If I were to break Bitcoin I would fund non-technical people into scaring other non-technical network participants from accepting patches or scaring them to move to insecure alternatives.
This attack vector is well tested now.
Discussion
If I were to break Bitcoin I would pay a majority of miners to insert a series of block sized transactions, specially constructed such that, would it take upwards of 10 minutes for any node to verify and then break the propagation of blocks across the network, bringing the network to a halt.
Costly. I'm not sure if you could do block sized transactions that would take upwords of 10 minutes to verify though.
This is the Bitcoin Talk conversation from 2013 and the attack has been improved upon since then.
Also the GitHub issue which is closed without a solution, relying purely on miners to not mine non-standard transactions such as these.
Thanks I'll take a look.
Attack vectors like thee exist and dum dums want to ossify 🙄
the having your cake "noooo we can't hardfork that would make us heccin centralized" and the eating it too "here's a list of valid transactions that I hate and should be super duper invalid" attitude of an irrational useful idiot person. but you can easily change their mind by making enough funny image macro spam about it.
Lol. Followed.
It bitcoin breaks from this that would be pretty dumb.
That's the most feasible and easy route, the biggest threat to Bitcoin is mindless propoganda about Bitcoin development from people who have no clue how Bitcoin development actually works.
There’s been quite a few discussions and a lengthy ama on stacker news discussing op return. If people don’t know how it works maybe try explain why their opposing ideas are flawed instead of just pretending like it’s all an attack. This doesn’t score any points.
I didn't say anything op_return. It's a bikeshedded conversation. It's not even that consequential as a code change itself.
But if such a dumb conversation have consequences enough to warrant a rollback, then it's a feasible attack vector for the future where said change is important.
I find it really sad that people resorted to calling community pushback an attack or attack vector. It’s like saying less conversation is better. Losing respect for a lot of people on here.
If a change is important and it warrants discussion I think we should have as much discussion as necessarily and not simply dismiss that as an attack vector.
But was important? Or was it politicized to sound important? It's a very common trick to politicize issues and forcing people to choose sides, after a while the conversation doesn't have anything about the initial issue at all.
I’m referring to your point about a future potentially important change.
I'm sure someone will find a way to politicize it, we'll be forced to choose sides, even though it might not have been necessary to do so. People love to be on one side or the other, doesn't matter what the nuances are.
*not* changing code is an attack vector now?
You make too many assumptions about those who oppose your ideas.
You make too many assumptions about my assumptions 😂
If you don't get it, you're free to consider me a dumb guy rambling.
I do however think you should checkout the other comments on this thread to know when not updating can be an attack vector... But you're free to assume something and ignore it.
You just provided another vapid response. Nothing in your thread contains anything meaningful. It's quite concerning seeing someone make victory laps in an empty stadium, I only address it in case someone mistook it as valid. I don't consider you dumb. Perhaps overstating your abilities, but nobody is incapable of learning something they put the appropriate time toward.
Yeah yeah, stupid invalid thread, everybody gets your eyeballs away from here please!
I don't know why you ended up in my timeline, but the fact that you did is enough reason to respond. You must be having the time of your life getting all this attention.
Did I like steal your Bitcoin or something? I'm sorry for causing whatever malfunction I caused in your brain.
Your attempt to shut down debate by accusing dissenters of being subjects of a social attack is the real attack on speech. It is distracting from the issue at hand, which is whether node runners should be tricked into conveying nonfinancial data to the miners.
If I were to do it, I would make it so bitcoiners will start accepting, from small to progressively larger, externally forced interventions on how their nodes processe transactions, until they get numbed to the idea of having a central authority dictating rules for the whole network.
That is also true. I'm all for multiple implementations for nodes, though ones that have slightly more devs verifying their code.
That is indeed a common objection.
But Knots is not "1 dev", it's "devs of Core" + 1
That's just false, and more so as it diverges in it's codebase.
If so, please educate me, really
That's not my job. Educate yourself.
Perhaps start by answering, if Luke makes a change to knots who reviews it?
Do not educate me then.
ChatGPT says that Knots is basically Core, with specific changes on top to enforce policies, confirming my previous knowledge.
If Luke makes a change to Knots, I can be certain it won't be reviewed by the same Core devs who refused to merge the inscriptions fix, and that's a good start already 😊