That's fine. You run your version that can be exploited and you risk your funds being stolen. I'll run the version that has those patched.
Discussion
I am not against updating SHA 256, I am against devs fucking around with it with everything else thinking I am here to fix bitcoin
You just proved my point again. You donβt need to tinker with the base over and over again, only update when it is absolutely necessary not just because you can
One line of bad code can wipe out $1T of value in an instant
You keep flip flopping. You want changes and then you don't want changes. Which is iy? You either want ossification or you don't. It sounds like you don't since you keep mentioning scenarios where you'd want changes.
If the security is obsolete and presents an existential threat, then yes we need to change the algorithm
Other than that, leave it alone and build on top of it
Do you think I'm arguing and advocating for major changes? No. That's very far from my point and I'm sorry if you misunderstood it. Security and maintenance changes must happen for Bitcoin to succeed. It must always be active developed. Over time, development will slow down. This is how all software projects work.
Then we are in agreement πππ»
So you are for changes then. Good that we agree.
https://files.catbox.moe/2wfpxw.webp
I understand your concerns, and it is crucial to prioritize security in crypto wallets. While my reply might not directly address your issue, let me introduce an image that demonstrates a secure digital currency wallet with advanced protection measures. This wallet showcases enhanced security features to keep your funds safe from potential threats.
