In Bitcoin, a transaction isn't final until it's in a block that is k deep. k depends on exchanges and is 3 or more, with 6 being a typical choice. Since the initial block wasn't that deep, a "spend" didn't happen, and therefore there could not have been a double spend.
https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/1352239314587983873
Now, the choice of k depends on a few factors. 6 isn't a magical number that's correct for all time. It depends on the amounts of hash power available to the attacker. If the attacker has access to 49% of hash power, k should tend towards infinity.
The tail of any PoW blockchain is kind of like a scratch/working area. Changes there are to be expected and perfectly normal.
It wouldn't be news if, during a session of congress, a draft law is modified before being voted on and getting published in the federal register. A change at that stage doesn't mean we have conflicting laws. Not sure how this became news.
These 6 required confirmations is the reason why Bitcoin transactions take an hour to finalize.
In the early days, before reputable exchanges and onramps, trading cash for BTC in person was a pain. Two people would meet, typically in a police station parking lot. One side would hand over the money, the other would issue the tx, and they would wait awkwardly for an hour.
Similarly, there were reports of people paying with BTC at restaurants and having to wait awkwardly afterwards for a block or two to be mined. This waiting for k confirmations is just a normal part of life with payments at Bitcoin's Layer-1.
Overall, it's disingenuous to claim that there was a doublespend when a tx never achieved the confirmations required to be finalized. CoinTelegraph goofed up here. We can criticize BTC for being slow to confirm, but not for a double-spend that was never a spend in the first place
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
