Subnostr

Permissionlessness is why we have to be vigilant about closing off new attack vectors.

You push an update (Taproot) to critical software (Bitcoin). You discover later that that update opened a new attack vector. You don't fucking say "oh well, we shouldn't fix this." 🤷

bitcoin.rocks 2y ago

I suppose we disagree on this as an attack vector. If a bunch of degens trading shitcoins can kill Bitcoin, then it was doomed anyway.

Ordinals are valid Bitcoin transactions whether you hate them or not.

Your transactions are valid Bitcoin transactions whether the ordinals crew hates them or not.

No permission needed.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

bitcoin.rocks 2y ago

Also, Ordinals were possible pre-Taproot. They're just cheaper post-Taproot.

Fiat Shenanigans 🤡🌎 2y ago

And bigger. That's the problem.

bitcoin.rocks 2y ago

Why is that a problem?

RealJohnDoe 2y ago

Exactly! That's why they have to go. And we will need to aggressively restrict use of block space until the damage is healed..😠🦍

Fiat Shenanigans 🤡🌎 2y ago

Bitcoin is not a free for all. It is a system of rules that are purpose born. When somebody finds a way to exploit a loophole in those rules in a manner that does not respect the purpose of Bitcoin, that loophole must be closed to ensure that the system can still serve it's purpose. When a dude found a vulnerability that enabled him to mint 184 million Bitcoin, the developers fixed it, and nobody was screaming "muh free market!" over them fixing the code.

Ryu Santiago 2y ago

Was this an actual thing, and if so, was this 2015 or earlier?

Fiat Shenanigans 🤡🌎 2y ago

Happened in August 2010

bitcoin.rocks 2y ago

What is the side effect of this supposed loop hole?

Is it damaging the system?