be able to send to these businesses instantly and be credited on their exchange trading account.
0 Confirmations & Now accepting Bitcoin Cash as a payment method.
A zero confirmation or unconfirmed transaction is defined as an exchange that has not yet been recorded or verified on the blockchain. After sending data to the blockchain, users must wait for one of the modes that maintain the network to register and then verify the data before adding it to a block. As the blocks are connected to one another, each verified block confirms all prior blocks as well. A zero confirmation transaction refers to a transaction that has not yet been confirmed on the blockchain and, as such, is not yet part of the blockchain. Only the actor initiating the transaction is aware of it, and until a block is mined and the transaction has been confirmed by other network participants, the transaction is said to have zero confirmation.
Why the ‘Big Short’ Guys Think Bitcoin Is a Bubble
One question frequently asked by newcomers and even long-time cryptocurrency users regards canceling a transaction. With fiat currency, canceling a transaction isn't always easy, but it can be done through some format in most cases. With crypto, things are different. Once you hit send in your cryptocurrency wallet, the transaction is released to the blockchain, waiting for miners to confirm your transaction. No, you cannot cancel a crypto transaction.
Bitcoin Fees
Bitcoin Create Raw Transaction. This can be done online here after additional transaction details are added, or for higher security recommended , the raw transaction can be signed using your own bitcoin client or related software tools. This library's methods return information of a transaction, given this transaction HEX as input.
Double-spending prevention for Bitcoin zero-confirmation transactions
In what follows, we show that double-spending attacks are easily realizable on zero- confirmation transactions. For that purpose, we assume a setting featuring a malicious client A and a vendor V connected through a Bitcoin network see Figure 4. Figure 4. By double-spending, we refer to the case where A tricks the vendor V into accepting a transaction TRy that V will not be able to redeem subsequently. We assume that A can only control few peers in the network that he or she can deploy since Bitcoin does not restrict membership and does not have access to V's keys or machine.
Scale with Speed: The Bitcoin Lightning Network Explained
T his was not what I expected to be doing with my October. At the time, it seemed super speculative, but over the years, bitcoin surged and Mike seemed downright prescient. I had since relocated to Los Angeles and had been texting Mike about the 2, percent rise in our investment. Strangely, I wasn't getting much of a response from him. He had 10 times as many bitcoins as I did -- shouldn't he at least have been excited? Here's what happened: At some point in , Mike had rightfully become concerned about security. He initially kept his coins in an exchange called LocalBitcoins.
Once a Bitcoin transaction is created, it never automatically expires. In theory, a transaction could be created, get stuck at 0 confirmations for some years,. NetherlandsBuy, sell, and convert cryptocurrency on Coinbase. Coinbase makes it simple.
Let him help you?