Bitcoin Value Overflow 184 Billion Minting Incident: Difference between revisions

From Quadriga Initiative Cryptocurrency Hacks, Scams, and Frauds Repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Two more sources, to confirm the date of August 15th.)
(COMPLETE 30 + 30 minutes. Adding lots of information into the timeline. Reformatting the about section. Clarification and ultimate promotion in Reddit.)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Imported Case Study|source=https://www.quadrigainitiative.com/casestudy/bitcoinvalueoverflow184billionmintingincident.php}}
{{Case Study Under Construction}}{{Unattributed Sources}}
{{Unattributed Sources}}


[[File:Bitcointalk.jpg|thumb|Bitcoin Talk Forum]]In August 2010, Bitcoin's source code was exploited by an anonymous individual, resulting in the creation of an enormous amount of Bitcoin in block 74,638—specifically 184,467,440,737.09551616 Bitcoin, distributed to two addresses. Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik noticed this anomaly and termed it an "overflow bug," where the code failed to check transactions if outputs overflowed during summation. This prompt action preserved Bitcoin's value and prevented potential devaluation caused by the exploit. The incident didn't impact Bitcoin's price negatively; in fact, its value increased over 300% from $0.07 to $0.30 between the patch and year-end 2010. Satoshi's quick intervention demonstrated Bitcoin's resilience and bolstered confidence in the concept.
[[File:Bitcointalk.jpg|thumb|Bitcoin Talk Forum]]In August 2010, Bitcoin's source code was exploited by an anonymous individual, resulting in the creation of an enormous amount of Bitcoin in block 74,638—specifically 184,467,440,737.09551616 Bitcoin, distributed to two addresses. Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik noticed this anomaly and termed it an "overflow bug," where the code failed to check transactions if outputs overflowed during summation. This prompt action preserved Bitcoin's value and prevented potential devaluation caused by the exploit. The incident didn't impact Bitcoin's price negatively; in fact, its value increased over 300% from $0.07 to $0.30 between the patch and year-end 2010. Satoshi's quick intervention demonstrated Bitcoin's resilience and bolstered confidence in the concept.


This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.<ref name="newsletter-11414" /><ref name="decrypt-11431" /><ref name="newsletterarchive-11417" /><ref name="lopptwitter-11432" /><ref>https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/000000000069e1affe7161ab4bcbeacebb4ddf155b50e807f42de971b688a09b</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/16z0dqh/bitcoin_block_74638_was_mined_in_2010_this_block/</ref>
<ref name="newsletter-11414" /><ref name="decrypt-11431" /><ref name="newsletterarchive-11417" /><ref name="lopptwitter-11432" /><ref>https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/000000000069e1affe7161ab4bcbeacebb4ddf155b50e807f42de971b688a09b</ref><ref>https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/16z0dqh/bitcoin_block_74638_was_mined_in_2010_this_block/</ref><ref>https://web.archive.org/web/20171213204659/http://blog.theshayan.com/2017/12/01/once-there-were-184-billion-bitcoins/</ref>


== About Bitcoin ==
== About Bitcoin ==
"In August 2010, Bitcoin’s source code was exploited by someone who to this day remains anonymous. Enter block 74,638, the fateful block that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 Bitcoin, with two addresses receiving just over 92 billion Bitcoin each—92,233,720,368, to be specific."
Bitcoin (BTC) is a decentralized cryptocurrency created in 2009 by an anonymous entity known as Satoshi Nakamoto<ref name=":0">[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bitcoin.asp What Is Bitcoin? - Investopedia] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref>. Designed to function as a form of money and payment, Bitcoin eliminates the need for trusted third parties like banks, enabling direct financial transactions<ref name=":0">[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bitcoin.asp What Is Bitcoin? - Investopedia] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref>. As the most recognized and largest cryptocurrency, Bitcoin has paved the way for the emergence of numerous other cryptocurrencies<ref name=":0">[https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bitcoin.asp What Is Bitcoin? - Investopedia] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref>.
 
"The anomaly was quickly spotted on the Bitcoin Talk forum by Jeff Garzik, a Bitcoin developer who today is the CEO of Bloq. The issue was termed an “overflow bug”; the code for checking Bitcoin transactions didn't work if outputs were large enough that they overflowed when summed."
 
"The bug that caused the "value overflow incident" was corrected very quickly. It took just five hours before a “soft fork” was rolled out, which reset the Bitcoin blockchain to before the bugged block and included code to reject output value overflow transactions."
 
"A soft fork is a blockchain update. Since the Bitcoin community forked the state of the blockchain before the 184 billion Bitcoin was mined, that means that some blocks that were previously valid were turned into invalid blocks, removing them from the blockchain and restoring it to an earlier state."
 
"The fork erased all transactions and mining that had been recorded on blocks that were produced after the bugged block. It also disposed of the 184 billion bugged Bitcoin. The update, Bitcoin patch 0.3.10, was implemented by Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto himself (or herself, or themselves)."
 
"The rapid implementation of the patch was vital in keeping Bitcoin a viable cryptocurrency. 184 billion Bitcoin would have devalued the currency completely, leaving it at the mercy of the person holding the newly-minted Bitcoin. Even if the breach happened today, the amount of bugged Bitcoin would completely dwarf the current supply of the cryptocurrency, making any Bitcoin worthless."
 
"Bitcoin also benefited from this exploit being patched close to its inception, since taking the Bitcoin network offline could be done without significant consequences."
 
"The exploit and subsequent soft fork didn’t dent the price of Bitcoin. Indeed, Bitcoin actually experienced a surge over 2010; its price increased by over 300% between the day of the patch and the end of the year (from $0.07 to $0.30). That Satoshi himself intervened, and did so so quickly, showed that Bitcoin was not as easily hackable as some might have assumed and built confidence in a concept which up to that point remained untested."
 
"To this day, the person behind the exploit remains unknown, and due to the anonymous nature of the blockchain there is no way to trace them. Despite their anonymity, they are still a significant individual in the history of blockchain—quite possibly the first ever blockchain hacker."
 
This is a global/international case not involving a specific country.
 
The background of the exchange platform, service, or individuals involved, as it would have been seen or understood at the time of the events.
 
Include:
 
* Known history of when and how the service was started.
* What problems does the company or service claim to solve?
* What marketing materials were used by the firm or business?
* Audits performed, and excerpts that may have been included.
* Business registration documents shown (fake or legitimate).
* How were people recruited to participate?
* Public warnings and announcements prior to the event.
 
Don't Include:
* Any wording which directly states or implies that the business is/was illegitimate, or that a vulnerability existed.
* Anything that wasn't reasonably knowable at the time of the event.
There could be more than one section here. If the same platform is involved with multiple incidents, then it can be linked to a main article page.


== The Reality ==
== The Reality ==
This sections is included if a case involved deception or information that was unknown at the time. Examples include:
An unfortunate overflow vulnerability was present in the original bitcoin software.
 
* When the service was actually started (if different than the "official story").
* Who actually ran a service and their own personal history.
* How the service was structured behind the scenes. (For example, there was no "trading bot".)
* Details of what audits reported and how vulnerabilities were missed during auditing.


== What Happened ==
== What Happened ==
The specific events of the loss and how it came about. What actually happened to cause the loss and some of the events leading up to it.
"In August 2010, Bitcoin’s source code was exploited by someone who to this day remains anonymous. Enter block 74,638, the fateful block that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 Bitcoin, with two addresses receiving just over 92 billion Bitcoin each—92,233,720,368, to be specific."
{| class="wikitable"
{| class="wikitable"
|+Key Event Timeline - Bitcoin Value Overflow 184 Billion Minting Incident
|+Key Event Timeline - Bitcoin Value Overflow 184 Billion Minting Incident
Line 60: Line 19:
!Description
!Description
|-
|-
|August 15th, 2010
|August 15th, 2010 11:01:16 AM MDT
|Value Overflow Exploit
|Block 74636 Is Mined
|Describe the event.
|Bitcoin block 74,636 is mined, according to popular block explorers BlockStream<ref>[https://blockstream.info/block/0000000000313ca3d16c7123eff441b15dfecbc33cd75e58907bb92b0777dbb4 Bitcoin Block 74636 - BlockStream] (Accessed Sep 30, 2024)</ref>, Blockchain.com<ref>[https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/74636 Bitcoin Block 74636 - Blockchain.com] (Accessed Sep 30, 2024)</ref> and BtcScan<ref>[https://btcscan.org/block/0000000000313ca3d16c7123eff441b15dfecbc33cd75e58907bb92b0777dbb4 Bitcoin Block 74636 - BtcScan] (Accessed Sep 30, 2024)</ref>.
|-
|August 15th, 2010 11:02:43 AM MDT
|Block 74637 Is Mined
|Bitcoin block 74,637 is mined, according to popular block explorers Blockchain.com<ref>[https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/74637 Bitcoin Block 74637 - Blockchain.com] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref> and BtcScan<ref>[https://btcscan.org/block/0000000000606865e679308edf079991764d88e8122ca9250aef5386962b6e84 Bitcoin Block 74637 - BTCScan] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref>.
|-
|August 15th, 2010 11:05:57 AM MDT
|Value Overflow Incident
|The original bitcoin block 74,638 is mined, according to the blockchain timestamp shared by Jeff Garzik<ref name=":1">[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0 jgarzik - Strange block 74638 - BitcoinTalk] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref>. The value overflow incident occurred at this moment in time with this block being mined.
|-
|August 15th, 2010 11:10:33 AM MDT
|Pre-Fork Block 74639 Mined
|The pre-fork block 74,639 is mined<ref>[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.msg10332#msg10332 mizerydearia - "Block 74639 had timestamp of 1281892233" - BitcoinTalk] (Accessed Sep 30, 2024)</ref>. This adds to the pre-fork chain, which makes it longer. Anyone using the original bitcoin mining algorithm would pick this up as the valid chain.
|-
|August 15th, 2010 11:53:59 AM MDT
|Replacement Block 74638 Mined
|The timestamp of the replacement block 74,638 on popular block explorers Blockchain.com<ref>[https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/000000000069e1affe7161ab4bcbeacebb4ddf155b50e807f42de971b688a09b Bitcoin Block 74,638 - Blockchain.com] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref> and BTCScan<ref>[https://btcscan.org/block/000000000069e1affe7161ab4bcbeacebb4ddf155b50e807f42de971b688a09b Bitcoin Block 74,638 - BTCScan] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref>. This suggests that some bitcoin users had already implemented a fix and managed to mine a block at this point in time. As per the bitcoin protocol, this particular block would have been rejected by the main chain, as the forked chain was much shorter.
|-
|August 15th, 2010 11:55:55 AM MDT
|Replacement Block 74639 Mined
|The timestamp of the replacement block 74,639<ref>[https://btcscan.org/block/0000000000464d174598fe20e3075f14ad13eb2e3952f0880530be317e051dae Bitcoin Block 74,639 - BTCScan] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref>. Whoever has discovered and implemented the fix is profiting considerably, should this chain become the accepted one.
|-
|August 15th, 2010 12:08:49 PM MDT
|Jeff Garzik BitcoinTalk Post
|Jeff Garzik posts on the BitcoinTalk forums to announce the strange block 74,638, which has a valueout field indicating "92233720368.54277039 BTC"<ref name=":1" />
|-
|August 15th, 2010 12:55:34 PM MDT
|BitcoinTalk User lfm
|Within an hour, BitcoinTalk user lfm has identified the root cause and warns that readers "should probabl[y] shut down whatever you can and by no means make nor accept any transactions"<ref name=":1" />.
|-
|August 15th, 2010 1:04:11 PM MDT
|New Thread By lfm
|lfm has started a new thread to discuss the incident, the root cause, and his conclusion that "[w]e need a fix asap"<ref>[https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=823.0 lfm - overflow bug SERIOUS - BitcoinTalk] (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)</ref>.
|-
|August 15th, 2010 2:39:42 PM MDT
|Gavin Andresen Interim Fix
|Gavin Andresen shares the source code for an interim fix, which appears to reject the transaction and
|}
|}


Line 74: Line 69:


== Immediate Reactions ==
== Immediate Reactions ==
How did the various parties involved (firm, platform, management, and/or affected individual(s)) deal with the events? Were services shut down? Were announcements made? Were groups formed?
"The anomaly was quickly spotted on the Bitcoin Talk forum by Jeff Garzik, a Bitcoin developer who today is the CEO of Bloq. The issue was termed an “overflow bug”; the code for checking Bitcoin transactions didn't work if outputs were large enough that they overflowed when summed."
 
BitcoinTalk user lfm realized the seriousness and the root cause within an hour<ref name=":1" />:<blockquote>"The sum of the two outputs overflows to a negative. Its a bug in the transaction checks which did not reject it, then someone noticed and exploited it. Presumably a new version will be able to reject it and start a new valid fork. meanwhile should probablt shut down whatever you can and by no means make nor accept any transactions."</blockquote>"The bug that caused the "value overflow incident" was corrected very quickly. It took just five hours before a “soft fork” was rolled out, which reset the Bitcoin blockchain to before the bugged block and included code to reject output value overflow transactions."
 
"The update, Bitcoin patch 0.3.10, was implemented by Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto himself (or herself, or themselves)."
 
"The exploit and subsequent soft fork didn’t dent the price of Bitcoin. Indeed, Bitcoin actually experienced a surge over 2010; its price increased by over 300% between the day of the patch and the end of the year (from $0.07 to $0.30). That Satoshi himself intervened, and did so so quickly, showed that Bitcoin was not as easily hackable as some might have assumed and built confidence in a concept which up to that point remained untested."


== Ultimate Outcome ==
== Ultimate Outcome ==
What was the end result? Was any investigation done? Were any individuals prosecuted? Was there a lawsuit? Was any tracing done?
"A soft fork is a blockchain update. Since the Bitcoin community forked the state of the blockchain before the 184 billion Bitcoin was mined, that means that some blocks that were previously valid were turned into invalid blocks, removing them from the blockchain and restoring it to an earlier state."
 
"The fork erased all transactions and mining that had been recorded on blocks that were produced after the bugged block. It also disposed of the 184 billion bugged Bitcoin."


== Total Amount Recovered ==
== Total Amount Recovered ==
There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.
There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.


What funds were recovered? What funds were reimbursed for those affected users?
== Ongoing Developments ==
"The rapid implementation of the patch was vital in keeping Bitcoin a viable cryptocurrency. 184 billion Bitcoin would have devalued the currency completely, leaving it at the mercy of the person holding the newly-minted Bitcoin. Even if the breach happened today, the amount of bugged Bitcoin would completely dwarf the current supply of the cryptocurrency, making any Bitcoin worthless."


== Ongoing Developments ==
"Bitcoin also benefited from this exploit being patched close to its inception, since taking the Bitcoin network offline could be done without significant consequences."
What parts of this case are still remaining to be concluded?
 
"To this day, the person behind the exploit remains unknown, and due to the anonymous nature of the blockchain there is no way to trace them. Despite their anonymity, they are still a significant individual in the history of blockchain—quite possibly the first ever blockchain hacker."
== Individual Prevention Policies ==
== Individual Prevention Policies ==
{{Prevention:Individuals:Placeholder}}
{{Prevention:Individuals:Placeholder}}

Revision as of 12:28, 30 September 2024

Notice: This page is a new case study and some aspects have not been fully researched. Some sections may be incomplete or reflect inaccuracies present in initial sources. Please check the References at the bottom for further information and perform your own additional assessment. Please feel free to contribute by adding any missing information or sources you come across. If you are new here, please read General Tutorial on Wikis or Anatomy of a Case Study for help getting started.

Notice: This page contains sources which are not attributed to any text. The unattributed sources follow the initial description. Please assist by visiting each source, reviewing the content, and placing that reference next to any text it can be used to support. Feel free to add any information that you come across which isn't present already. Sources which don't contain any relevant information can be removed. Broken links can be replaced with versions from the Internet Archive. See General Tutorial on Wikis, Anatomy of a Case Study, and/or Citing Your Sources Guide for additional information. Thanks for your help!

Bitcoin Talk Forum

In August 2010, Bitcoin's source code was exploited by an anonymous individual, resulting in the creation of an enormous amount of Bitcoin in block 74,638—specifically 184,467,440,737.09551616 Bitcoin, distributed to two addresses. Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik noticed this anomaly and termed it an "overflow bug," where the code failed to check transactions if outputs overflowed during summation. This prompt action preserved Bitcoin's value and prevented potential devaluation caused by the exploit. The incident didn't impact Bitcoin's price negatively; in fact, its value increased over 300% from $0.07 to $0.30 between the patch and year-end 2010. Satoshi's quick intervention demonstrated Bitcoin's resilience and bolstered confidence in the concept.

[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]

About Bitcoin

Bitcoin (BTC) is a decentralized cryptocurrency created in 2009 by an anonymous entity known as Satoshi Nakamoto[8]. Designed to function as a form of money and payment, Bitcoin eliminates the need for trusted third parties like banks, enabling direct financial transactions[8]. As the most recognized and largest cryptocurrency, Bitcoin has paved the way for the emergence of numerous other cryptocurrencies[8].

The Reality

An unfortunate overflow vulnerability was present in the original bitcoin software.

What Happened

"In August 2010, Bitcoin’s source code was exploited by someone who to this day remains anonymous. Enter block 74,638, the fateful block that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 Bitcoin, with two addresses receiving just over 92 billion Bitcoin each—92,233,720,368, to be specific."

Key Event Timeline - Bitcoin Value Overflow 184 Billion Minting Incident
Date Event Description
August 15th, 2010 11:01:16 AM MDT Block 74636 Is Mined Bitcoin block 74,636 is mined, according to popular block explorers BlockStream[9], Blockchain.com[10] and BtcScan[11].
August 15th, 2010 11:02:43 AM MDT Block 74637 Is Mined Bitcoin block 74,637 is mined, according to popular block explorers Blockchain.com[12] and BtcScan[13].
August 15th, 2010 11:05:57 AM MDT Value Overflow Incident The original bitcoin block 74,638 is mined, according to the blockchain timestamp shared by Jeff Garzik[14]. The value overflow incident occurred at this moment in time with this block being mined.
August 15th, 2010 11:10:33 AM MDT Pre-Fork Block 74639 Mined The pre-fork block 74,639 is mined[15]. This adds to the pre-fork chain, which makes it longer. Anyone using the original bitcoin mining algorithm would pick this up as the valid chain.
August 15th, 2010 11:53:59 AM MDT Replacement Block 74638 Mined The timestamp of the replacement block 74,638 on popular block explorers Blockchain.com[16] and BTCScan[17]. This suggests that some bitcoin users had already implemented a fix and managed to mine a block at this point in time. As per the bitcoin protocol, this particular block would have been rejected by the main chain, as the forked chain was much shorter.
August 15th, 2010 11:55:55 AM MDT Replacement Block 74639 Mined The timestamp of the replacement block 74,639[18]. Whoever has discovered and implemented the fix is profiting considerably, should this chain become the accepted one.
August 15th, 2010 12:08:49 PM MDT Jeff Garzik BitcoinTalk Post Jeff Garzik posts on the BitcoinTalk forums to announce the strange block 74,638, which has a valueout field indicating "92233720368.54277039 BTC"[14]
August 15th, 2010 12:55:34 PM MDT BitcoinTalk User lfm Within an hour, BitcoinTalk user lfm has identified the root cause and warns that readers "should probabl[y] shut down whatever you can and by no means make nor accept any transactions"[14].
August 15th, 2010 1:04:11 PM MDT New Thread By lfm lfm has started a new thread to discuss the incident, the root cause, and his conclusion that "[w]e need a fix asap"[19].
August 15th, 2010 2:39:42 PM MDT Gavin Andresen Interim Fix Gavin Andresen shares the source code for an interim fix, which appears to reject the transaction and

Technical Details

This section includes specific detailed technical analysis of any security breaches which happened. What specific software vulnerabilities contributed to the problem and how were they exploited?

Total Amount Lost

No funds were lost.

How much was lost and how was it calculated? If there are conflicting reports, which are accurate and where does the discrepancy lie?

Immediate Reactions

"The anomaly was quickly spotted on the Bitcoin Talk forum by Jeff Garzik, a Bitcoin developer who today is the CEO of Bloq. The issue was termed an “overflow bug”; the code for checking Bitcoin transactions didn't work if outputs were large enough that they overflowed when summed."

BitcoinTalk user lfm realized the seriousness and the root cause within an hour[14]:

"The sum of the two outputs overflows to a negative. Its a bug in the transaction checks which did not reject it, then someone noticed and exploited it. Presumably a new version will be able to reject it and start a new valid fork. meanwhile should probablt shut down whatever you can and by no means make nor accept any transactions."

"The bug that caused the "value overflow incident" was corrected very quickly. It took just five hours before a “soft fork” was rolled out, which reset the Bitcoin blockchain to before the bugged block and included code to reject output value overflow transactions."

"The update, Bitcoin patch 0.3.10, was implemented by Bitcoin’s pseudonymous creator, Satoshi Nakamoto himself (or herself, or themselves)."

"The exploit and subsequent soft fork didn’t dent the price of Bitcoin. Indeed, Bitcoin actually experienced a surge over 2010; its price increased by over 300% between the day of the patch and the end of the year (from $0.07 to $0.30). That Satoshi himself intervened, and did so so quickly, showed that Bitcoin was not as easily hackable as some might have assumed and built confidence in a concept which up to that point remained untested."

Ultimate Outcome

"A soft fork is a blockchain update. Since the Bitcoin community forked the state of the blockchain before the 184 billion Bitcoin was mined, that means that some blocks that were previously valid were turned into invalid blocks, removing them from the blockchain and restoring it to an earlier state."

"The fork erased all transactions and mining that had been recorded on blocks that were produced after the bugged block. It also disposed of the 184 billion bugged Bitcoin."

Total Amount Recovered

There do not appear to have been any funds recovered in this case.

Ongoing Developments

"The rapid implementation of the patch was vital in keeping Bitcoin a viable cryptocurrency. 184 billion Bitcoin would have devalued the currency completely, leaving it at the mercy of the person holding the newly-minted Bitcoin. Even if the breach happened today, the amount of bugged Bitcoin would completely dwarf the current supply of the cryptocurrency, making any Bitcoin worthless."

"Bitcoin also benefited from this exploit being patched close to its inception, since taking the Bitcoin network offline could be done without significant consequences."

"To this day, the person behind the exploit remains unknown, and due to the anonymous nature of the blockchain there is no way to trace them. Despite their anonymity, they are still a significant individual in the history of blockchain—quite possibly the first ever blockchain hacker."

Individual Prevention Policies

No specific policies for individual prevention have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as an individual, check our Prevention Policies for Individuals guide.

Platform Prevention Policies

Policies for platforms to take to prevent this situation have not yet been selected in this case.

For the full list of how to protect your funds as a financial service, check our Prevention Policies for Platforms guide.

Regulatory Prevention Policies

No specific regulatory policies have yet been identified in this case.

For the full list of regulatory policies that can prevent loss, check our Prevention Policies for Regulators guide.

References

  1. ↑ https://newsletter.banklesshq.com/p/stoppable-finance-lite (Oct 11, 2022)
  2. ↑ The Day Someone Created 184 Billion Bitcoin - Decrypt (Jul 26, 2023)
  3. ↑ Stoppable Finance [LITE] - by Donovan Choy - Bankless (Jul 24, 2023)
  4. ↑ @lopp Twitter (Aug 15, 2023)
  5. ↑ https://www.blockchain.com/explorer/blocks/btc/000000000069e1affe7161ab4bcbeacebb4ddf155b50e807f42de971b688a09b
  6. ↑ https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/16z0dqh/bitcoin_block_74638_was_mined_in_2010_this_block/
  7. ↑ https://web.archive.org/web/20171213204659/http://blog.theshayan.com/2017/12/01/once-there-were-184-billion-bitcoins/
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 What Is Bitcoin? - Investopedia (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)
  9. ↑ Bitcoin Block 74636 - BlockStream (Accessed Sep 30, 2024)
  10. ↑ Bitcoin Block 74636 - Blockchain.com (Accessed Sep 30, 2024)
  11. ↑ Bitcoin Block 74636 - BtcScan (Accessed Sep 30, 2024)
  12. ↑ Bitcoin Block 74637 - Blockchain.com (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)
  13. ↑ Bitcoin Block 74637 - BTCScan (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)
  14. ↑ 14.0 14.1 14.2 14.3 jgarzik - Strange block 74638 - BitcoinTalk (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)
  15. ↑ mizerydearia - "Block 74639 had timestamp of 1281892233" - BitcoinTalk (Accessed Sep 30, 2024)
  16. ↑ Bitcoin Block 74,638 - Blockchain.com (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)
  17. ↑ Bitcoin Block 74,638 - BTCScan (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)
  18. ↑ Bitcoin Block 74,639 - BTCScan (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)
  19. ↑ lfm - overflow bug SERIOUS - BitcoinTalk (Accessed Sep 27, 2024)
Retrieved from "https://quadrigainitiative.com/cryptocurrencyhackscamfraudwiki/index.php?title=Bitcoin_Value_Overflow_184_Billion_Minting_Incident&oldid=6201"