Andreas is incorrect here. A double spend _did_ happen.
Bitcoin's double-spend protection is probabilistic: after one confirmation, if the sender is attempting to double spend, the probability of success is extremely low. But it's still non-zero.
@pete even though it technically happened is it fair to say that it was inconsequential and expected behaviour, and hence reported in an irresponsible manner?
@yeolde That's not the issue. The fair way to report it is to tell the truth: this particular one looks like it was inconsequential. But more importantly, it's a reminder that while very rare, they still can happen on occasion. So wait for multiple confirmations if you can't take that small risk. Equally sometimes zero confs is fine.
Like theft in general: it's rare enough that shops can afford to leave most things out in the open in most places. But not highly valuable stuff like jewellery.
@Letter6173 I feel like the comment from Eli Efram that it could have been 22M was irresponsible for exactly those reasons @pete , both he and the reporter should know better and at least mentioned the best practice of waiting for multiple confirmations
@pete @yeolde Mex sure did make a killing on all the liquidations... That is a strong profit motive.