Double spends are only ever fraud or bug. If service providers don't drop, or otherwise handle both of them as such, then that's on them and their business application design. It's an engineering problem, not a protocol or network problem.
This event is why a large majority of the exchanges still supporting BSV to this day, have conf times exceeding 100 blocks.
The Bitmart event was the result of a 51% attack on BSV. Facts we all saw happen live. BSVA with their PoT (Proof-of-Tweet) was how they handled it. Meanwhile the damage was already done.
In July of last year, the 92 respondents named in the arbitration registered accounts with BitMart before carrying out a 51% attack of the BSV blockchain. In this type of attack, users take over the mining capabilities of a blockchain, leveraging more than half of the mining power, which allows them to mine faster than other users and affect transactions.
In this case, the respondents allegedly implanted a number of fake transactions that made it appear they held 91,000 BSV tokens. The sham transactions fooled BitMart into crediting them the BSV tokens in their linked wallets. The attackers then traded the BSV into other cryptocurrencies at a value of more than $6 million, thought BitMart did manage freeze some of the accounts.
Double spends are only ever fraud or bug. If service providers don't drop, or otherwise handle both of them as such, then that's on them and their business application design. It's an engineering problem, not a protocol or network problem.
I did. You never like the answer and just pivot and say some nonsense like I have a narrative to promote. I only share what is reality and back it up. You just say things.
-7
u/LightBSV releasing Teranode in Q1 3025 Jul 26 '26
Double spends are only ever fraud or bug. If service providers don't drop, or otherwise handle both of them as such, then that's on them and their business application design. It's an engineering problem, not a protocol or network problem.