Bitcoin Double Spender

Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders: Police Need Help Identifying Four Criminals

Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders: Police Need Help Identifying Four Criminals submitted by DSNakamoto to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders: Police Need Help Identifying Four Criminals

Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders: Police Need Help Identifying Four Criminals submitted by ulros to fbitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders: Police Need Help Identifying Four Criminals

Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders: Police Need Help Identifying Four Criminals submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Canadian Authorities Seek Help Identifying Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders

Canadian Authorities Seek Help Identifying Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders

Canadian Authorities Seek Help Identifying Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders

Authorities in Canada are reportedly looking for help identifying four suspects of conducting double-spend attacks on Bitcoin ATMs throughout the country, potentially taking advantage of these accepting 0-confirmation transactions.
https://preview.redd.it/kn20c73iexl21.jpg?width=1000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc9db32b5bcbe901ffe6000e621b3f86bb1eaf50
According to the CBC, the four suspects managed to make over CAD $200,000 ($150,000) through the attacks, in which they managed to conduct 112 fraudulent transactions in seven cities in Canada, half of which in Calgary.
The attacks were carried out for 10 days in September of last year. Besides Calgary, the suspects also conducted double-spend attacks on Bitcoin ATMs in cities like Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Ottawa, and more.
Authorities believe the individuals have n-depth knowledge or interest in cryptocurrency, bitcoin and/or blockchain technology." They seemingly managed to steal the funds by taking advantage of the Bitcoin ATMs accepting 0-confirmation transactions.
CCN points out that replace-by-fee tools developed by Canadian Bitcoin Core developer Peter Todd could have been used in the attack. The tools themselves weren’t created for such activities, but allow for “stuck” transaction to go through using additional fees.
There is, however, a “double-spend” tool. That creates two transactions in succession, one paying a specific amount to a specific address, and a second one double-spending that transaction.
submitted by NYECOIN to u/NYECOIN [link] [comments]

Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders: Police Need Help Identifying Four Criminals

Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders: Police Need Help Identifying Four Criminals submitted by Ranzware to BitNewsLive [link] [comments]

Canadian Authorities Seek Help Identifying Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders

Canadian Authorities Seek Help Identifying Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders submitted by asmajda to CryptoStock [link] [comments]

Canadian Authorities Seek Help Identifying Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders

Canadian Authorities Seek Help Identifying Bitcoin ATM Double-Spenders submitted by asmajda to CryptoStock [link] [comments]

What's the Source Code for Double Spender Web App worth? /r/Bitcoin

What's the Source Code for Double Spender Web App worth? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

PSA: Someone is using a bot to downvote everything in this subreddit. For newcomers, please know that Bitcoin Cash has been under attacked for the last 4 years because Bitcoin Cash, a global peer to peer cash system, is a threat to banks and fiat currencies.

For any newbies coming here wondering why someone is running a downvote bot in this subreddit (among other attacks), I would like to spread awareness about this issue.
There are many signs that BTC has been infiltrated. When you put them all together, it starts to form a clearer picture. Here are some examples.
There is consistent trolls/harassments/smear campaigns against Bitcoin Cash the last 4 years. Who is funding all these propaganda campaigns? Who is funding these efforts to run downvote bots to disrupt this community?
In 2013, Peter Todd was paid off by a government intelligence agent to create RBF, create a propaganda video, and cripple the BTC code. Source: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/in-2013-peter-todd-was-paid-off-by-a-government-intelligence-agent-to-create-rbf-create-a-propaganda-video-and-cripple-the-btc
Blockstream kicking Gavin, the lead Bitcoin developer, out of Bitcoin development, successfully hijacked control over the Bitcoin github.
Mike Hearn and Gavin wanted to prevent Bitcoin from being hijacked, so they created a fork. That fork didn't survived after they were heavily DDOS. Mike Hearn was heavily character assassinated by what I believe to be orchestrated paid campaigns by Blockstream. And of course, now that Mike Hearn is gone, the character assassination campaigns are directed at Bitcoin Cash main supporters like Roger Ver. Source: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoincash/comments/8lozww/how_bitcoin_btc_was_hijacked_and_why_bitcoin_cash/
Blockstream not honoring the Hong Kong agreement and the New York agreement they signed.
Blockstream doesn't want Bitcoin to compete with the banks. Their aim is to make Bitcoin unusable with no long term future. Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/12/22/gregory-maxwell-celebrates-high-fees-300000-stuck-transactions
Samson Mow admitting in an interview that Blockstream is out for profit (in other words, the BTC holders will be milked as their cash cows, BTC miners will be driven out with Lightning Network taking its place) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFOmUm-_DMQ The false flag attacks where they claimed Bitcoin Cash was hacking them (but turns out Greg Maxwell was the ones doing it) Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/11/22/reddit-bitcoin-mods-gregory-maxwell-accused-false-flag-bot-attack-hacking)
Hackers targeting Bitcoin Cash users stealing their tippr funds and taking over their reddit accounts Source: https://np.reddit.com/tippcomments/7naogq/tippr_on_reddit_disabled_temporarily/
Misinformation campaigns (BTC people registering bcash sites and subreddits, then trying to associate Bitcoin Cash as bcash to forums/websites they control) Source: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/8dd5ij/why_bitcoin_cash_users_reject_the_name_bcash_so/
Censorship to brainwash newcomers with Bitcoin misinformation and propaganda. Source: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
Blockstream declaring that Bitcoin is not for the poor. Source: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/ahzog2/reminder_bitcoin_isnt_for_people_that_live_on/
Blockstream sabotaged Bitcoin codes by reducing its functionality such as OP Return size reduction, RBF vulnerability, 1MB blocksize, etc... so that it breaks software built on top of Bitcoin.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
I was involved in some BCH projects and there had been multiple DDOS attacks and other stuff, such as flooding my inbox with few hundred thousand emails per day. I'm sure those activities are not for profit, so why are they doing it?
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC people had done which is not covered in this comment. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project.
Link: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/e61fyz/poll_results_are_in_53_2296_votes_have_declared/f9n5lma/
Here's my suggestion to counter these attempts at disrupting the Bitcoin Cash community. We keep onboarding more users into the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem. That's what they don't want us to do, and that's exactly what we will do.
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

Every solution attempted for dealing with Bitcoin's on-chain congestion has seen a catastrophic security vulnerability in the past month

(aside from bigger blocks, though BCH and BSV are also disasters on their own)
Because Bitcoin has on-chain bandwidth roughly equivalent to a 14.4kbps modem, it sees huge transaction fee spikes whenever there's a meager transaction volume.
Various solutions to mitigating on-chain congestion have been proposed, however they all had severe vulnerabilities in the past month.
A quick round up:
Bitcoin has been trading off security to mitigate its extremely limited capacity, and the results have been disastrous.
submitted by bascule to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash, the peer to peer electronic cash system, is under attack and we need your help.

TLDR: Bitcoin Cash, the peer to peer electronic cash system, shifts the dynamics of power from the elites back to the people. This is a threat to the survivability of the banks and regimes seeking to control the masses through the financial system. And there are many direct and indirect evidence (outlined below) of such bad actors trying to sabotage the peer to peer cash revolution through various means. We need your help to stand up against such saboteurs. Unity is our strength when we have to make a righteous stand against the toxic bullies and shifts the power from the elites back into the people hands. Just by speaking up and spreading awareness on this, and refusing to stay silent about it, you’re making a difference, and for that, I thank you.
This is going to be a very long post, please bear with me. And it’s a very long post precisely because the bad actors had tried so many different things to sabotage the peer to peer cash project throughout the years.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
The global banking elites control over trillion dollars in assets. They can afford to throw few million dollars each day to protect their massive business empires. If I were them, I would make the same choice. It’s a no brainer. They don’t have to win; each day they sabotage the adoption of peer to peer cash, their trillion dollars empire survive another day while the rest of the population suffers.
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC bullies had done which is not covered here. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project. And we need your help. Bitcoin Cash does not care if you are black, white, Asian, male, female, American, Iranian, Chinese… We are about bringing economic freedom and financial sovereignty to the world, increasing quality of lives to everyone and putting the power back into the people hands. We are in this together. It can be really uncomfortable being ahead of the crowd in this peer to peer cash revolution, but when you have the truth at your side, all these naysayers screaming “bcash btrash” has little power over us.
Update 1: Fixed an inaccuracy and added few other items which I missed out.
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

Vulnerability allows bad actors to double-spend and pickpocket users’ wallets

. . .
A startup has discovered a vulnerability present in major cryptocurrency wallets that leads to double-spend attacks and inflated balances by exploiting existing protocols.
The ‘family’ of vulnerabilities, named BigSpender, was discovered in some of the world’s most popular cryptocurrency wallets including Ledger, Bread and Edge.
Ledger told cryptocurrency magazine Decrypt that the scam was a “clever piece of trickery.”
. . .
Essentially, what they found was that BigSpender shows users incorrect bank balances. These balances incorporate unconfirmed transactions into their totals, and fail to reveal that the transaction had actually been revoked.
. . .

https://www.rt.com/news/493587-crypto-vulnerability-double-spend-pickpocket/
submitted by Mark_Bear to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

For any newbies coming here wondering why there is so much pro-Bitcoin Core propaganda and lies propagated here, I would like to spread awareness about this issue,

For any newbies coming here wondering why there is so much pro-Bitcoin Core propaganda and lies, propagated by trolls such as OP, I would like to spread awareness about this issue,
There are many signs that BTC has been infiltrated. When you put them all together, it starts to form a clearer picture. Here are some examples.
There is consistent trolls/harassments/smear campaigns against Bitcoin Cash the last 2 years. Who is funding all these propaganda campaigns?
In 2013, Peter Todd was paid off by a government intelligence agent to create RBF, create a propaganda video, and cripple the BTC code. Source: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/in-2013-peter-todd-was-paid-off-by-a-government-intelligence-agent-to-create-rbf-create-a-propaganda-video-and-cripple-the-btc
Blockstream kicking Gavin, the lead Bitcoin developer, out of Bitcoin development, successfully hijacked control over the Bitcoin github.
Mike Hearn and Gavin wanted to prevent Bitcoin from being hijacked, so they created a fork. That fork didn't survived after they were heavily DDOS. Mike Hearn was heavily character assassinated by what I believe to be orchestrated paid campaigns by Blockstream. And of course, now that Mike Hearn is gone, the character assassination campaigns are directed at Bitcoin Cash main supporters like Roger Ver. Source: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoincash/comments/8lozww/how_bitcoin_btc_was_hijacked_and_why_bitcoin_cash/
Blockstream not honoring the Hong Kong agreement and the New York agreement they signed.
Blockstream doesn't want Bitcoin to compete with the banks. Their aim is to make Bitcoin unusable with no long term future. Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/12/22/gregory-maxwell-celebrates-high-fees-300000-stuck-transactions
Samson Mow admitting in an interview that Blockstream is out for profit (in other words, the BTC holders will be milked as their cash cows, BTC miners will be driven out with Lightning Network taking its place) Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFOmUm-_DMQ The false flag attacks where they claimed Bitcoin Cash was hacking them (but turns out Greg Maxwell was the ones doing it) Source: https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/11/22/reddit-bitcoin-mods-gregory-maxwell-accused-false-flag-bot-attack-hacking)
Hackers targeting Bitcoin Cash users stealing their tippr funds and taking over their reddit accounts Source: https://www.reddit.com/tippcomments/7naogq/tippr_on_reddit_disabled_temporarily/
Misinformation campaigns (BTC people registering bcash sites and subreddits, then trying to associate Bitcoin Cash as bcash to forums/websites they control) Source: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/8dd5ij/why_bitcoin_cash_users_reject_the_name_bcash_so/
Censorship to brainwash newcomers with Bitcoin misinformation and propaganda. Source: https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43
Blockstream declaring that Bitcoin is not for the poor. Source: https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/ahzog2/reminder_bitcoin_isnt_for_people_that_live_on/
Blockstream sabotaged Bitcoin codes by reducing its functionality such as OP Return size reduction, RBF vulnerability, 1MB blocksize, etc... so that it breaks software built on top of Bitcoin.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
I was involved in some BCH projects and there had been multiple DDOS attacks and other stuff, such as flooding my inbox with few hundred thousand emails per day. I'm sure those activities are not for profit, so why are they doing it?
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC people had done which is not covered in this comment. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project.
Source by user mobTwo
submitted by MemoryDealers to btc [link] [comments]

BCH Backer Claims Bitcoin Wallet Double-Spend Issue Hasn’t Been Fixed

On July 2, crypto security firm ZenGo identified a double-spend exploit targeting several popular Bitcoin (BTC) wallets, dubbed ‘BigSpender’ Of nine cryptocurrency wallets tested by ZenGo, BRD, Ledger Live, and Edge were found to have been vulnerable to the attack. The three companies updated their products after ZenGo notified them of the threat, however the […]
submitted by FuzzyOneAdmin to fuzzyone [link] [comments]

Fix Issued For ‘Serious’ Bitcoin Wallet Security Threat

Fix Issued For ‘Serious’ Bitcoin Wallet Security Threat
Bitcoin hacks and thefts have exploded since bitcoin's epic 2017 bull run saw the price balloon to around $20,000.

https://preview.redd.it/bxhlt2fdam851.jpg?width=960&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3a82ec51bf8e01f57a7246977c988c2ecf53fde
The bitcoin price has fallen by more than half since its late-2017 all-time high but bitcoin users remain a popular target for hackers.
Now, researchers have warned "millions" of bitcoin users might have been exposed by a newly discovered vulnerability in a number of popular bitcoin wallets.
Bitcoin transactions across three major bitcoin wallets were vulnerable to what some might call a double-spending attack, researchers at Tel Aviv-based bitcoin and crypto company ZenGo have revealed, adding other wallets beyond the nine they tested could be compromised.
The bitcoin wallets known to be affected—Ledger Live, Edge and BRD—have been updated in an effort to prevent the attack after their developers were alerted by ZenGo.
The vulnerability, named BigSpender, allows the attacker to make the wallet holder believe a payment has been received while in fact it has been replaced by the sender. The exploit could prevent the wallet's owner from accessing its funds, though not everyone agrees on the nature of the vulnerability.
"The core issue at the heart of the BigSpender vulnerability is that vulnerable wallets are not prepared for the option that a transaction might be canceled and implicitly assume it will get confirmed eventually," ZenGo's senior software engineer, Oded Leiba, wrote in a blog post revealing the weakness.
"This negligence has many faces. First and foremost, a user’s balance is increased on an incoming transaction while unconfirmed and is not decreased if the transaction is double-spent and thus effectively canceled."
Ledger and BRD have questioned the language used by ZenGo researchers.
"There is no actual double spend being performed," the Ledger security team said via email. "The user funds stay safe. Nevertheless, the display of received transactions could be misleading."
The bitcoin wallets that were found to be susceptible to the attack are some of the most widely used—something ZenGo researchers said highlights the bug's seriousness.
"Potentially several millions of users were exposed before the fix based on the user base of Ledger and BRD public numbers," ZenGo's chief executive Ouriel Ohayon said via email. BRD recently passed the 5 million user mark, its chief technology officer told bitcoin and crypto news outlet Coindesk.
While the bitcoin wallet developers dispute the exploit's risk, Ohayon insists the threat could actually be worse than is known.
"It does not mean that there are no other issues or that other wallets are not exposed to the BigSpender attack," Ohayon said, adding other wallets ZenGo researchers tested, including its own, were not vulnerable to the attack.
"Considering that this could result in the impossibility to spend your funds and the fact that this could be done at scale, this [exploit] can be considered serious."
"Hacks are constant. Security is an on-going battle fought by the industry and one that cannot be won by a single player or a single product, let alone a version update. To allow mass adoption it is critical that wallets invest as much effort in research and security and they do in product development and services."
submitted by MIEX_Official to u/MIEX_Official [link] [comments]

Double spend proof just got real, a first implementation of proof-of-concept now exists as pull request to Flowee the Hub

In Bitcoin Cash the miners and nodes use a 'first seen' principle of receiving transactions, which means that accepting unconfirmed transactions (aka instant transactions) is generally speaking safe as any double spend will be rejected by the entire network.
But when we actively try to attack a merchant, there still are cases where the double spend can be the one mined. And here is the important part, vendors never get notified of that person in their store trying to double spend. The problem then is that an attacker may try to double spend a merchant with no detection if he fails, until he succeeds...
The solution we came up with is double-spend-proofs. A relatively small (constant size) message with actual proof that the spender signed two different transactions spending the money you were hoping to receive. An important part of this work was to make sure the original double spending transaction can not be reconstructed. So we don't make it easier for the double spend to propagate.
Double spend proofs have been an idea for years, with lots of people talking about it and we had some initial specs and even a conference about this last year.
So, the last weeks I sat down and actually did the design work and wrote the core code on how this is supposed to work as part of the Flowee central Hub. You can see the pull request here and the spec is in progress here. Though naturally the spec will only be made useful after a successful test of the implementation has finished.
edit; direct link to spec; https://github.com/imaginaryusername/specs_n_stuff/blob/mastedsproof/dsproof.md

Who benefits?

The idea of a double spend proof is to inform people receiving funds. The design allows both full nodes and SPV wallets to receive this message and it can be cryptographically checked to make sure that the double spend proof is legit (people can't lie about someone else double spending funds).
The main point is that we don't expect miners to change what they mine based on this message (Avalanche can do that), this is purely to inform people receiving money that the payer tried to cheat them. And provide actual proof that justice could use to prosecute this person.
The point, therefor, is not to avoid the stealing, the point is to inform and protect the merchants. And thus lower the risk of accepting instant-transactions.
ps. this will not work on BTC, as we improved the signing method in BCH.
submitted by ThomasZander to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash, the peer to peer electronic cash system, is under attack and we need your help.

TLDR: Bitcoin Cash, the peer to peer electronic cash system, shifts the dynamics of power from the elites back to the people. This is a threat to the survivability of the banks and regimes seeking to control the masses through the financial system. And there are many direct and indirect evidence (outlined below) of such bad actors trying to sabotage the peer to peer cash revolution through various means. We need your help to stand up against such saboteurs. Unity is our strength when we have to make a righteous stand against the toxic bullies and shifts the power from the elites back into the people hands. Just by speaking up and spreading awareness on this, and refusing to stay silent about it, you’re making a difference, and for that, I thank you.
This is going to be a very long post, please bear with me. And it’s a very long post precisely because the bad actors had tried so many different things to sabotage the peer to peer cash project throughout the years.
Source (OP Return Reduction): https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/80ycim/a_few_months_after_the_counterparty_developers/
Source (Bitcoin RBF Vulnerability): https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
The global banking elites control over trillion dollars in assets. They can afford to throw few million dollars each day to protect their massive business empires. If I were them, I would make the same choice. It’s a no brainer. They don’t have to win; each day they sabotage the adoption of peer to peer cash, their trillion dollars empire survive another day while the rest of the population suffers.
There are actually plenty more nasty unethical things BTC bullies had done which is not covered here. Bitcoin Cash is an attempt to rescue what the bad actors had hijacked successfully, mainly the peer to peer cash revolution. And it won't be the last time the bad actors will try to find ways to sabotage this project. And we need your help. Bitcoin Cash does not care if you are black, white, Asian, male, female, American, Iranian, Chinese… We are about bringing economic freedom and financial sovereignty to the world, increasing quality of lives to everyone and putting the power back into the people hands. We are in this together. It can be really uncomfortable being ahead of the crowd in this peer to peer cash revolution, but when you have the truth at your side, all these naysayers screaming “bcash btrash” has little power over us.
Update 1: Fixed an inaccuracy and added few other items which I missed out.
submitted by MobTwo to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

The spot market impact of the Bitcoin halving - A detailed discussion

I am still working on my piece about what the true impact of a "halving" event in terms of the inflation of a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin is. That will come at some point in the future and will be furnishing with a model, rigorous analysis, and plots and things. In the meantime I have some thoughts that I would like to share in what should be about a 15 minute read. I will first present some general background, then a Bearish and Bullish perspective for the halving event. Finally I will share my own opinion about the impact of the halving.
----------------------------------------
Background:

Suppose that Bitcoin as a network has some fundamental fair value. The question about whether the current market respects Bitcoin's fair value is irrelevant, we are just concerned that a fair value for the network is coherent and exists. This discussion will largely focus on how the halving impacts fundamentals despite the opinion that the market might not always respect them.
The current supply is 18M coins, but in practice, is probably closer to about 13M coins given the coins that are believed to be lost / orphaned. In the next twelve years or so, another 3 million coins will be generated which will increase the actual realized supply by about 20%.
The Bitcoin network enjoys security from mining. We can quantify the price of forking Bitcoin and re-writing the ledger as the cost of obtaining a near-majority share of the network's hash power. If we assume that the mining ecosystem today is basically honest or at least interested in the long term success of Bitcoin, then the cost of an adversary (such as some nation-state) to come in and obtain a majority hash power in the network is proportional to how much Bitcoin pay's its miners.


------------------------------------------
Bearish Perspective:

From the point of view of miners, an average block is earning about 0.08 BTC from transaction fees these days with a coinbase reward of 12.5 BTC. This means that miners obtain roughly 99.4% of their income from the coinbase reward that inflates the currency, and 0.6% of their income is from transaction fees. That means that the security of the network is being paid for by users who hold the currency via inflation, and not by people who use the currency for transacting.
When the block reward is reduced from 12.5BTC to 6.25BTC, a few things could happen for miners. Let us consider the different possible outcomes:

(1) The transaction fees stay roughly the same and so the total income of miners is approximately cut in half (in BTC terms). If the fiat price of Bitcoin remains constant, then this outcome implies that the security (in terms of USD) of the Bitcoin network would also roughly be cut in half.
(2) The total income of miners stays the same in terms of BTC. This implies that the transaction fees will increase by about a factor of 50x as the burden of funding the network's security shifts from those who hold the currency to those who use the currency. The long term vision of the protocol is to eventually fund the network entirely using transaction fees.
(3) The total income of miners in terms of BTC drops, but the transaction fees also increase in a combination of (1) and (2).

What gives Bitcoin fundamental value is up to debate, but it stands to reason that the network's value is positively correlated with both its application for payments as well as its security (with respect to censorship) and consistency. Outcome (1) for miners implies that the security of the network will decrease dramatically as a result of the halving event. Outcome (2) suggests that Bitcoin may become extremely expensive to interact with it as transaction fees will grow immensely in terms of BTC which should also negative impact fundamentals.


-----------------------------------------------
Bullish Perspective:

(4) Perhaps the most obvious bullish argument for the halving is that inflation applies an economic pressure that decreases the value of each unit of currency and so decreasing inflation reduces this pressure. A lot of users choose to think of this pressure as coming from miners selling or "dumping" their coins on the market, but really this is just a matter of supply and demand. If the market capitalization of Bitcoin remains constant, i.e. the market has settled on some fair value for the network, then with each passing day a coin represents a smaller fractional ownership of the network and is therefore worth less.
(5) A bullish counter-point to outcome (1) raised above is that the fundamental value the network derives from mining and security may not be linear. For example, if we double the amount of money that the network spends on mining through new coin production and transaction fees, the network might not be twice as good. At some point, the security of the network is good enough and we have hit diminishing returns on increased spending on mining. If we are currently in that state, where Bitcoin is over-spending on mining, then decreasing that spending to reduce inflation should be a bullish thing.
(6) While not specifically related to the halving event, changes in fundamentals and deflation from lost currency compete with pressure from the inflation rate. Every day as users interact with Bitcoin, coins are lost due to death, faulty hardware, negligence and more. This puts a deflationary pressure on the currency as the effective supply is in constant decline. Additionally, aspects related to the adoption of Bitcoin, its normalization in our society, the regulatory structure surrounding it in major countries and more all contribute to the fundamentals and eventually price. It is possible that the price of Bitcoin is at a delicate tipping point where modest but constant improvements in fundamentals as well as deflation from lost currency is currently very carefully balanced by inflation, and a reduction in inflation will tip the markets into a bull-cycle.
(7) It is entirely possible that the price of Bitcoin is largely inconsiderate of fundamentals. The idea of a currency with a guaranteed fixed supply is both an easy narrative to understand and also emotionally compelling. Cryptocurrency market bull cycles are largely characterized by extreme cases of FOMO and so news about adjustments to inflation seem like a perfect catalyst.
(7.1) Another bullish argument is to recognize that (1) and (2) are both very real concerns that should negatively impact the fundamental value of Bitcoin, but that a bull cycle fueled by the narrative of decreased inflation would cause an increase in the USD price of Bitcoin, and so although miners may be compensated less in terms of BTC, their income in terms of USD may hold constant or even increase, leading to an increase in fundamental network value. This would be a "fake it till you make it" outcome for the halving.


-----------------------------------------------------
Neutral Perspective:

(8) In terms of who pays miners for the security that the Bitcoin network enjoys, there is a balance between holders, people who own the currency, and spenders, people who generate transactions on the network that pay fees. At the inception of Bitcoin, holders paid nearly all of the money responsible for funding mining with early transactions being accepted with no fee at all. Eventually, Bitcoin is programmed to operate with mining funded entirely by transaction fees with no inflation imposed upon holders. Somewhere in this spectrum of trade-offs there is an optimal configuration which maximizes the fundamental value of the network.
(9) It is possible that the network is in its most valuable configuration at the limit where transaction fees are entirely responsible for funding security. With each shift towards decreasing the contribution from holders we are inching closer and closer towards a more valuable network. These events will each correspond with an increase in market capitalization.
(10) It is also possible that the final configuration which funds mining exclusively by transaction fees is unstable. The seasonality of Bitcoin transactions along with the increased friction of payments may lead to a network with poor security properties which causes fundamentals and therefore market capitalization to decline. Miners already operate with an unprecedented amount of volatility and perhaps they really depend on their BTC income to be stable in order for their operating risks to make sense. Under these concerns it stands to reason that the most valuable configuration of Bitcoin has some fraction of miner income coming from inflation via new currency generation. Under this assumption, the value of Bitcoin should increase as we approach this configuration and decrease as we move further away, so then the open question is, "Is this optimal configuration in our past, present, or future?"

-----------------------------------------------------
My Perspective:

I am partial to (1) playing out, which is that the total revenue in terms of BTC paid to miners for each block after the halving will be only slightly more than half of what they are being paid currently. I believe that this negatively impacts fundamentals and I disagree with (5) in so far I do not believe that Bitcoin has hit significant diminishing returns in network security. I am not confident now that Bitcoin could withstand large scale attacks by nation states and I especially don't believe this in a future where executing such an attack is decreased by a factor of 2.

I am also partial to 6 and 7. I believe that generally speaking, the fundamentals of Bitcoin have been monotone increasing, meaning that things have really only gotten better for Bitcoin in the last few years. This does not need to be the case going forward, for example large government regulations could take away from fundamentals as well as attacks against the consistency of the network, but so far these things have not occurred. I also believe that the market for cryptocurrency is largely inconsiderate of fundamentals and so a narrative such as the halving which may not impact them could still be a catalyst for increases of 3x in spot markets. I believe that if this sort of scenario plays out, the effect on price is only temporary and will not be meaningful on longer time-frames (1-2 years). Trading cryptocurrency in the past few years has taught me to never be surprised that the market is not respecting fundamentals for months at a time and I have no idea what the time-frame of this event would look like.

I find (10) to also be intriguing. I actually believe that Bitcoin is currently pretty close to an ideal configuration in terms of where miner revenue comes from. I have done some light napkin math on the economics of different inflation configurations, and right now I am not in a position to say if this upcoming halving makes things better or worse, but I am confident that 4 halvings from now in 2032, the network configuration will be less favorable then it is now so we are not too far off.

-------------------------------------------------------
TLDR: The upcoming halving of Bitcoin may have a number of impacts on the Bitcoin network and therefore spot markets that are both bullish and bearish. My personal opinion is that fundamentals will decline while temporarily the markets improve via trading the halving narrative, but eventually will converge to the decreased fundamentals. I have no idea what the time-frame of this temporary event would look like.
-------------------------------------------------------
I would love to hear everyone's opinions about what aspects of the bearish and bullish scenario they see playing out as well as other arguments or points of view I neglected to mention.
submitted by Academic_Crypto to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Save the planet, double-spend a shitcoin

I'm a proud double-spender. I think double-spending proof of work based shitcoins is the most effective action I can take to help save the planet. Allow me to explain why.
Let's take a random shitcoin. I'm choosing Grin, a favorite shitcoin among bitcoin maximalists. We can calculate roughly how much electricity the Grin network consumes, assuming the miners are not mining at a loss, in which case the figure would be even higher.
Sixty grin are produced per minute through mining. This means we have 3600 grin per hour. One Grin is worth 1.38 dollar, which means 4,968 dollar worth of Grin are produced per hour. How much money are you willing to spend, to earn one dollar worth of Grin? Assuming the market participants are rational, they'd be willing to spend one dollar. Again, since cryptonerds are not rational market participants, but often just teenage boys wasting their parents electricity, the actual amount of money they're willing to spend might be even bigger.
So, we're going with 4,968 dollar worth of electricity that is spent to sustain the Grin network per hour. Assuming the price for one Kwh is five cents, the network would be consuming 99,360 Kwh. You can assume about 500 gram of CO2 emitted per Kwh. This means Grin emits 49,680 kilo of CO2, per hour. That's about 25 trans-atlantic flights per hour worth of CO2.
Now the thing you have to consider is that anything that halves the value of Grin, should halve the amount of money people are willing to spend on mining Grin, thus halving the carbon footprint too. What happens if the value of one Grin goes down by 50%? On an annualized basis, that would be 110,000 trans-atlantic flights worth of CO2 that is no longer emitted into the atmosphere. The reason that figure is so ridiculous is of course because the current price of Grin is ridiculous, but because any dumb fool could pump the price people don't bother short-selling it.
With a sufficiently large double-spend attack, it's possible to halve the value of Grin, in the process, you're not just preventing a small town worth of CO2 emissions, you're earning yourself large amounts of money, that you could reinvest in attacks against bigger cryptocurrencies. So, my suggestion is simple: Make Greta smile again, double-spend a shitcoin. And if you're sufficiently patient and end up wealthy from your endeavor, you can eventually tackle the biggest shitcoin of them all, thereby hopefully ending this whole sorry episode.
submitted by baibaiguis to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

B(TC)itcoin is slow || My small and humble contribution

https://panzadura.github.io/B(TC)itcoin-is-slow/itcoin-is-slow/)

This is my small and (very) humble contribution: *English is not my first language so I apologize for spelling mistakes and inaccuracies.

B(TC)itcoin is slow

Bitcoin is slow because the block size was left at 1MB - 2MB with Witness Data on the SEGWIT network - after throwing the entire "team" developer of GitHub and being occupied by developers of what is now known as Blockstream.
This size has been maintained and keeps referring to two issues: Mining in China and the decentralization of the nodes or transaction validators that you point out in the article.

Mining in China occupies a good part of the pie that miners distribute - in turn these are the ones that confirm the transactions and undermine the blocks - since 2011 and these Chinese farms are behind something that in the West call "The Great Firewall "that prevents a stable connection and slows down the propagation of the block, its mining and confirmation of the transaction over 3 minutes [1] [2] causing a large part of the mining coming from China and therefore the power of 'Hash' decreased drastically affecting the security of Bitcoin; The less Hash the greater the possibility of being attacked by the Bitcoin network through a 51% attack that could cause double spending - although this gives rise to many debates since the 51% attack on an already "mature" network like Bitcoin requires a Considerable expenditure on mining equipment to control 51% of the mining power and receiving the block reward and the commissions for confirmed transfer on each block would make it less likely that said miner or mining group would like to make a double expense upon receiving sufficient economic compensation. So only a malicious agent with the intentions of destroying the network and assuming the total losses on the investment of equipment would be willing to carry out such operation. Possibilities exist but these are reduced by being the miner compensated for their activity.

In the same references to Chinese mining farms but in another more economical field; Bitcoin has 21 million that are obtained through mining and commissions on transfers. These 21 million are achieved over time and from there it becomes a deflationary element as there is no possibility of printing more coins. The question of the Bitcoin block costly and the influence of Chinese mining goes through the Bitcoin subsidy or, currently called as, block reward: When a miner puts a block in the chain he receives the Bitcoin reward that is "inside" "of that block and which is currently encrypted in 12.5. Every 210000 blocks the reward is reduced by half so in less than a year (312 days from today [3]) it will be reduced to 6.25 so the miners will see their subsidy fall in half unless Bitcoin's price per coin increases considerably or the mining farms begin to close or reduce mining equipment thus decreasing the power of the network's Hash. If Bitcoin reduces by half every 210000 blocks the subsidy per block to miners will come a time when they can only live and maintain their equipment for transaction fees and in a Bitcoin network with 7 transactions per second and a commission that tends to Increase the higher the number of movements in it makes it unfeasible for miners to continue in said 1MB network and above all that people want to use this payment method that is expensive and slow - more even than gold paper - Because remember that Bitcoin born as Peer 2 peer cash, not gold-.
Therefore, if in time the subsidy or reward is going to be 0 or unable to cover the mining equipment expense, it is necessary to find a solution if the developers do not want to touch the block size. And this goes through three issues already raised in BIPs and about the community: RPF (Replace By Fee), Lightning Network and Increase in the number of Bitcoin since the demand for Bitcoin does not rise because it offers a quality service but for security and above all for the manipulation of Tether (USDT) and the large exchange houses:

- The RBF consists in the substitution of a transaction without confirmations for another that would replace it with a higher commission eliminating the previous one of the mempool - the limbo of the transactions to be confirmed in Bitcoin -. Although this system seems effective, it does not eliminate the long-term problem of continuing to maintain the reduced block, but rather removes the problem of financing miners, but does not eliminate it and, above all, kills the operation of Bitcoin transactions by not eliminating the increase in commissions that would distance the user from its use. In addition to more easily allowing double spending [4] [5].

- Lightning Network is a side-chain or second layer, that is, a software development not implemented in the Bitcoin network itself and therefore is not an element of the block chain so this should already be repudiated since being a External and non-auditable element such as Bitcoin gives rise to "blanks" and therefore lack of existence and possibility of auditing accounts [6] and even the loss of money or cancellation of the transaction [7] [8]. It also faces the problem of routing since in a network in constant change with the openings and closures of payment channels it is unfeasible to establish a total and rapid diffusion to the nodes of LN - other than those of Bitcoin - so it comes into play Another new element of this network is the watchtowers in charge of ensuring compliance in open channels and over the entire LN network of payments. Obviously it requires an additional cost to hire this service and it is not yet implemented [9] and taking into account the pace at which Lightning Network is developed, it is doubtful that it will become available [10]. In short, to use properly - which is not successful - LN you need a node valued at $ 300 [11], a watchtower, have a channel open 24/7 and with sufficient funds to carry out transactions [12] [13] [14] .

- The increase in the Bitcoin offer was raised fleetingly by developer Peter Todd [15] [16] and will become an open debate in a few years when the mining block reward is low and the price of Bitcoin cannot be sustained only with uncontrolled printing of Tether and the manipulation on the price of the currency [17] [18] next to the collusion of the exchange houses headed by BitFinex [19] and personalities of the world 'crypto' [20] - if he survives long enough to see that moment since they are already behind Bitfinex for money laundering [21]. When that moment arrives I am sure that a BIP - Bitcoin Improvement Proposal - will be launched by Blockstream or directly notified of the measure destroying the essence of Bitcoin and the TRUE DECENTRALIZATION: THE PROTOCOL.

This brings us to the second reason for the slowness of Bitcoin. The correct and true decentralization goes through the code and the team of developers and maintainers, not any other. The protocol must be engraved in stone [22] and that the action of the miners distribute and decentralize the network and they maintain the nodes and the transactions in a completely capitalist economic relationship. Investing in machines and communication improves access, speed and spread of transactions and blocks and makes miners true competitors as well as facilitating the transmission of money and all kinds of transactions [22].
The decentralization of the nodes was the other great reason to prevent the increase of the block and therefore the speed in the transaction. It is based on a false premise to base the decentralization of Bitcoin - which is nowhere on the whitepaper - on the raspberry nodes. The dispersion of the transaction and all the stages of the transaction and the blocks depend on the miner and his team, as well as the search for excellence in communications to avoid orphan blocks - which are stipulated in the Nakamoto consensus and are part of Bitcoin and not they throw no problem in the transactions only in the resolution of the reward of the block that affects the miners and should seek greater efficiency - and reorganizations. The audit on the Bitcoin network can be perfectly performed without there being a Bitcoin node in each house, in fact it would cause the same routing problems that occur / will occur in the LN network.
Decentralization should not go through nodes but through developers and to a lesser extent by miners. If a protocol is continually being altered by developers they have the power of the network and it must be in constant struggle by the miners through the commission on transactions.

Due to these two factors, the BIP0101 proposed by the developers that Satoshi left in charge [23] and that originated the creation of Bitcoin Unlimited was rejected, later it was attacked due to its recent creation through DDoS attacks in a statement of intentions of the network Blockstream bitcoin [24] [25] remaining as a residual element.

These two reasons are the cause of the drowning suffered by the Bitcoin network - including many other elements that were eliminated and that corresponded to the initial code completely changing the nature and destiny of Bitcoin that are not relevant and I will not enumerate -, Any other reason is propaganda by those who want to keep Bitcoin drowned in order to enrich themselves with mining sub-subsidies and second-layer software like LN. Bitcoin has a structure similar to gold and can collect certain attributes of it but its destination in efficient and fast transmission as effective - among other transactions.

Bitcoin was designed to professionalize miners and create a new industry around them, so mining centers will become datacenters [26] and they will replicate all transaction logs and even this professionalization will eventually lead to specialization in other types of transactions born new industries around you that will support the nodes according to specialization - Data, asset transfers, money, property rights, etc ... -

Bitcoin scales to infinity if they leave the protocol FREE enough to do so.

P.D: Core, since the departure of Hearn and Andersen, they know perfectly well what they are doing: The worst breed from the Cyberpunk movement has been combined with the worst breed of the current synarchy; The ends always touch.

[1] https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ygo96/blocksize_consensus_census/cye0bmt/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivgxcEOyWNs&feature=youtu.be&t=2h36m20s
[3] https://www.bitcoinblockhalf.com/
[4] https://petertodd.org/2016/are-wallets-ready-for-rbf
[5] https://www.ccn.com/bitcoin-atm-double-spenders-police-need-help-identifying-four-criminals/
[6] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4905430.0
[7]https://www.trustnodes.com/2018/03/26/lightning-network-user-loses-funds || https://www.trustnodes.com/2019/03/13/lightning-network-has-many-routing-problems-says-lead-dev-at-lightning-labs
[8] https://diar.co/volume-2-issue-25/
[9] https://blockonomi.com/watchtowers-bitcoin-lightning-network/
[10] https://twitter.com/starkness/status/676599570898419712
[11] https://store.casa/lightning-node/
[12] https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/81906/to-create-a-channel-on-the-lightning-network-do-you-have-to-execute-an-actual-t
[13] https://blog.muun.com/the-inbound-capacity-problem-in-the-lightning-network/
[14] https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-capacity-cliff-586d1bf7715e
[15] https://dashnews.org/peter-todd-argues-for-bitcoin-inflation-to-support-security/
[16] https://twitter.com/peterktodd/status/1092260891788103680
[17] https://medium.com/datadriveninvestotether-usd-is-used-to-manipulate-bitcoin-prices-94714e65ee31
[18] https://twitter.com/CryptoJetHammestatus/1149131155469455364
[19] https://www.bitrates.com/news/p/crypto-collusion-the-web-of-secrets-at-the-core-of-the-crypto-market
[20] https://archive.is/lk1lH
[21] https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=8W00ssb7x5ZOaj8HKFdbfQ==
[22] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611#msg1611
[23] https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/mastebip-0101.mediawiki
[24] https://www.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3yewit/psa_if_youre_running_an_xt_node_in_stealth_mode/
[25] https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/3yebzi/coinbase_down/
[26]https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=532.msg6306#msg6306"
submitted by Knockout_SS to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Signs of the Times....We are not there yet!

First off this is not a puff piece nor is it a shit post...
The good thing about this Subreddit is that everyone has the right and opportunity to voice their concerns, fears, suggestions, and opinions. Between all the cries of the "sky is falling" and "we've been scammed" comments vs. "hey this is a great opportunity to double you're bag" to "don't worry we will be okay in the end" a focus on the facts and fundamentals too often gets lost in all this noise.

There is no doubt that all who invested in Kin, no matter the amount, has lost a big percentage of their money, myself included. To-date if you're still holding the loss is on paper and still very real. If you sold and realized your loss that's gonna hurt a bit more. The angry ones will look to place blame, whether that be with Ted, Kik, or the Foundation but if you are in this group don't forget to blame yourself some regardless of how thorough your due diligence. No investment is risk free.

Everyone who invested in KIN did so for the same reason, the value and potential, if done right would literally be a game changer and give you bragging rights to see what people saw in companies like, Facebook (yeah I said it), Amazon, Netflix and Bitcoin. KIN was born from an established company with a proof of concept with KIK Points and a history of innovating things like bots and themes before others. So was the risk in KIN any less risky??? No, they just had a bit more history for confidence that if they can duplicate with KIN what they did with Points and expand it to be inclusive of others...well..they truly would be on to something.

The Left Turn
Even though KIK was contacted by the SEC shortly after their ICO and I suspect even then they had an idea that it would end where we are today but decided to play nice with the SEC with the hopes of getting them to see the need to accelerate proper regulation for the crypto space. Obviously the later did not happen.
The timing could not have come at a worst time, right in the middle of the swap and during a period when they were actively pursuing top tier exchanges and negotiating with design partners. Admittedly this sucked the air out of the room. One can assume the SEC caused exchanges and some partners to hit pause whether temporarily or permanently, time will tell. As a result we are all watching the price of KIN fall and wondering how low will it go, will it go to zero. Truth is no one knows.

Who's At Fault
To say Ted, KIK, or the KIN Foundation are to blame would not be an accurate statement. Do they share some of the blame, absolutely, could they have done things differently, faster, better etc., absolutely. Keep in mind I don't know one arm chair quarterback who lost a game. Looking back I'm sure Ted and Co. would have done a thousand things differently knowing what they know now but to imply that they are not taking this seriously, or it doesn't matter because they have the money from the ICO is foolish. Remember they have big bags of KIN too, and want and need KIN to succeed just as much as we do. So stop inferring that they are clueless and don't know what they are doing or just flying by the seat of their pants with no plan or direction. They have plan, will it win out in the end, will the win against the SEC...don't know, your guess is as good as mine.

Signs of The Times
There is a lot of noise about price decline, mismanagement and opinions that KIN will never succeed and that the SEC is the final nail in the coffin. Despite the SEC litigation and price decline, what would really concern me is if we see any of these, then maybe this would be a true indicator that the end is near.
To be sure there are headwinds ahead, very strong ones at that. Will KIK/KIN survive, I hope so. I've invested my money which to this point 90% on paper is gone. I'm okay with that partly because there is nothing I can do to get it back. What I can do is watch metrics that are important to me and as long as I see them trending in the right direction, then there is a chance for this to turn around to some degree, how much and when...don't know but I will wait and see. I made my bed and I'm willing to lay in it.

So if you're angry and bashing Ted & Co., the community as a whole or individuals within helps you cope...then let it rip and get it all out...we'll give you a hug at the end when you're done.
submitted by LostInKinCrypto to KinFoundation [link] [comments]

Could Bitcoin Cash ever be completely feeless and instant? And would we want it to be?

Hoping to get some thoughts from some fairly technically savvy people on this one if possible. Bitcoin Cash is my largest holding and what I think has the best shot at being a widely used currency based on its design, roadmap, community, etc. One coin that I discovered recently (that I think most people in crypto are probably aware of at this point) is Raiblocks. Its feeless design and nearly instant speeds were intriguing to me, but I recognize that I'm not a technical expert and wondered if there was something I was missing.
Would love to hear some thoughts! My goal isn't to discuss Raiblocks, though that's fine if people want to talk about it (its really just an example for the question I'm curious about). I'm mainly just interested in hearing a perspective on Bitcoin Cash as feeless and instant.
submitted by Azcrael to btc [link] [comments]

HOW TO: Double Your Bitcoin In Just Minutes [REAL WORKING METHOD] How To Double Spend Bitcoins - Free Software Bitcoin Double Spender 2016 Bitcoin Double Spender 2016 Double Bitcoin IN 1 HOUR VERY FAST - YouTube

Double BTC has successfully stayed ahead of its competitors, and I see it as one of the top Bitcoin Invest companies.” – Arnold Mcdonald, Crypto 500 “We are hapy to have Double BTC Company as our partner. the professional autonomous robot of your company is always 100% up and we are glad to work with you” Bitcoin Double Spender Script $ 125.00 Are you looking for bitcoin doubler spender script ? this script will be helps you to build your own Bitcoin Investment or Doubler Script. Bitcoin Double Spender Script is one of the best Bitcoin Doubler scripts that we have. Bitcoin double spender - Potential connection to other user - Need permission to repay victims, The reason Im posting here is because skype user live:froclecebu appears to be involved in several scams here. With permission, Id like to release this bit, Report A Scammer Archive, A Bitcoin double spending app. Contribute to ankleslapper/Double-Spender development by creating an account on GitHub. Are you looking for bitcoin doubler spender script ? this script will be helps you to build your own Bitcoin Investment or Doubler Script. Bitcoin Double Spender Script is one of the best Bitcoin Doubler scripts that we have. This script takes deposit from users, spends it again using the settings and tools and automaticallyRead More

[index] [14360] [8674] [34560] [9353] [34030] [3019] [43945] [4916] [42123] [21670]

HOW TO: Double Your Bitcoin In Just Minutes [REAL WORKING METHOD]

HOW TO: Double Your Bitcoin In Just Minutes! This is a REAL WORKING METHOD as of March 2017: http://www.bitcoingenerator.us/ How to double spend bitcoins ? http://www.multiply-bitcoin.pw is the most easy way to get free bitcoins. you can instantly double / Hack your bitcoin wallet ... TRUSTED BITCOIN DOUBLER NO SCAM. Contact me through E-mail : [email protected] I Give This Bot for 25 Dollar Payment is with Bitcoin You can Double your Investment in 1 Hour Contact me on Telegram @ramoquark Live Bitcoin Trading With DeriBot on Deribit DeriBot Backup 141 watching Live now How To Double Spend Your Stuck Bitcoin Transaction with FSS-RBF - Duration: 8:22.

#