4 ms·

“did someone try to send something other then bitcoin to a ₿ address?” Like what? Cottage cheese? Transaction failures and and fees are not fraud. The quote i

“did someone try to send something other then bitcoin to a ₿ address?” Like what? Cottage cheese? Transaction failures and and fees are not fraud. The quote is specific. Regarding lightning: https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/1356335970300416001?s=20&t=LDnnGZj2HKboLoOoejU1nQ https://twitter.com/nikzh/status/1356335970300416001?s=20&t=...

SilasX 5y ago
Sorry, I went to the article and it wasn't any more specific on what a fraudulent transaction means in this context, and I don't know what that would mean here (for the context of a purchase via Bitcoin on a user's Steam account). All I can imagine is a case where the user claims they didn't make the purchase, "please refund", but that would be easy to disprove.
- giaour 5y ago
  I assumed they meant spending stolen bitcoin on steam. It's common to call purchases made with a stolen credit card "fraudulent," even if there's nothing untoward about the purchase itself other than the payment instrument.
  - toast0 5y ago
    > even if there's nothing untoward about the purchase itself other than the payment instrument. When you make a purchase with a credit card, you claim that you are an authorized user of the card, and that you will pay the bill in accordance with the account agreement. If that's not true, it's fraud. You've knowingly made an untrue claim in order to receive something of value.
    - giaour 5y ago
      From the other comments on this thread, it seems like Steam was using a zero-confirmation payment validator of some kind. That makes bitcoin payments Steam accepted effectively a form of check, and if customers exploited this to double-spend bitcoin, then they paid steam with a hot check. Hence, fraud. Should Steam used a different form of validation? Yeah, that would have let them reject some (most? all?) of these fraudulent transactions. But anyone exploiting that situation to double-spend coins was committing fraud just as much as if they had written a worthless check, used a stolen credit card, or tried to pass off a counterfeit $100 bill.
      - SilasX 5y ago
        I thought it was always really big news whenever someone even attempted a double spend, regardless of success? So if that’s what he meant, we should have been seeing those cases in the news back then. Edit: I guess not? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30480133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30480133
tenuousemphasis 5y ago
That dude is an absolute idiot.
Tenoke 5y ago
>“did someone try to send something other then bitcoin to a ₿ address?” Like what? Cottage cheese? Most commonly btc via lightning network to a place that doesn't support it or bch. It happens all the time.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  There was no lighting network in 2016
- 3np 5y ago
  > Most commonly btc via lightning network to a place that doesn't support it That makes no sense - how would that happen in practice? BCH, though, yeah. Though less so over time since newer address types aren't compatible.

SilasX 5y ago

Sorry, I went to the article and it wasn't any more specific on what a fraudulent transaction means in this context, and I don't know what that would mean here (for the context of a purchase via Bitcoin on a user's Steam account). All I can imagine is a case where the user claims they didn't make the purchase, "please refund", but that would be easy to disprove.

giaour 5y ago
I assumed they meant spending stolen bitcoin on steam. It's common to call purchases made with a stolen credit card "fraudulent," even if there's nothing untoward about the purchase itself other than the payment instrument.
- toast0 5y ago
  > even if there's nothing untoward about the purchase itself other than the payment instrument. When you make a purchase with a credit card, you claim that you are an authorized user of the card, and that you will pay the bill in accordance with the account agreement. If that's not true, it's fraud. You've knowingly made an untrue claim in order to receive something of value.
  - giaour 5y ago
    From the other comments on this thread, it seems like Steam was using a zero-confirmation payment validator of some kind. That makes bitcoin payments Steam accepted effectively a form of check, and if customers exploited this to double-spend bitcoin, then they paid steam with a hot check. Hence, fraud. Should Steam used a different form of validation? Yeah, that would have let them reject some (most? all?) of these fraudulent transactions. But anyone exploiting that situation to double-spend coins was committing fraud just as much as if they had written a worthless check, used a stolen credit card, or tried to pass off a counterfeit $100 bill.
    - SilasX 5y ago
      I thought it was always really big news whenever someone even attempted a double spend, regardless of success? So if that’s what he meant, we should have been seeing those cases in the news back then. Edit: I guess not? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30480133 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30480133

tenuousemphasis 5y ago

That dude is an absolute idiot.

Tenoke 5y ago

>“did someone try to send something other then bitcoin to a ₿ address?” Like what? Cottage cheese? Most commonly btc via lightning network to a place that doesn't support it or bch. It happens all the time.

hungryforcodes 5y ago
There was no lighting network in 2016
3np 5y ago
> Most commonly btc via lightning network to a place that doesn't support it That makes no sense - how would that happen in practice? BCH, though, yeah. Though less so over time since newer address types aren't compatible.