/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>28643462
>enemies generate mistrust in project
No the devs did that. I say this as a holder.

>>28643462
Good points anon!

Did you remember to take your meds this morning?

>>28643462
devs created that mistrust by claiming a double spend was a UI bug and that it was fake and sending all the discord pajeets to /biz/ to fud

>>28643983
it wasnt a double spend, bug was fixed and all funds are safe

>>28644043
He sent the funds and it arrived 7 times from the same block, that's a septuple-spend error you fucking subhuman

>>28643462

Avax
>Loads one app
>Fucking dies
>Double spend galore
>Avax team pulls their nodes down to halt the network
>Locks everyones wallet

Devs
>It's a ui problem
>It's a explorer problem
>It's a api problem
>It was a minting bug not double spend!!!!!

You
>Hmm, some enemies are creating mistrust in the project

>>28644126
>He sent the funds and it arrived 7 times from the same block
in his own wallet, from X to C chain
>that's a septuple-spend error
Its a bug and it was fixed, Emin said the people who got it can see it as bug bounty and then burned 790 AVAX from foundation wallet.
so its all good again.

>>28644303
He used the extra funds to buy ethereum with diluted avax float, he DID STEAL funds from someone on Pangolin because the AVAX supply was diluted.

test

>>28644157
>Double spend galore
it was just 790 AVAX and it wasnt a double spend.
you really should educate yourself about how AVAX works, maybe then you would understand why your FUD makes no sense.
>Avax team pulls their nodes down to halt the network
no nodes went offline
>Locks everyones wallet
the protocol does it when abnormal behavior happens. its a safety mechanism.
>Devs
they said there were multiple problems, all fixed now.

>>28644414
>He used the extra funds to buy ethereum
his right, he can keep the bug bounty.
790 AVAX were burned from foundation wallets.

I'm a o.g. Avax Chad but really hate the devteam brcause for all the credentials and experience they could not prevented this from happening on day fucking two after pangolin. Just shatters my belief in the team which seemed so impeccable. I had the same goddamn thing with the DAO. I will still hold and im still a fan but it does fucking suck really bad. They fucked up.

>>28644486
>his right, he can keep the bug bounty.
>790 AVAX were burned from foundation wallets.
So what? The float on pangolin is still diluted, he stole from all pangolin users retard, burning tokens doesn't unsteal it

>>28644486
>bug bounty.
kek, is that what we're calling dupe glitches now?

>>28644598
I will only forgive them once we moon like before. Until then they need to pull out all stops to restore faith.

>>28644598
it was a bug and it was fixed.
basically nothing happend and it works now.
>>28644602
>he stole from all pangolin users retard
nothing was stolen and it had nothing to do with pangolin.
>>28644707
it was a bug.
detailed blog comes next week explaining it all.

>>28644602
>>28644486
Stop saying that I should educate myself when you don't even understand the concept of a double spend and why it invalidates your whole network security

If it wasn't a double spend, explain to me what part of it doesn't fit the "double spending problem"

>>28644797
>nothing was stolen and it had nothing to do with pangolin.
Is printing money stealing from people holding money? Yes? Well it's stealing here too retard.

>>28644802
It wasn't a double spend it was a 7x spend. Is there any meaningful difference between inflating the token supply and stealing 0.0001 tokens from each user? The answer is no

>>28644797
>Nothing happened
The most fundamental aspect of a blockchain is to protect against a double spend, avax didn't. That's not a "nothing happened" it's a major catastrophic failure. You don't know if it works now or not, you just think so because you trust lying devs because you're emotionally invested in the coin. Devs will never trust this network after this, it's doomed.

>>28644963
The thing is, a double spends means you can't trust any token on the network to be legit. If the trust is broken on a blockchain by a double spend, every token becomes worthless. Avax team is just lucky they managed to attract the most dense normie retards ever who don't understand crypto at all

>>28644802
>when you don't even understand the concept of a double spend
thats ironic because its YOU who doesnt understand the concept.
Educate yourself how Avalanche works, what the X Chain and what the C Chain is and what they are for and then you can come back and write your opinion.

>explain to me what part of it doesn't fit the "double spending problem"
57 X-chain to C-chain coin mint transactions were not subject to requisite checking in the client. This led to invalid minting of ~790.2 AVAX, corresponding to ~$40k USD, on the C-chain. It also caused the network to slow down. Nothing else was affected.
This invalid minting was the result of a bug in the client code, not a safety failure of the network or an error in the protocol. It is identical in nature to the Bitcoin underflow bug that enabled the creation of 4 billion BTC and required a patch.

>>28645002
>is to protect against a double spend
its not a double spend.
read above

>You don't know if it works now or not
I'm already using it, no problems anymore.
my node is also back up with good response %

>>28645260
>my node
Professional bagholder thinks you can call a double spend an invalid minting and the software is no longer pajeet

>>28645419
its not a double spend
here the definition because so many people still get it wrong:
>Double-spending is a potential flaw in a digital cash scheme in which the same single digital token can be spent more than once
>in which the same
>the same
this was not the case with this bug so its not a double spend. read here >>28645260

>>28645495
>Double-spending is a potential flaw in a digital cash scheme in which the same single digital token can be spent more than once
It was spent 7 times

>>28645622
>It was spent
It wasnt, read again.

I'd think it's best if we just stopped antagonizing each other, we're all just trying to get by and stay away from the wagie lifestyle as hard as we can. The only real enemy is centralized finance on the hands of the state

Bug fixed and all founds safe. So nothing matter with AVAX

>>28645703
He sent it 7 times and it arrived 7 times, and used it to buy 7 times as much ETH as he could have otherwise afforded

>>28645784thered just fuds trying to dump the coin kek

>>28645762
AVAX is decentralized
>>28645784
this
>>28645808
>He sent it 7 times and it arrived 7 times
from X to C chain and thats not a double spend. read above, can you even read? your english aint the best huh?
>and used it to buy 7 times as much ETH
he earned that bug bounty.

please go take ur pills

>>28645922
He used his X-chain balance to 7x spend and acquire 7x the C-chain balance

You are literally seething because you have tens of thousands on the line which could vanish when people realize what happened

>>28643462
People that got priced out are SEETHING its insane how much fud there is on biz.

The bug is fixed end of story.

People act like bitcoin and eth never had an issue and look where they are at now. Improvements are supposed to be made its a constant progress.

If you think products should be perfect from launch, keep being delusional and stay poor

AVAX is a safe network. We all trust Emin and will follow him.
I'm just waiting for Binance to open so that I buy the 90% dip to make a big stake.
Loved the team response to the issue. They were very communicative, they acted quickly, while ETH DAO hack took months to solve. I'm going all-in, and will ask some loans to buy more as well.

>>28646034
>He used his X-chain balance to 7x spend and acquire 7x the C-chain balance
and this is not a double spend.
are you illiterate or something?
see >>28645495

>>28646045
this

>>28646045
>It's just a UI issue bro
>Oh it actually did happen
>Well it's not a double spend it's an invalid minting, the difference is one is known to be certain death for a crypto project and the other is some bullshit term to not call it that

>>28646123
It is a double spend, he spent his funds twice

>>28646123
This is not double spending, as he sent coins to himself. Its a API bug which was validated by the nodes. Emin chose to not roll back, and burned the AVAX from the foundation instead. He was generous to those affected by the bug.

>>28643462
Go back to doing charlie work. I'm an Avax holder, but FUD is FUD and /Biz/ are always going to fud everything.

Never take it personal, people just salty about coins they don't got , it is what it is

>>28646241
Inflating the token supply is identical to stealing tokens

>>28646166
>he cant read
>>28646230
>It is a double spend
its not tho, read the definition again and focus more brainpower on language processing.
>>28646241
>Emin chose to not roll back
Emin CANT roll back as Avalanche is a truly decentralized system.

>>28646337
They were stolen. Yes. Great. No one is refuting that, why do you keep saying it?

>>28646337
He didnt inflate, he burned it. It was part of the foundation stash, of his own funds. He gave it to those affected instead of rolling back and causing a hard fork.

AVAX is an incredible and safe network, that´s it, its growth won´t be stopped by anything

>>28645495
>>28645260
Thanks for not explaining. You just copied Emins tweet because you can't make an argument yourself. He lied to you just like they lied and said
>Ui problem
>Explorer problem
>Api problem
But I'll help you fags understand because I'm a good guy.
If you look at this pic, you can see the transaction with the same tx ID 7 times. They all came from the same output.
You can check it out here.
https://avascan.info/blockchain/c/address/0x0a99c32AFFAEc0a697D4CB4bf660Eeddcf432c21/transactions
This means the transaction was doubled (7 times). So 63.45 avax turned into 444.
If it was minted it would need a specific contract sent and accepted my majority of the nodes which directly tells the chain to create new tokens, this was just a normal transaction that doubled and was later used to stake the original 63 avax and exchange the remaining 381 for wETH hence double spend since they all came from the same tx ID. They were the same coins but duplicated.

>>28646337
equal amount of tokens was burned from Foundation wallets and guy who got extra can see his gains as Bounty for the bug as confirmed by Emin.

AVAX works, Bug is fixed, Nodes are online, Staking Ratio is going up.
now just waiting for Exchanges opening deposits and withdrawals and the bridge coming online again.
then moonmission will continue.

>>28646530
>hence double spend
thats not what a double spend is, read it up on wikipedia.

>You just copied Emins tweet because
detailed explanation is coming soon and Emin already explained the basics.

>>28646343
For anyone watching this pajeet repeat the same talking points over and over, he already admitted he owns a node which is minimum 2000 AVAX which is roughly $100,000 USD. So if you think he is behaving irrationally it's because he has $100,000+ on the line to try to make you think that there's no problems with the network and keep the price high enough so he can exit with a profit.

>>28646482
Because it's a double spend
>>28646488
The people who lost from the minted tokens are the people who provided AVAX or ETH liquidity on Pangolin because of the Cantillion effects of inflation. Emin burning his tokens does nothing to reverse the theft which happened on Pangolin.

They are scared of it, of the power to keep growing how it was doing, that's why they talked a lot of bullshit, they are dirty people, playing with fire, the ones that play with fire... well u know what happens

>>28646548
>equal amount of tokens was burned from Foundation wallets and guy who got extra can see his gains as Bounty for the bug as confirmed by Emin.
That doesn't matter
>>28646754

this is such a sad thread
>Please use my ETH killer!
No

>>28646343
I'll explain one more time in easy english just for you.
See image >>28646530
There are 7 incoming transactions. All with the same tx ID.
63 Avax is sent, 444 is recieved. What happened? The transaction duplicated 7 times, it wasn't a mint of new coins. They all came from the same transaction 7 times. Then they were spent. It's a double spend.
The same 63 avax used for more than their own value.

>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?

>>28646702
Retard, I co-wrote the wikipedia article on the double spend you absolute moron

>>28646754
>For anyone watching this pajeet repeat the same talking points over and over
now you are projecting. its you who repeats himself.
learn basic definitions and read up on it.
you are clueless and its embarrassing to watch you repeat the same lies over and over.
>Because it's a double spend
its not, again read the definition what a double spend is.
then read what the X Chain is and what the C Chain is and how they work.
>Emin burning his tokens does nothing to reverse the theft which happened on Pangolin.
there was no theft.
the bug was fixed and nobody lost their funds.

>>28646845
>That doesn't matter
It does
>>28646754
thats not correct.

>>28647106
How long until your funds are unstaked pajeet?

>>28646981
>There are 7 incoming transactions
from X to C Chain.
read up on it and what that means and then you will instantly see that your entire post is wrong.

>>28647058
you are the retard. learn english and learn to read.
>>28647234
Pajeets cant afford AVAX Nodes.
thats why you dont have one.

>>28647340
X chain to C chain doesn't matter, but you can tell me why you think it does if you want. The incoming transaction sent 63 avax, the account got 444 from 7 identical transactions.

>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/

Oh right, they did share the same input broadcast! So it's as I've already stated a double spend.

Tell me why it's not a double spend now without copying Emins bad minting excuse. What is it that makes you think this isn't a double spend, explain it. I've already explained why it is.

>>28647662
>X chain to C chain doesn't matter
yes it does. read up how Avalanche works.
>but you can tell me why you think it does if you want.
I already told you but you refuse to read.
If you just read up on how Avalanche works you would instantly understand where the issue is with your idea of what a double spend is.

>>28648000
im gonna be honest this is sad as fuck
you keep just saying "no you"
it's clearly a double spend and this entire avax shill that i see every fuckign day can finally be laid to rest
its a double spend, plain and fucking simple as far as im concerned
if this is "how its supposed to work" it works like shit. eth will solve its scaling with rollups, which are already in finalized testnet
sorry but your eth killer lost my fucking trust. never putting MONEY into a fucking BROKEN chain

>>28643462
Sneaky, sneaky avax scam coin

>>28648000
No it doesn't matter, if you can't explain it it's because you don't have an argument and no you haven't told me anything. The only time you told me anything was when you copied Emins tweet about the minting.

All you've said is "read about double spending" which I have sent you 4 different articles about and shown you how they are pointing out the exact thing that happened with that transaction.
You also said "read about x chain and c chain" but you can't explain why it matters and you don't make any argument because you don't know anything and it's obvious you're just an emotionally attached investor.

Explain why it matters or just give up, you don't seem to know anything about what you're talking about anyway so it's completely unnecessary for you to try to argue against someone who knows. I'll just destroy any faulty argument you throw at me.

>>28648393
>im gonna be honest this is sad as fuck
then go back into school and learn how to read.
>it's clearly a double spend
It isnt and it was already explained ad infinitum
>if this is "how its supposed to work" it works like shit
It worked perfectly.
No funds were lost, abnormal behavior of the network was contained and a patch was rolled out asap.

>>28648488
>how they are pointing out the exact thing that happened with that transaction.
if you understood english and could read you would KNOW that its NOT the exact same thing.
my conclusion is you are a dunce.

>>28648594
still not buying your broken chain
is anyone even using it besides pure speculation?
i saw someone summarize how there was no actual activity on the chain anyway, just bullshit

>>28648873
>still not buying your broken chain
then dont, I dont care what you do.
>is anyone even using it besides pure speculation?
I'm using it right now, pangolin is comfy
>i saw someone summarize how there was no actual activity on the chain anyway
Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

>>28649081
>Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.
which is exactly why i believe the other anon clearly showing a double spend
and i have no idea what you mean by comfy the chain fucking broke yesterday has no defi and has 'interoperability' which is really just a sign saying "PLEASE IMPORT YOUR SAFE DEFI SHIT TO OUR NEW CHAIN PLEASE"
meanwhile
>double spends
>chain goes down
>threads here screaming to buy the eth killer
i saw all this in 2017 with so many eth killers and instead eth is still king even with high gas fees

you lost

>>28648594
You still give 0 explanation. Look at the difference of my post with an good explanation >>28646981

And your sad excuse for an explanation >>28646343

Now try to explain instead of spazzing out.

What makes it not a double spend?
It's 1 transaction being sent, yes?
The transaction is duplicated, yes?
1 original and 6 transactions are received with the same tx ID, yes?
He staked the original 63 avax, yes?
He spent the remaining 381 avax to exchange with another user for wETH, yes?

So he duplicated his original funds 7 times 63.45 x 7 = 444
444 - 63 = 381
So he spent the original and the duplicate. They all came from the same transaction only containing 63 with the same ID. It was the same 63 spent multiple times. Double spend? Yes.

Same input broadcast? Yes
>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/

>>28649081
https://twitter.com/avascanexplorer/status/1360735370510557185?s=21
like it literally doesnt work

>>28649206
>a double spend
it isnt a double spend.
also it was already patched and no harm was done. funds are safe.
basically Bugs are part of crypto and usually they cost the people hundreds of millions and we didnt lose anything besides time in this one.
>the chain fucking broke
it didnt, it just slowed down into a more secure state so it can be patched before it implodes.
it was patched and now it works smooth again.
>to buy the eth killer
its not an ETH killer, its literally the EVM but using a superior method of achieving consensus, read the whitepaper.
>>28649329
>my post with an good explanation
its not a good explanation because you dont understand how AVAX works.
you make way too many assumptions and drift off making up your own story so its pointless to nitpick and correct you, it would be most efficient if you DYOR and just read.
so read up how it works, read the explanation of the bug and maybe if you rub your 3 braincells together you can overcome your mentally challenging dunning kruger autism and understand that this was NOT a double spend.

>>28649868
Thanks again for not giving an explanation, you lost. I win.

>>28649329
minting error - double spend involves the wrongly produced tokens later being removed from the wallet (not actually increasing total supply permenantly)

>>28649771
thats just the bridge.
C-Chain already works and as you can see bridge will be up tomorrow.
>>28649935
you cant win because you cant read.

>>28649868
>its not a good explanation because you dont understand how AVAX works.
Apparently there are pajeet tier bugs in the implementation that allow double spending so I don't think anyone knows how it works

>>28649771
It does work - relayers just havent updated to working version yet. The food is made, just not yet served.

>>28649950
so it's got a minting error, not a double spend, no big deal
fuck outta here
>>28649956
>as you can see bridge will be up tomorrow
cant wait for the next failure in this gloruious eth killer that you can mint tokens on

i didnt read anything here because its over there is no point

>>28650016
>pajeet tier bugs
there are no Pajeets on the team.
>that allow double spending
it wasnt double spending and it was already fixed.

>>28644157
First comment from the dev was that it's validity check bug and they weren't wrong.

All the speculation before came from chat admins, They're not part of the core dev.

>>28650118
It was a double spend and how do we know it was fixed you faggot shill

>>28645260
By your logic BTC has flawed proof and broken chain because it already experienced minting bugs twice.

You're running out of time and getting greedy.

>>28650319
there were explorer bugs showing double spends when there werent too - which were fixed - gimp dev probably thought that it was that

>>28649950
That's not true, that can occur but it doesn't have to occur and when it doesn't it's even worse. Minting is a specific process in which a contract with a function to create more tokens is called and needs to achieve consensus. It doesn't happen through a normal transaction and it would not look like it does on the explorer.

>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.[1][2] As with counterfeit money, such double-spending leads to inflation by creating a new amount of copied currency that did not previously exist.

This part
>As with counterfeit money, such double-spending leads to inflation by creating a new amount of copied currency that did not previously exist.
From wikipedia

>>28649956
Of course I win, you can neither refute any of my arguments and you can't explain yourself. I already won.

>>28650473
>creating a new amount of copied currency that did not previously exist.
which is later removed in double spend cases

>>28650411
>there were explorer bugs showing double spends when there werent too - which were fixed - gimp dev probably thought that it was that
Those weren't UI bugs they were hard proof of a double spend

>>28650350
>It was a double spend
It wasnt and will never be no matter how often you repeat yourself.
read the definition of double spend, how Avalanche works and then read up on the bug.
>>28650408
>By your logic BTC has flawed proof and broken chain because it already experienced minting bugs twice.
these bugs were fixed and here with Avalanche it was fixed too.
>>28650473
>Of course I win
>refute any of my arguments
there isnt a need to refute them because you dont even know the most basic crypto stuff like what double spending is or how Avalanche works, how can you make solid arguments if you dont even know what you are talking about?
thats why my argument is that you read up on how everything works and then come back.
>>28650639
>keeps calling it a double spend when it wasnt

>>28650814
We've already established that you are a coping bagholder, stop embarrassing yourself.

>>28650595
No. That's simply not true, that's why the article says
>leads to inflation

>>28650814
If I don't know the most basic crypto "stuff" it would be incredibly easy to refute my argument but all you can do is copy Emin and say "read X" "read Y".
So obviously, until you try to explain yourself or try to refute my argument you've lost and I've won. That's how it is.

>>28650814
You have made more posts than I have but provided 0 explanation. If you were able to, you'd already have done it since you spend so much time here typing. But you're unable to refute my arguments or explain yourself so it's pretty obvious by now you don't know anything.

>>28651257
thanks for your position because i was alllllllmost going to buy avax but then i remembered ethereum is better because of exactly this
>tps
>cheap fees
this is literally why eth and bitcoin were desigend the way they were

>>28651362
No but ethereum and btc is better because it's secure and has never suffered a double spend

>>28651114
no we established that you are completely clueless about how things work and that you should educate yourself ASAP. or stay dumb if you prefer that.
>>28651144
>it would be incredibly easy to refute my argument
I already told you where to do your own research and I even explained it already multiple times.
since you are unable to read or do your own research I can already say with confidence that you have a very low IQ.
if you want a details on the patched bug that didnt even cause any harm to anyone, wait a couple days until they release the blogpost.
maybe that can help your autism.

>>28651257
>pretty obvious by now you don't know anything.
haha ironic, the guy knowing nothing accusing others obviously better informed people they dont know anything.
classic, never heard that one before.

>>28651588
>Bitcoin had already endured at least four major bugs or vulnerabilities prior to the integer overflow bug that led to 184 billion BTC being created out of thin air.
>A major bug, filed under the title “Ethereum account balance manipulation,” allowed for accessing an unlimited supply of ethers in your wallet by following a series of steps involving a smart contract execution with a faulty transaction or a faulty address wallet.

LOL BTFO

>>28651804
>integer overflow bug
This was in BTCs testing phase in 2010 so it's highly irrelevant as the testing phase is meant to find bugs. It's neither a double spend

>Ethereum account balance manipulation,
That was a problem with coinbase. Not Ethereum.
https://www.vicompany.nl/magazine/from-christmas-present-in-the-blockchain-to-massive-bug-bounty

I thought you said I was the one who didn't know about crypto? How come you decide to attack coinbase and a BTC bug in testing phase when I said BTC and ETH never had a double spend?

>>pretty obvious by now you don't know anything.
>haha ironic, the guy knowing nothing accusing others obviously better informed people they dont know anything.
classic, never heard that one before.
Your whole post is pretty ironic now

>>28652436
BTC was more mature chain in 2010 than Avalanche is rightnow you stupid cunt

>>28652564
Avalance whitepaper was in 2018

>>28652564
No, BTC was a new concept that had never been tried. Avalanche and every other crypto builds on the concept of BTC and all the research it has gone through.

>>28652436
>This was in BTCs testing phase in 2010
>2010
>testing phase
cope
>so it's highly irrelevant
exactly
>It's neither a double spend
neither was on AVAX

>How come you decide to attack coinbase and a BTC bug in testing phase when I said BTC and ETH never had a double spend?
to point out how retarded you are, seems like it went completely over your head lmao.

>>28652730
>BTC was a new concept that had never been tried
same as Avalanche today.
>Avalanche and every other crypto builds on the concept of BTC
Avalanche uses a completely new Consensus, if you weren't illiterate and borderline retarded, maybe then you could read it.

>>28652769
Again 0 arguments and the one time you tried to make one you attacked testing phase btc and coinbase, pathetic. I still win.

Yes Avax had multiple double spends and you can't refute it.

>>28652860
>I still win.
no you dont but keep believing you did dumbo.
>Avax had multiple double spends
repeating your nonsense wont make it true.

>>28652832
>same as Avalanche today.
So you're saying Avalanche isn't a blockchain? BTC was the first blockchain. If avalanche isn't a blockchain, what is it then?

>Avalanche uses a completely new Consensus, if you weren't illiterate and borderline retarded, maybe then you could read it.
I know it uses a new consensus. But consensus is only 1 part of a blockchain.
Seems like you again don't know what you're talking about.

>>28653087
>repeating your nonsense wont make it true.
No but pointing out what a double spend is and showing that it happened on avax like in >>28646981 does.

>>28653324
>So you're saying Avalanche isn't a blockchain?
I'm talking about the Consensus protocol, do you even know what that is?
>But consensus is only 1 part of a blockchain.
Its a very important part.
>Seems like you again don't know what you're talking about.
I'm much better educated about the subject than you.

>>28653451
its not a double spend.
in all that time whining you could have read the whitepaper twice.

>>28653548
>>28653324
Ikr avax is a dag not normal shitty blockchain

>double spend
>double credit
>invalid minting
You are all total retards. I don't give a fuck what you call it. The fact is coins were duplicated and then spent via the c chain.

Claiming this is anything but catastrophic is stupid as fuck. Solid PR by calling it a "bug bounty" when in reality it's a major fuckup. Avalanche marketing dept is A+. Engineering never even showed up for class.

>>28652723
Holy shit you're turbo retard

>>28653700
it wasnt a major fuckup, bug was fixed already and the network performed as expected when abnormal conditions are encountered.

>>28653822
>wasn't a major fuckup
Holy shit how over leveraged are you? So we should just expect the whole networking being bricked for days as business as usual? Get real.

>>28653548
Avalanche isn't a new concept then as you said. And the consensus algorithm builds on prior consensus algorithms such as the Nakamoto one. So it doesn't really matter what you say, you're still wrong. Yes the consensus algorithm is new, but it's not a whole new concept as btc was. Avalanche had all the experience and research of btc and other consensus algorithms base their work on. Also BTC was released in 2009, the integer overflow bug you posted about was found in 2010 (testing phase)
Avax has been developed for how long? 2 years? And already suffered a double spend 5 months after it's out of the testing phase. BTC has been out for over 10 years and never suffered a double spend even in testing phase.

>Its a very important part
Sure, it's supposed to confirm and reject transactions which it failed to do since it had a double spend.

>I'm much better educated about the subject than you.
Then why do you keep making faulty arguments?
>Attacking test phase btc
>Attacking coinbase
>Claiming avalanche is an entirely new concept just like btc was

These are also the only times you've tried to make arguments, but totally failed. And if you were better educated about this subject than me, then you'd have explained why it wasn't a double spend long ago or why the transaction and contract chain is relevant

So much cope

Instead of coping like this you should be getting the fuck out of AVAX and securing your funds

>>28654133
>So we should just expect the whole networking being bricked for days as business as usual?
only when abnormal conditions are met, if that happens they can patch it, nodes update and everything is fine.
its a very secure system.

>>28654150
>And the consensus algorithm builds on prior consensus algorithms such as the Nakamoto one
no it doesnt, they have nothing in common.
read the whitepaper you laggard.
>since it had a double spend.
wasnt a double spend as we already discovered.

you are clueless. go watch Emin on youtube so you learn something.

>>28643462
Shithead, the only reason there are "enemies of avax" here is because there's been a coordinated shilling effort by roach nationalists, both paid and unpaid. We've literally been spammed with this roach coin non-stop for the past few weeks. When there's fucking 3 or 4 threads on the main page it's fucking obvious what you guys are doing. And now we've witnessed just how fucking trash the tech is.

>>28654467
bug is already fixed and no funds were lost

>>28654370
>28 posts by this ID
>obviously over leveraged
You should stop. You look really stupid.

What are we dipping to bros?

>>28654467
How many leverage did you bought, Yossef?

>>28654601
Binance is closed off and artificially dumps it.
if you sell now you are selling directly to CZ.
you make a chinese man very very happy if you sell.

>>28654706
I'm not asking when to sell, I'm asking when to buy :)

>>28654601
Wait till March token unlock before buying in

>>28654811
I think if ZRX goes over $2 it's an easy buy for a short term swing

>>28653621
Not really, part of it is a dag but that too isn't an entirely new concept so it doesn't change anything.

>>28654370
>And the consensus algorithm builds on prior consensus algorithms such as the Nakamoto one
And now you proved you don't even have an academic background as you'd know that all prior research in the same subject would account for a newer one. The paper also quotes Nakamoto several times.

>wasnt a double spend as we already discovered
It is until you come up with a good explanation for why it's not.

>>28654370
>only when abnormal conditions are met
HOLY FUCK LOLOOOLL

>>28654811
I'm buying since ICO and will continue to buy more and collect more from my AVAX Node.
>>28654979
doesnt matter because most AVAX is staked to Nodes or delegated to Nodes or LP in a dex or gobbled up by CZ and other centralized exchange that are about to get raped by Pangolin.
>>28655085
>The paper also quotes Nakamoto several times.
so what?
they are working in completely fundamentally different ways.
if you read the whitepaper you would know this.
you already opened it so go read the entire thing.

>It is until you come up with a good explanation for why it's not.
already told you a billion times. scroll up.

>>28654370
>>28655085

>>And the consensus algorithm builds on prior consensus algorithms such as the Nakamoto one
>no it doesnt, they have nothing in common.
>read the whitepaper you laggard.
And now you proved you don't even have an academic background as you'd know that all prior research in the same subject would account for a newer one. The paper also quotes Nakamoto several times.

>wasnt a double spend as we already discovered
It is until you come up with a good explanation for why it's not.

>>28655266
would you prefer it to break completely?
we got lucky there are safeguards build in and that they worked as intended.
now its patched and not an issue anymore.
>>28655290
you still havent read the whitepaper.
stop posting here and go read it.

>>28655281
>so what?
You said it didn't build on btc research but it obviously does. It's even referring to nakamoto you dense fuck.

>already told you a billion times. scroll up.
No you haven't. If you think you hav then quote it.

>>28655281
>doesnt matter because most AVAX is staked to Nodes or delegated to Nodes or LP in a dex or gobbled up by CZ and other centralized exchange that are about to get raped by Pangolin.
That's when it was $3, it's now $40-50. There's millions of tokens essentially being minted march 9

Only devs can spend so much time discussing the same stuff over and over again, along many lines of text, and many threads.
But it is still entertaining.
Please, continue.

>>28655404
If I haven't read it, how do I know it's quoting Nakamoto? How do I know they mention Algorand several times?
Give an explanation now, oh right... You can't

>>28655404
>would you prefer it to break completely?
>we got lucky there are safeguards build in and that they worked as intended.
>now its patched and not an issue anymore.
It did break completely - they took it offline because it was about to spiral out of control. Those double spend transactions were confirmed by the concensus algorithm

>>28645419
>>28646530
ALERT

THESE TWO LITTLE CUNTS ARE ON EVERY THREAD

ONE WAS A PRICED OUT LOSER BITTER TO THE BONE

THE OTHER IS A SHORTER WHO GETS LIQUIDATED ABOVE 50

DISREGARD ANYONE WHO SAYS THE FOLLOWING AS SAD LITTLE HUCKSTERS:

- Those who say: There was a double spend"

THERE WASNT, NADA.

- Those who say "it had so much potential, oh well lets use ______"

LOL, STICK YOUR DOT FTM ADA VAPORWARE IN YOUR DAD'S CUNT

I N
A V A X
W E
T R U S T

>>28655709
You can literally go look at a transaction hash getting received 7 times and being used to buy ETH on pangolin, this is bagholder cope

>>28655709
this is fucking sad to watch, im sorry, but you got ripped

>>28655814
You need double the IQ to FUD me even halfway. Stick your shooped noproof claims in your dad's cunt.

t. actual dev on Oasis

>>28655960
https://avascan.info/blockchain/c/address/0x0a99c32AFFAEc0a697D4CB4bf660Eeddcf432c21/transactions

>>28655709
>>28655404
Just because of you 2 I'm gonna write a bot tomorrow that will make several avax fud threads with both valid and constructed fud. And I'll use this retards >>28655281 posts against him.
You've made this a personal vendetta by being such annoying cunts. Good luck holding your bags.

>>28655709
Cringe

>>28656019
lmfa
you utter MORON

if you think this is proof of a doublespend, I need you to slit your own throat right now. You fucking abject IMBECILE lmao

>>28656113
i am so excited to see this i will bump every one i see, promise

>>28656187
cope

>>28656113
Seethe more little cunt. Thanks for proving out point that youre a lifeless nobody. You will never not suffer. Take your own life.

>>28656191
>>28656229
>>28656113

ALERT

THESE THREE LITTLE CUNTS ARE ON EVERY THREAD

ONE WAS A PRICED OUT LOSER BITTER TO THE BONE

THE OTHER IS A SHORTER WHO GETS LIQUIDATED ABOVE 50

THE LAST ONE IS A NOBODY WHO THINKS A DOUBLEMINTING = DOUBLESPENDING, POSSIBLY TRASH FROM REDDIT

DISREGARD ANYONE WHO SAYS THE FOLLOWING AS SAD LITTLE HUCKSTERS:

- Those who say: There was a double spend"

THERE WASNT, NADA.

- Those who say "it had so much potential, oh well lets use ______"

LOL, STICK YOUR DOT FTM ADA VAPORWARE IN YOUR DAD'S CUNT

I N
A V A X
W E
T R U S T

>>28654133
Avalanche emphasis security over liveness, That's why the network slowed down when the bug detected, That's why the bug stopped from progressing in its very second of occurring.

What you see 3 days ago is exactly how Avalanche consensus supposed to react in such situation, It was a big win in my eyes.

>>28656283
Hah. Funny guy
>Dev on oasis
Doesn't recognize a double spend when he sees one. What do you develop? To-do lists?

>>28656382
>That's why the bug stopped from progressing in its very second of occurring.
It literally validated a double spend so they had to take it offline retard

>>28656382
They wont understand what you're explaining. No more than termites can understand engineering.

>>28655085
>It is until you come up with a good explanation for why it's not.


Holy shit you got multiple explanation, Decide for yourself, If AVAX experienced double spend (According to your own definition) then BTC experienced it twice and on top of that wasn't able to stop it and required to hard fork the network. Or it was a minting bug that got solved in the best way imaginable. Choose.

>>28656432
Eat shit cunt. Im orders of magnitude above you. Your little empty layman tier "doublespend" FUD is inconsequentially weak.

Now dedicate your life to the altar of hating AVAX. You worthless bag of irrelevant trash.

DRAW LIPSTICK ON MY CAR WINDOW WHORE AHAHAHAHAHA

>>28655494
>You said it didn't build on btc research
look up how the Avalanche Consensus works.
>No you haven't
yes I did. read the thread.
>>28655521
>That's when it was $3
and they will continue to stake.
10% APY but completely risk free.

>>28655591
>If I haven't read it, how do I know it's quoting Nakamoto?
ctrl f
I know all your tricks lazy man. go read the whitepaper.
>>28655596
>It did break completely
no it didnt.
>they took it offline
thats not how it works
>they took it offline
wasnt a souble spend, read the thread.

>>28656589
your life savings are going to 0 because this shitcoin is going to 0

>>28656450
Are you still talking you 71 IQ bitch? lmao

Have some dignity. Archiving this thread for posterity so all gigabrain anons can laugh at you.

>>28656648
>your life savings are going to 0
oh the irony hehehe

>>28656631
It was a double spend and apparently they can take it offline because they did take it offline

>>28656670
You have still yet to explain why someone receiving the same hash 7 times and using it to buy eth is not a double spend

>>28656648
You will hate AVAX till the day you die, because of how thorough it will destroy you. Wanton little slut, you love being priced out dont you?

>>28656784
My AVAX is staked for a year, I wish it wasn't so I could dump it right now

>>28656585
The integer overflow bug is not a double spend and it's not what happened to avax. Look at the fucking explorer fuck sake. You can see that one outgoing transaction of 63.45 avax becomes 7 incoming transactions of 63.45 avax each. Literally retarded.

>>28656589
Refute my prior arguments then, the other retard couldn't. I bet you can't either

>>28656729
You are a moron. Nobody bought eth with it. I could explain it to you, but it would be a waste of time. There was no doublespend. And doublemint is the BEST error for a network. It tests security on a real battlefield level. AVAX won during that moment, doublemint did not compromise manifold immutability.

You want to hear which other coin had a WORSE doublemint error?

BTC.

Drown in your seethe boi.

for the love of god can someone please just fucking help me.
how THE FUCK do i send avax FROM metamask BACK TO my avax wallet? sending to the c chain address that my wallet provides me DOES NOT WORK

>>28657024
>Nobody bought eth with it.
lmao his wallet literally has wrapped eth you fucking retard

>>28656631
I'm not gonna go through 34 retarded posts by you to see you didn't make an argument. IF you did write an argument it must have been so fucking idiotic I didn't even consider it an argument and honestly I wouldn't be surprised since you've been so fucking braindead this far.
Quote it you fag

>>28656113
Please wait two weeks until I'm not trapped in staking anymore

>>28657024
>Nobody bought eth
HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
do you not know how to read the explorer you dumb cunt?

>>28657071
Im not going to explain elementary basics of a scanner to you. You hopeless fucking retard, havent enough people laughed at you yesterday?

At least the other FUDder knows some stuff, you're plain brainlet trash arent you?

>>28657128
>I didn't even consider it an argument
this is because you cant read, go read the whitepaper kid.

>>28657267
How about you learn to read a scanner you subhuman faggot

>>28657292
This is all you can say because you don't know anything yourself, low IQ fuck

>>28657224
You dumbass pea brain. Read that shitty FUD scan again. Try to apply your pleb fooling miniscule intellect to deduce WHY nobody with 1 yr in compsci will ever take you seriously.

When you see it, you'll have an urge to end your life. I suggest you do.

>>28657409
No, tell me how I'm wrong instead, if you can't then I'm obviously correct. That's how it works

>>28657375
>you don't know anything yourself, low IQ fuck
nice projecting

>>28657321
>>28657375
Do you know why you two are failing so biblically at this organized FuD?

I'll help you. Its because of two reasons:

a) /biz/ is full of autists like me who are empirical tx gods. Youre trying to wrestle a sumo but you are both little girls, per sé

b) You should have FUDded with something else other than "doublespend" which is so easy to prove from multiple scans and wallets. And the fact that you link the same bullshit scan over and over again disregarding chain mechanics...

Youre both simply dumb. Stick to lower IQ coins, cunts.

>>28657697
A transaction being spend 7 times is publicly available. You are just seething because your FUD about it being a FUD is transparently wrong

>>28657595
You haven't given a single explanation, not a single argument, and even when you say you have you can't quote it.
You must have an IQ lower than room temperature

>>28657292
Ooof. You should have stopped when I told you to. What's left of your brain is leaking on the floor

>>28657697
>which is so easy to prove
And yet, not a single roach cunt has been able to disprove the double spend. Neither have you, although you haven't even tried. But go ahead and try, low IQ fag

>>28657697
Hush now child. You don't even understand how UTXOs work or how to use an explorer

>>28657795
scroll up and read again brainlet.
>>28657884
ok laggard

>>28658036
>thinks he's making excellent points
You've said a whole lot of nothing. Are you well anon?

>>28658036
Quote it. How should I know which one of your incoherent ramblings you consider to be your argument? Show me which one you mean

>>28658155
you are putting the cube into the wrong hole but otherwise nice portrait of yours.
>>28658158
click on my ID and scroll up. read my posts from top to bottom left to right.
your first day on 4channel /biz/ ?

>>28657789
>>28657795
>>28657884

No matter what you do, AVAX will pump monday. I want you to feel that sting deep inside you as you watch green candles from Coinbase furtive accumulation. Then EGS' report will come out and quell any low iq fear of doublespend, raping your comical FUD.

Remember kids, you just weren't upto it.

>>28658321
Oh that wasn't a portrait of me. That's a portrait of both of your parents you inbred fuck.

>>28658356
Screencapped. This is going to be so juicy I'm going to daily reminder for months.

>>28658321
Can you not read?
>Quote it. How should I know which one of your incoherent ramblings you consider to be your argument? Show me which one you mean
Is the problem that you can't quote it because you never wrote an argument? Because it seems so right now.

>>28658356
Ah okay so you can't refute it either, you can't explain, you can't argue. Same low IQ as the other retard then. Neck yourself

>>28658566
This entire thread is archived so we can root you three out like weeds.

None of you FTM curryniggers will know peace.

>>28658508
>Oh that wasn't a portrait of me.
no way!

>>28658639
>Is the problem that you can't quote it because you never wrote an argument?
just read my posts in this thread.
>you can't explain, you can't argue.
haha thats (You)

>>28659083
No if you want me to read it you can quote it you illiterate fuck.

thanks for the laughs boys. shame about the avax

>>28658356
I'm an avax bagholder. I want to screengrab for the hopium