BIP-447: Pruning OP_RETURNs without Breaking Merkle Tree Reverification + Selectively Shrinking Block Space for Transactions Containing Arbitrary Data
Analyze the BIP-447 UASF proposal here: https://github.com/HORNET-Storage/bips/blob/master/bip-0447.mediawiki
"Luke Dashjr's pattern-based filtering in Bitcoin Knots creates a cat-and-mouse game that worsens mining centralization: when nodes filter inscription transactions, users may attempt to bypass the P2P full-node network entirely, establishing private relay networks directly to mining farms."
Side channels do not "increase mining centralization" at all. If people mining have filters, regardless of if it is relayed via gossip or side channel makes no difference to mining power. In fact Datum and StratumV2 increase decentralization while including transaction choice. So the abstract itself is flawed.
"Meanwhile, Bitcoin Core's proposal to uncap the OP_RETURN limit in Core30 may create severe legal vulnerabilities for node operators who would be forced to download and store arbitrary data that could contain illegal content."
This is not the threat, tripping Malware detection and antivirus software is the threat. This would likely shutdown cloud run nodes (like those hosted on Cloudflare, or AWS) it has nothing to do with legality.
Rewrite the abstract or I don't care to read the rest of the proposal.
The mailware claim is completely misleading because it’s simply not true
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Shhh.
Again no arguments just bullshit! Fantastic! 👍🏻
I definitely like to book a consulting appointment 😂😂😂
I wouldn't take you on.
Still waiting for all the arguments how antivirus software shuts down all the cloud nodes on aws.
Or how mailware shuts down a completely decentralized network with hundreds of different server versions and implementations
The real world is not a hacker movie!
To be honest I don't think you would understand the explanation. You truly seem like an overly emotional idiot, incapable of causal relation.
I truly think you have no clue what you are talking about. Otherwise a normal person would deliver arguments.
Okay dude.
1. When you verify a block you have to decrypt and orient the data in ordered bytes.
2. When you run a node on hosted servers, the company hosting it scans all transmitted, saved, and processed RAM data for malicious package fingerprints.
3. These fingerprints are just a hash digest of the bytes of a known malicious package.
4. Seeing the fingerprint CONTIGUOUSLY of a malicious package the server host would kill the VM that they host your Nginx or Apache2 instance on.
5. This would happen as soon as you try to verify the transaction with an OP_RETURN output.
6. I and many others have explained this ad nauseum but morons like you don't understand how Bitcoin works so you just post "This isn't a hacker movie" type shit as if you understand something you clearly don't.
7. GFY I don't care what you have to say.
2. Is false! AWS for example does not scan data on ECS, EKS, S3 or whatever by default so your claim is bullshit
Literally do. Why don't you try to set up a server, and send Xor'd malware packages to it. Have your server decrypt it, then tell me if your instance is accessible.
Do you know what hash digests are? It doesn't "know" what the data is. It compares the data to a hash digest of know malware.
{
If (4D616C77617265{data scanned}==4D616C77617265
then (kill service)
}
This is not secret information.
https://docs.amazonaws.cn/en_us/guardduty/latest/ug/guardduty-malware-detection-scan-engine.html
" Signature-based detection not only includes matching of bytes but also a snippet of code that is potentially complex, and the scanner can parse content and make decisions."
"With no restriction on the file formats that GuardDuty scans for malware, the scan engines that it uses can detect different types of malware, such as cryptominers, ransomware, and webshells."
Any other bullshit you want to spout there, Genius?
Guard duty is a service you have to use. And you can configure it. So my initial claim is still valid that aws is not scanning by default 😂
Yeah, and you have the "option" to enable HTTPS too. You are an absolute moron.
You definitely never heard of a read only container! Otherwise you would know that mailware is not a problem. Especially not for a fucking bitcoin node.
Consultants 🙄🙄🙄
Moron. I'm not talking about malware activation, I'm talking about existence which a read-only container would still apply to. I'm not saying that a malware package would infect a node, dipshit. The existence of the file would make the server host kill the VM.
No it wouldn’t because it all depends on your personal settings. Which in default state don’t even exist 🤷🏼♂️
Once again you claimed bullshit which doesn’t matter because all this is possible today 😱😱😱 and spoiler alert! Nothing happened 🤪
So it’s nothing more than #knotards being in full retard mode again to push the luke agenda
Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Try relaying 84+ byte transactions, it won't get past the broadcast phase. And again, I run many reference clients because I'm not a one client tard like you. I can't emphasize this enough, you are not smart enough to know how dumb you are. I'm blocking you now. Good luck not choking on your own drool.
That moment when you don’t have any arguments 😂😂😂
TLDR (of just the opening sections, which I think/hope I have summarised here):
- Add a new a SegData section of the block, which can be ignored by nodes that don't understand or enforce this section
- data can be referenced by a 32-byte identifier: sha256(sha256(the_data)
- op_returns with exactly 32 bytes of data, referencing that data as above, will continue to be accepted as usual
- larger op-returns will be punished heavily (or banned entirely?) via an increase in the weight of those outputs. Similarly, "complex" witness scripts and data will be punished via removing the witness discount
- it's a soft fork
It seems easy too complex to be practical, and it very very explicitly adds file storage which could be controversial. And I don't think we can rely on being able to identify correctly which witness uses are too "complex"; it just means the "whack a mole" game continues. And I don't know enough about the SegData section as a whole, will it also be hashed as a single unit and it's hash included somewhere in the block (in the coinbase?)
or just store the hash, and store the data somewhere else.
