Value overflow incident - Revision history

Harding: Mention that it was a soft fork, and link to actual soft fork commit

2016-07-22T18:13:21Z

Mention that it was a soft fork, and link to actual soft fork commit

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:13, 22 July 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:
	Two addresses received 92.2 billion bitcoins each, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction.		Two addresses received 92.2 billion bitcoins each, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction.
	This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref>		This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref>
	A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery.
			A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery that contained a soft forking change to the consensus rules that rejected output value overflow transactions (as well as any transaction that paid more than 21 million bitcoins in an output for any reason).<ref>[https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/d4c6b90ca3f9b47adb1b2724a0c3514f80635c84#diff-118fcbaaba162ba17933c7893247df3aR1013 "Fix for block 74638"]<br>Satoshi Nakamoto</ref>
	The block chain was forked.		The block chain was forked.
	Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691.<ref>{{cite block\|74691\|year=2010\|month=08\|day=16\|hash=00000000005c22d199706df1c38b38d76f8401920dcbe91edf3417f8847da707}}</ref>		Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691<ref>{{cite block\|74691\|year=2010\|month=08\|day=16\|hash=00000000005c22d199706df1c38b38d76f8401920dcbe91edf3417f8847da707}}</ref> at which point all nodes accepted the "good" blockchain as the authoritative source of Bitcoin transaction history.

	The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.		The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.
	Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either.		Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either.

Harding: Added Bitcoin Core documentation navbox

2015-08-17T16:11:06Z

Added Bitcoin Core documentation navbox

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:11, 17 August 2015
Line 16:		Line 16:
	<references/>		<references/>
	[[Category:Notable transactions]][[Category:2010 events]]		[[Category:Notable transactions]][[Category:2010 events]]

			{{Bitcoin Core documentation}}

Taras at 00:16, 16 March 2015

2015-03-16T00:16:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:16, 16 March 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~{{Transaction~~		On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 bitcoins for three different addresses.<ref>{{cite block\|74638\|offchain=Value overflow incident bad chain\|year=2010\|month=08\|day=15\|hash=0000000000790ab3f22ec756ad43b6ab569abf0bddeb97c67a6f7b1470a7ec1c}}</ref><ref>{{cite tx\|hash=1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9}}</ref><ref>{{cite btct\|id=822\|title=Strange block 74638\|date=2010-08-15}}</ref>
	~~\|hash=1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9~~
	~~\|in1=237fe8348fc77ace11049931058abb034c99698c7fe99b1cc022b1365a705d39-000~~
	~~\|val1=0.5~~
	~~\|out1=1Hk51V49a58fC2r471hScXopEQpioDEuqx~~
	~~\|pay1=92,233,720,368.54275808~~
	~~\|out2=12vRJXnnA21YAaLacWXpNshy7MBAwrigtQ~~
	~~\|pay2=92,233,720,368.54275808~~
	~~\|fee=0.51~~
	~~\|time=?~~
	~~\|size=?~~
	~~\|special=a~~
	}}
	On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 bitcoins for three different addresses.<ref>~~https:~~//~~bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic~~=822.0</ref>
	Two addresses received 92.2 billion bitcoins each, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction.		Two addresses received 92.2 billion bitcoins each, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction.
	This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref>		This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref>
	A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery.		A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery.
	The block chain was forked.		The block chain was forked.
	Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691.		Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691.<ref>{{cite block\|74691\|year=2010\|month=08\|day=16\|hash=00000000005c22d199706df1c38b38d76f8401920dcbe91edf3417f8847da707}}</ref>
	The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.		The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.
	Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either.		Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either.
	While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was consumed by it does.		While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was consumed by it does.
	It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been used since.		It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been used since.<ref>{{cite tx\|237fe8348fc77ace11049931058abb034c99698c7fe99b1cc022b1365a705d39}}</ref>

	==See Also==		==See Also==

Taras: Taras moved page CVE-2010-5139 to Value overflow incident: Better title

2015-03-06T18:18:41Z

Taras moved page CVE-2010-5139 to Value overflow incident: Better title

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:18, 6 March 2015
(No difference)

Sgornick: Add See Also section with entry for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures.

2015-03-06T15:51:01Z

Add See Also section with entry for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures.

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:51, 6 March 2015
Line 22:		Line 22:
	While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was consumed by it does.		While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was consumed by it does.
	It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been used since.		It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been used since.

			==See Also==
			* [[Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures]]

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references/>		<references/>
	[[Category:Notable transactions]][[Category:2010 events]]		[[Category:Notable transactions]][[Category:2010 events]]

Taras at 14:32, 10 November 2014

2014-11-10T14:32:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:32, 10 November 2014
Line 25:		Line 25:
	== References ==		== References ==
	<references/>		<references/>
	[[Category:Notable transactions]]		[[Category:Notable transactions]][[Category:2010 events]]

Luke-jr: Grammar

2014-09-23T04:44:16Z

Grammar

← Older revision		Revision as of 04:44, 23 September 2014
Line 12:		Line 12:
	\|special=a		\|special=a
	}}		}}
	On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 bitcoins for three different addresses.<ref>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0</ref> Two addresses ~~got~~ 92.2 billion bitcoins, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref> A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery. The block chain ~~had to be~~ forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain. Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either. While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was ~~used in~~ it does. It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been ~~spent~~ since.		On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 bitcoins for three different addresses.<ref>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0</ref>
			Two addresses received 92.2 billion bitcoins each, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction.
			This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref>
			A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery.
			The block chain was forked.
			Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691.
			The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.
			Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either.
			While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was consumed by it does.
			It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been used since.

	== References ==		== References ==
	<references/>		<references/>
	[[Category:Notable transactions]]		[[Category:Notable transactions]]

Luke-jr: Fix transaction template (there is no such thing as a from address)

2014-09-23T03:04:51Z

Fix transaction template (there is no such thing as a from address)

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:04, 23 September 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{Transaction		{{Transaction
	\|hash=1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9		\|hash=1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9
	\|in1=~~17TASsYPbdLrJo3UDxFfCMu5GXmxFwVZSW~~		\|in1=237fe8348fc77ace11049931058abb034c99698c7fe99b1cc022b1365a705d39-000
	\|val1=0.5		\|val1=0.5
	\|out1=1Hk51V49a58fC2r471hScXopEQpioDEuqx		\|out1=1Hk51V49a58fC2r471hScXopEQpioDEuqx

Taras at 14:31, 20 September 2014

2014-09-20T14:31:15Z

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 |special=a
 }}
-On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created over 184 billion bitcoins for two different addresses.<ref>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0</ref> This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref> A new version was published within a few hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain. Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either.
+On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 bitcoins for three different addresses.<ref>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0</ref> Two addresses got 92.2 billion bitcoins, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref> A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain. Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either. While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was used in it does. It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been spent since.
 == References ==
 <references/>

Taras: Created page with "{{Transaction |hash=1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9 |in1=17TASsYPbdLrJo3UDxFfCMu5GXmxFwVZSW |val1=0.5 |out1=1Hk51V49a58fC2r471hScXopEQpioDEuqx..."

2014-09-20T14:18:42Z

Created page with "{{Transaction |hash=1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9 |in1=17TASsYPbdLrJo3UDxFfCMu5GXmxFwVZSW |val1=0.5 |out1=1Hk51V49a58fC2r471hScXopEQpioDEuqx..."

New page

{{Transaction
|hash=1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9
|in1=17TASsYPbdLrJo3UDxFfCMu5GXmxFwVZSW
|val1=0.5
|out1=1Hk51V49a58fC2r471hScXopEQpioDEuqx
|pay1=92,233,720,368.54275808
|out2=12vRJXnnA21YAaLacWXpNshy7MBAwrigtQ
|pay2=92,233,720,368.54275808
|fee=0.51
|time=?
|size=?
|special=a
}}
On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created over 184 billion bitcoins for two different addresses.<ref>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0</ref> This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.<ref>http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139</ref> A new version was published within a few hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain. Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either.

The block and transaction:
<pre>CBlock(hash=0000000000790ab3, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=0000000000606865, hashMerkleRoot=618eba,
nTime=1281891957, nBits=1c00800e, nNonce=28192719, vtx=2)
CTransaction(hash=012cd8, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
CTxIn(COutPoint(000000, -1), coinbase 040e80001c028f00)
CTxOut(nValue=50.51000000, scriptPubKey=0x4F4BA55D1580F8C3A8A2C7)
CTransaction(hash=1d5e51, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
CTxIn(COutPoint(237fe8, 0), scriptSig=0xA87C02384E1F184B79C6AC)
CTxOut(nValue=92233720368.54275808, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0xB7A7)
CTxOut(nValue=92233720368.54275808, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0x1512)
vMerkleTree: 012cd8 1d5e51 618eba

Block hash: 0000000000790ab3f22ec756ad43b6ab569abf0bddeb97c67a6f7b1470a7ec1c
Transaction hash: 1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9</pre>

The transaction does not exist anymore, but the 0.5 BTC output used in it does. It has not been spent after the fork. This fund appears to have come from a faucet.
== References ==
<references/>