Counterparty Allows Double Spending ? (466666+ FoldingCoin stuck in Limbo)

Now what do I do???

Through Tokenly Pockets or through the website, I asked for 466666+ FLDC to be transferred from my Counterparty wallet to my Poloniex address. I (unknowingly) ran into extremely vague problems, and had to try more than once.

It seems that this is a summary of the history:

-) The first transaction got stuck without confirmations.
-) 2 hours later my funds “were still” in my Counterparty account. I tried again to send them. This time the FLDC registered as being sent through the Counterparty website.
-) This “second” transaction was presently “confirmed”, while the “first” transaction (for the same large amount) was still stuck “unconfirmed”.
-) For many hours, Counterparty shows that my transfer was successful. But my FLDC never showed up in my Polo account.
-) 12 hours later, this “first-issued” transaction finally gets confirmed “after” the second transaction. Remember both transactions had been issued with the same goal, to get my 466K FLDC to my Polo account. These original requests were separate by two hours.
-) 48+ hours now, and the FLDC still won’t show up in my Polo account

On Counterparty’s block explorer, the transactions show up as 466666.7… FLDC and 0.0000… FLDC. The time/date shown is the “confirmation” time/date :

But on’s block explorer “with Tokenly Pocket’s installed in the chrome browser,” BOTH of the transactions show up as 466666.7… FLDC. The time/date shown is the “original transaction request” time/date.

NOW what do I do? I have already opened a request with Polo, and who knows HOW LONG that will take to get addressed?

I think your misunderstanding what a double-spend is…

A double-spend is when your able to spend the exact same coins/tokens twice at the same time… that is not happening here

What is happening here is that your sending your FLDC, then getting impatient and sending a second FLDC transaction…

Transaction #2 was mined before Transaction #1… and your 466K FLDC was actually moved out of your address

Transaction #1 was finally mined… but you had no FLDC in your address left (Transaction #2 moved it all)… so the send shows 0.0 as the quantity.

A double spend would be if the system allowed you to send your 466K FLDC twice… since the system only allowed you to move your 466K FLDC once, it is not a double-spend.

As to why you see different things on vs… takes its data directly from counterparty… so it will show you what ACTUALLY happened within the counterparty platform and tokenly pockets chrome browser plugin just take the raw bitcoin transaction and decode it into what it APPEARS to be doing… this is why both transactions show up on with 466K… because both bitcoin transactions say to move 466K… however on, we can see that only one transaction moved the 466K FLDC… other other transaction did nothing but waste BTC fees.

TL;DR… pay higher fees to get your transactions processed faster… or get some patience and wait for your transactions to process… sending the same exact transaction/amount multiple times is going to result in nothing but you wasting BTC fees.

The Burden of Communication is Two-Way.

If I have no knowledge of events except for what Tokenly will allow me to see, or in the case of the online Counterwallet, what Counterwallet will let me see; and if what I am allowed to see is incomplete or erroneous, then I shouldn’t be judged as having been impatient, 2 hours after a bitcoin transaction was requested. Thirty minutes is the standard.

There is “no” option in Tokenly to change any fee. There is “no” warning that what you are asking might “not” occur (at least in the next several hours). It just accepts the request. Then when you go looking for the transaction in Tokenly, it is “nowhere” to be found. “Oh kay,” us lay users are easily led to think, “my request must not have worked. Let me try it again…”

But people: “DON’T try it again”, because you’re messing with a tar-pit, and your about to become stuck in it for a bit. And pay extra for every transaction you post that gets “double-confirmed”. Granted, is just a few cents and dollars. But what if that’s all you are trying to transfer anyway? Then your transfer ends up costing more than it is worth.

Impatient? Or lacking sufficient information that is Counterparty’s burden to provide…?

How can I be judged as being “impatient”, when two hours has passed, my funds are still in my account, free to use? It would seem that that is a “bug” whether purposeful or not. Why would Counterparty “not” at least “tell” you that the funds are already claimed by a previous transaction, if not straight bar you from using them? “They do tell you…” No, it depends. Sometimes they only give you “small hints.”

Problem: If you use Tokenly for a transaction, you can continue until you are depleted of BTC fees to double, triple + post the same transaction, all the while being “none the wiser” that these transactions are actually posting and awaiting confirmations. Tokenly doesn’t tell you this. That information is completely unavailable in the app. And if it is, it “not” obvious. Something needs to change about that. Fix it or remove it.

Then go to Counterwallet “any time” before the Tokenly transaction is still unconfirmed, Counterwallet will allow you to double, triple+ spend that money that should be tied up. If a 3rd party organisation only waits to see that the transaction has posted, it could erroneously allow you to continue your merry way when, a few hours or days later, they are going to be telling you, “We’re sorry, but the transaction was unsuccessful.”

Double spend is a term that has two meanings

  1. as you said, 2 parties are alerted that they have successfully received funds when only one company should have been allowed those funds
  2. this issue, where you are allowed to execute 2 or more transactions on funds whose “first” “confirmed” transaction will be successful (mmm, which one will it be…?). Poor implementation. Poor job educating your clients about the problems that (could and do) await them.

Counterparty’s blockchain explorer is not infallible, which is one of the reasons why there are other solutions out there. Counterparty’s blockchain explorer is smart enough to show you what “eventually” happened. Man they’d get it from the masses if they showed you what was happening before that on double+ transactions. with Tokenly extension shows you that. I had been allowed to send 2 transactions, 2 hours apart, for the same balance. And the “second” transaction was confirmed before the “first”. This, without any part of the active system(s) informing or educating me that such might happen.

Fix this.