/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>28599420
The team lied, saying it was a explorer error.

>>28599420
>>28599451
The team also deleted the transaction ID from the official explorer so that it couldn't be viewed without using a third party explorer.

You're too dedicated spreading this refuted fud over and over again, People aren't this dumb and can clearly see your motivation, Or maybe they're, Either way idk and neck yourself.

>>28599420
based FUD thread

Also post your short position

>dedicating entire day to fudding avax

stay poor faggot

>>28599420
>>28599451
>>28599587
Emin later claimed it was a minting bug to damage control when in fact what happened was exactly the definition of a double spend.
1 Transaction split into 7 with the same ID, resulting in 63.45 AVAX turning into 444 AVAX which 63.45 of them was staked and the remaining 381 was exchanged for wETH.

>>28599420
>>28599451
>>28599587
>>28599807
This has caused and will cause developers to not use AVAX as it means it is not secure.

>The recent events have led to a decision to warp speed our development with Polkadot, via Kusama testnet and Parachain collaboration to further diversify our platform offerings.
https://blog.zero.exchange/avalanche-post-mortem/

eleet haxor's blockchain has bricked

OH NO NO NO NO

By that same logic The 184 Billion BTC Bug means BTC is not secure. Ok.

Can someone please debunk this with arguements other than "muh fud"? I am conflicted with what the dev said and what actually happened.

>>28601177
Same logic?
That was not the same type of "bug".
That was also during BTCs testing phase when it had less than $1,000,000 mcap. Avax today has $3,529,318,368 and is live. There has never occurred a double spend on BTC, there has been several double spends on AVAX the last few days.

Projects are not being built ON BTC, projects are being built ON AVAX.
AVAX has only existed for a very short amount of time and has already suffered multiple double spends. BTC has suffered 0 double spends, but yes it has suffered a bug in the testing phase.

>>28599420
Just sold my 2k of my 3k AVAX :/ cant risk double spending or a massive dump again after DOGE I’m sorry anons

>>28599807
If it was a double spend the new double coin would disappear from one of the wallets soon after. Minting error permanently adds to the supply.

>>28601177
>>28601577
read my digits and weep

>>28601523
If you actually had to sell DOGE because you were scared NGMI
Its a literal shitcoin meant to be a meme, not an actual thing

>>28599420
What cryptos do you hold OP? ETH? lmao

>>28599420
Who the fuck cares if something is built on these blockchains. It only matters if the concept is innovative and marketable enough to lure enough retards in to pump my bags.
So please stop posting this, nobody cares about technical mumbo jumbo and double spending, that's for fucking nerds.
The only thing that matters is enough dumb people believing the hype and buying this shit project so the price increases.

>>28601577
No

>With digital currency, there is a risk that the holder could make a copy of the digital token and send it to a merchant or another party while retaining the original.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/doublespending.asp

His transaction, same ID, split into 7 different ones
https://avascan.info/blockchain/c/address/0x0a99c32AFFAEc0a697D4CB4bf660Eeddcf432c21/transactions

He then staked the original 63.45 and exchanged the 381 for 10.4 ether, that's a double spend.

>Double-spending is a potential flaw in a digital cash scheme in which the same single digital token can be spent more than once. Unlike physical cash, a digital token consists of a digital file that can be duplicated or falsified.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-spending
>Double-spending is a potential issue in a digital cash system where the same funds are spent to two recipients at the same time. Without any adequate countermeasures, a protocol that doesn’t resolve the problem is fundamentally undermined
https://academy.binance.com/en/articles/double-spending-explained
>Double-spending is a problem that arises when transacting digital currency that involves the same tender being spent multiple times. Multiple transactions sharing the same input broadcasted on the network can be problematic and is a flaw unique to digital currencies.
https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/double-spending/

Will you admit you're wrong now?

OP has shorts out is desperately trying to evade liquidation by fudding full time

>>28601321
Go to discord if you want answers, Here people are tired repeating themselves because the other side clearly doesn't want to understand what happened but to claim what happened according to their own agenda.

Literally all the posts from OP are copy pasted from his computer because he's coordinated fud who'll keep repeating the same false premises no matter how many times he will be proven wrong. It's a lose-lose battle.

>>28601739
What am I wrong about? No one has disputed anything this far.

>>28601717
Double spends are later resolved after the duplication leading to one of the wallets losing out after already sending it somewhere else. The whole reason why many blocks are waited upon

>>28601739
Or maybe you're not smart enough yourself to understand certain things so you believe things like these >>28599451
You should be glad people like me care enough to help you get out of failed projects before they collapse. If I and others never pointed things like these out you'd never know if your system is faulty or not.

>>28599912
>Zero Exchange is following our roadmap plans extending Cross Chain Swaps across Ethereum, Avalanche, and Polkadot. We will be the 1st Cross Chain DEX with 3 blockchain integrations and we look forward to everyone joining us as we continue innovating the DEX space.

Why don't you post the whole thing?

>>28601717
Technically >>28601577 is right.
Most common interpretation of double spend is that:
> tx #1 sends coins to wallet A
> tx #2 sends the same coins to wallet B
> coins disappear from wallet A and appear in wallet B
What we have here is that coins appear in both wallets A and B.
Of course it's still very serious because it means you can print coins at will.

>>28601422
> Projects are not being built ON BTC,
Projects USED TO be built ON BTC, but tx costs killed them.

>>28601849
That is simply not true, read any of the links I showed you and you will see that it is not necessary for that to happen for it to be a double spend. That can happen, but it is not necessary for it to be a double spend.

>>Double-spending is a potential issue in a digital cash system where the same funds are spent to two recipients at the same time. Without any adequate countermeasures, a protocol that doesn’t resolve the problem is fundamentally undermined
This happened, there was no "adequate countermeasures" which is why the funds kept living on the chain.
>>Double-spending is a problem that arises when transacting digital currency that involves the same tender being spent multiple times. Multiple transactions sharing the same input broadcasted on the network can be problematic and is a flaw unique to digital currencies.
>Multiple transactions sharing the same input broadcasted on the network
See pic

>>28601577
checked

This is both an illegal minting and a double spend.
WORST of all.

BTC 2010 had an overflow bug, illegal minting. NO BODY spent those 9 billion BTC.

There was no double spend on bitcoin ever.
There has been double SPENDS on AVAX.

If you dont fire Seq and reorganizeava labs
Ill turn black hat next time

Im white hat told you check your fuckin node security
You didnt listen

Ive told anons here is how you can get free coins, thats gray hat

Ive hacked other shitcoins before like IOTA they deserved it

If I dont see this lies deceit censorship gone all gone
If I dont see Seq gone

Next attack will be against the network

>>28601889
I posted the source so people can read the whole thing. What I said is still true
>The recent events have led to a decision to warp speed our development with Polkadot
>warp speed our development with Polkadot
>warp speed
They are hurrying to get onto a new platform.

>>28601943
BTC was never meant to have projects built onto it. AVAX is.

Nigger u just want that cheap avax

>>28602110
>They are hurrying to get onto a new platform.
A new platform on which they were already planning on getting on. And they are not ditching Avalanche. Basically the Zero post mortem is a big nothing burger, saying they'll keep following their planned roadmap.

When you choose to focus on "The recent events have led to a decision to warp speed our development with Polkadot" you are trying a relay an incomplete picture of the situation.

Before you say anything, I haven't bought this shitcoin and I don't plan to. But you're clearly fudding.

>>28599912
>OH FUCK AVA LABS TEAM WE'RE FUCKED WHAT DO WE DO
>Uhhh, VACCINE. Warp speed vaccine. TOKENOMICS.
>WARP SPEED THAT'S WHAT IT IS

>>28601683
>a literal shitcoin
that did a x20 in a month, high risk high reward anon, and the potential to loose everything.

Nobody has disputed OP. All they’re saying is go to the telegram, this has been refuted, you’re just fudding. Lmao it’s over. I have 2k avax and even I think it will fail.

>>28601739
avax lied, all signs point to this

>>28599420
I sold the top. Literally the very top. Feels fucking good, man.

>>28602038
Seq isn't part of Avalabs you absolute retard

>>28599420
thanks, just bought some more

>>28599807
It was not a double spend you retard. Double spend = multiple recipients.

>>28602847
Same.

this thread is a strong buy signal.

>>28599420
>Never heard of the eth dao hack
>Panic sells and fuds this early

Newfags never learn.

>>28599694
*week

>>28599420
Devs and Validators are laughing their asses off about your post in Avalanche discord.

Some dude posted it there.

But beside laughing they have no time, because right now they are developing GRT + Polkadot integration.

You see dumbass, there are much more important things to do, because Avalanche chain already works like it was designed to be.

Even when bugs happen.

>>28599451
Why do you keep spamming like some fucking sperg?

Jpop32 is not a developer, in fact he's a fucking idiot and shit at damage control.
The tx IDs have been removed as damage control, I won't deny that. However the damage done through this comes down to AVA labs losing $40k.

Wait on the fucking post mortem and details on what they have done to fix up this shit. I agree this is a serious issue but you act like a fucking autist about something that has caused almost no impact and been addressed within hours.

>>28601739
>Here people are tired repeating themselves because the other side clearly doesn't want to understand what happened but to claim what happened according to their own agenda.
Makes sense
>
Literally all the posts from OP are copy pasted from his computer because he's coordinated fud who'll keep repeating the same false premises no matter how many times he will be proven wrong. It's a lose-lose battle
Oh no, it's retarded

>>28603305
>everyone is laughing at you in the discord
What is this high school gossip level cringe? AVAX was caught red-handed with a double spend and cover up by concerned investors. This isn't FUD you gargantuan cretin.

>>28602038
So how do we get free Avax coins?

>>28602038
Go fucking ahead you dumb nigger or post your concerns to the fucking discord or telegram, do you think they're reading some Chinese shadow figure forum for security issues

>>28603305
>because Avalanche chain already works like it was designed to be


It was meant to be full of bugs?

>>28603527
I think anon means pratcially feeless and near instant and now bug free

>>28603450
Nobody gives a fuck about what you think in the Avalanche community.
Validators and coders are already doing business as usual.

Bug fixed, problem solved, all funds were secure , now Avax will continue to disrupt the space.

End of story.

>>28603305
Oh no bros, discord is making fun of us again...

>>28603527
It was designed from scratch to sevure all funds even when bugs happen.
Design masterpiece.

Bagholders in this thread remind me of the bitconnect followers who claimed it's not a scam even after it blew up. Pathetic cultists.

>>28602934
Nope, go read >>28602022

>>28603392
Of course, because it's either $40k or everything. What would you choose?

>>28603305
Damage control

>>28603858
It's because they're all locked into their stakes and can't remove liquidity from Pangolin. The moment their money is free I'm sure the mood on this board will change...

>>28599642
He’s smart and being helpful. You’re blinded by your emotions.

>>28599420
UNN will save AVAX. few.

>>28604053
This is wrong. Pangolin and avalanche (apart from the bridge) are fully operational right now

>>28603305
>Hahaha what an idiot!
>*desperately trying to remove all traces of critical flaws*

>>28604215
also, avalanche march futures are trading at 45 on FTX vs 45.6 spot. This is in line with where the spot/futures spread has been trading for a while, and is actually a smaller spread if anything.

anyone who wants to sell/short avalanche can easily do so and quite cheaply

>>28604215
Yes but you can't move funds to any exchange to sell them, do you not realize that? You can't get your funds out of the avalanche platform to sell them. When you can, lots of people will likely sell as this platform has shown to be broken and the team is dishonest at best, and lying and manipulating at worst. It's bad to pray on non-technical people by claiming a "minting" bug when it's in fact a double spend.

I sold fuck this shit lmao
nice gain tho

>>28604605
anyone can short avalanche right now on FTX. See:
>>28604422

>>28604215
>(apart from the bridge)
LMAO. Just one small caveat there, anon.

>>28604605
That's false, OKEx works perfectly for example

>>28604813
Idiot. Liquidity is trapped on Pangolin. And unless something has changed, Binance is not accepting deposits. No one cares about OKEx.

>>28604813
1 exchange. Great.
And still, pic rel. Imagine more exchanges which people actually use.

>>28599420
yeah really shitty way of handling it. there are lots of growing pains for new projects, but i'm mostly upset with how they relayed this info and obfuscated the truth.