<p>Someone might have a copy if they have a long-running node - they  would have had to have upgraded while the hard fork took place to be synchronized today </p>

<p>The transaction was executed by someone who knew of, and wanted to demonstrate the issue. The overflow meant the summed output value was less than the total input amount, despite actually minting billions of bitcoin out of thin air. </p>

<p>It's unlikely the problem would have happened accidentally, the amounts would have been crafted to trigger the bug: two outputs with amounts exceeding the 21 million limit are required to trigger it, so with just one, it would have been rejected. </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-30T14:43:50.000Z
2016-07-30T14:43:50.000Z
karimkorun
<p>There is a <a href="https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0">documented case</a> from 2010 when a block with 92 billion bitcoins was discovered. The bug was found and software was patched within 5 hours and everyone had to "hit the load button" to an earlier blockchain. It was speculated to be malicious. My question is: did anyone try to make transactions with the hacked bitcoins? If not, is it possible the bug was exploited accidentally?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-06T16:19:17.737Z
This question, while interesting, is quite hard to answer. It's answer is historical and can probably only be answered by someone who was involved with this transaction. I will add, though, that given the level of precision in the output, and the fact that the outputs had to add up and overflow to less than the sum of the inputs, it seems unlikely that it was an accident.
morsecoder
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-06T18:58:28.897Z
Maybe someone has a copy of the bad blockchain and they could check if there were any transactions from the bad block?
bkoodaa
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-07-07T09:47:11.860Z
May be, double spent is possible in few cases, but not certainly from one of 92 billion btc. Those are part of ignored chain, and any transactions using those bitcoin will also become invalid.
vi.su.
<security><blockchain-fork><history><theft>
The incident with 92 billion bitcoins
bkoodaa
# The incident with 92 billion bitcoins

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-07-06)

There is a [documented case](https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0) from 2010 when a block with 92 billion bitcoins was discovered. The bug was found and software was patched within 5 hours and everyone had to "hit the load button" to an earlier blockchain. It was speculated to be malicious. My question is: did anyone try to make transactions with the hacked bitcoins? If not, is it possible the bug was exploited accidentally?

**Tags:** security, blockchain-fork, history, theft

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: This question, while interesting, is quite hard to answer. It's answer is historical and can probably only be answered by someone who was involved with this transaction. I will add, though, that given the level of precision in the output, and the fact that the outputs had to add up and overflow to less than the sum of the inputs, it seems unlikely that it was an accident.  
> **username_0**: Maybe someone has a copy of the bad blockchain and they could check if there were any transactions from the bad block?  
> **username_2**: May be, double spent is possible in few cases, but not certainly from one of 92 billion btc. Those are part of ignored chain, and any transactions using those bitcoin will also become invalid.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2016-07-30. Score: 1

Someone might have a copy if they have a long-running node - they would have had to have upgraded while the hard fork took place to be synchronized today

The transaction was executed by someone who knew of, and wanted to demonstrate the issue. The overflow meant the summed output value was less than the total input amount, despite actually minting billions of bitcoin out of thin air.

It's unlikely the problem would have happened accidentally, the amounts would have been crafted to trigger the bug: two outputs with amounts exceeding the 21 million limit are required to trigger it, so with just one, it would have been rejected.


---

