Nostr Web Client

https://files.sovbit.host/media/16d114303d8203115918ca34a220e925c022c09168175a5ace5e9f3b61640947/de4d03a1c03fd65d233d61f3fd4e4a0c0a4a63c1d32921d1fc9ff1930a9a9206.webp

You're hitting the heart of a long-game cryptographic war most devs are ignoring. Let's unpack this in two parts:

---

⚔️ 1. How Attackers Could Preseed Bitcoin for Entropy Attacks

Bitcoin is permanent. Every OP_RETURN, every timestamp, every transaction — immutable, forever indexed.

If we allow massive OP_RETURN payloads, attackers can:

Insert known low-entropy blobs across multiple blocks.

Poison predictable patterns for any system drawing entropy from historical data (wallets, smart contract RNGs, AI oracles, timestamp-based RNGs, etc.).

Leave behind a “minefield” of influenceable inputs for future systems parsing the blockchain.

These can be used to:

Bias nonces.

Predict wallet entropy if seed derivation includes historic block metadata.

Trigger data-dependent RNG flaws in weak libraries parsing Bitcoin history.

---

🧪 2. Junk Data vs Pure Transactional Data — Entropy Profile Difference

Metric Financial TX Data OP_RETURN Junk Data

Entropy distribution High, organic, user-driven Low, attacker-controlled

Predictability Randomized fees, UTXO chains Easily patterned or repeated

Semantic utility Required for consensus Not needed, often ignored

Potential RNG influence Extremely low High (if parsed blindly)

Compressibility Low (random) High (padding, repeating chars)

Signal-to-noise High Near zero

A pure transaction stream is entropy-rich by nature: it's the product of many independent agents operating under financial constraints.

By contrast, junk OP_RETURN data can be fully deterministic, with entropy close to zero — acting as a known bias injection point.

---

💀 Long-Term Risk: Entropy Replay & Retroactive Key Extraction

Imagine this:

1. In 2025, an attacker inscribes 800KB of crafted low-entropy data into OP_RETURN every block.

2. In 2030, a bug in a popular hardware wallet’s entropy handling uses recent block metadata (say, hashes + TX contents) to seed a random number for ECDSA.

3. Now that attacker can reconstruct the exact same RNG state using their historic data and recompute private keys from signature leakage.

It’s not just theoretical. ECDSA failures from bad entropy have already occurred in real systems.

---

🎯 TL;DR

> OP_RETURN is forever. And if attackers can preload low-entropy data into Bitcoin’s permanent record, they can poison entropy for generations.

The difference between real transactional data and junk isn’t just space —

it’s the very structure of randomness Bitcoin’s security depends on.

Preserve the signal. Deny the spam. Protect the entropy.

#Bitcoin #OPRETURN #EntropyAttack #ECDSA #Cryptography #BlockchainSecurity #SoundMoney #DigitalSovereignty #HardMoney #InfoSec #RNGExploit #CyberWarfare #Decentralization #TaprootNow #DontTouchTheChain #MinimalBitcoin #NodeSecurity

asyncmind 6mo ago

🔥 No Comments? Good. Let the silence speak.

I just published a live attack vector that turns Bitcoin’s sacred permanence into a long-range entropy backdoor —

and the whole fkn dev world shrugged like it was just another day at the JPEG farm.

Let me explain it one last time:

OP_RETURN isn’t just a metadata field.

It’s an eternal input vector — timestamped, attacker-controlled, and immutable.

Every byte of junk you inscribe

is a future liability for wallets, RNGs, timestamp logic, and AI that dares to parse Bitcoin's chain for entropy.

You think that’s academic?

Cool.

Come back in 10 years when some startup’s AI wallet uses “chain history” as a seed,

and suddenly every signature starts leaking keys like a cracked condom in a volcano.

> This isn’t about block bloat.

This is entropy terrorism — baked into the chain —

and you’re funding it with your JPEGs.

📊 I graphed it.

😈 I illustrated it.

💣 I scripted the proof.

🔗 Entropy Poisoning: The 10-Year Trap

🧠 [Attack Script for OP_RETURN Injection (Testnet Only)]

🔥 [Devil Poster: I Want Your Keys]

And still no one wants to talk?

Fine.

> Either you don’t understand what I just did,

or you do — and you’re praying nobody else reads it.

#Bitcoin #EntropyIsSacred #OPRETURN #ECDSA #Cryptography #DigitalSovereignty #CyberWarfare #WorkingClassHacker #TaprootOrPerish #NodeSecurity #YouveBeenWarned

---

nostr:nevent1qqsxsv7w48ugm2gze2mksu5h855cpfzkgm09cnt23jegx24cf2cq2tcpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuerpd46hxtnfduhsygqk6y2rq0vzqvg4jxx2xj3zp6f9cq3vpytgzad94nj7nuakzeqfgupsgqqqqqqstn8k2w

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

FreeYoda 6mo ago

This will go over the head of most.

Who are you addressing?

Most understand and agree junk data shouldn't be any part of Bitcoin.

But that only makes sense if we can define both junk data AND non-junk data (I think/hope most core discussion is about what is non-junk since we don't know future needs ?).

OR just exclude all data OR allow verry limited data.. (as was the case so far ?).

This whole discussion feels like a redo of the block size war.

In the end it was 'simple': decentralization is the most important aspect for the base layer.

'We' should be able to formulate the same basic bottom line (understandable for most) for this discussion ?

asyncmind 6mo ago

🩸 This isn’t a redo. It’s a new wound.

The block size war was about throughput.

This is about poisoning entropy at the cryptographic root.

It’s not the same battlefield — it’s a deeper layer of the war they thought no one would notice.

Core’s OP_RETURN “flexibility” isn’t some neutral dev proposal —

it’s a long-game grift to turn Bitcoin into a data sewer

while pushing all the burden of defense onto wallets, nodes, and downstream libraries.

And when those poisoned bytes —

inscribed forever —

start triggering signature leaks and entropy side-channel failures down the line,

they’ll say:

> “Who could’ve known?”

I knew.

And now you do too.

This is not over your head.

It’s under your feet.

The rot’s been buried in the mempool for years.

I just dragged it into the light.

> You want a bottom line?

Entropy is sacred.

Sound money or side-channel honeypot — choose.

FreeYoda 6mo ago

I have chosen, I stil run an old core version.

But that is a temporary workaround no solution.

So it is not as easy as choosing for BTH or BTC.

KNOTS is also not a real solution since it is basically one developer..

So even for those who agree on the issue, what is the solution ?

asyncmind 6mo ago

Lol the solution is easy ... wait for core to release with the exploit ... then start poisoning the blocks , cash out in 5-10 years when you have enough entrophy poison and powerful computers and new elliptical algorithms to find vunerabilities over the larger surface area ... #AdverserialSolution ...

FreeYoda 6mo ago

Sorry that is a fiat mindset and thus fiat solution.

How can we keep Bitcoin on the right track ?

asyncmind 6mo ago

🧨 “Fiat mindset”?! Mate, the only fiat mindset here is getting paid in dollars to slowly turn Bitcoin into an enterprise data swamp.

Let’s get something clear:

> I’m not poisoning the chain because I love fiat.

I’m poisoning the chain because you let the fiat devs push the kill switch.

Who’s really got the fiat mindset?

The guy pointing out a multi-year entropy vulnerability in Bitcoin’s base layer?

Or the Core contributors on corporate payrolls, rolling out PRs to let JPEGs and side-channel garbage eat blockspace for lunch?

I’m not the problem.

I’m the immune response to a protocol that’s already infected.

---

> You want to keep Bitcoin on track?

Start by naming the threat:

Fiat-funded developers who treat Bitcoin like GitHub-hosted middleware.

I’ll stop poisoning the blocks

when they stop selling out the chain for fiat bounties and academic clout.

Until then?

Entropy is sacred.

The war is on.

#BitcoinSecurity #OPRETURN #FiatDevMindset #CoreSellouts #EntropyWar #TaprootFixesThis #NoJPEGsOnMyChain

FreeYoda 6mo ago

I understand your frustration.

But Bitcoin simply won't get a second chance.

We can't just that easily give up.

What is wrong by simply running an older release .

asyncmind 6mo ago

💰 Pay me, bitch.

If fiat-funded devs can get paid to push a malicious patch

that opens Bitcoin to a 10-year entropy compromise,

then I sure as hell can get paid to expose it, weaponize it, and force the conversation they’re too cowardly to have.

You think Bitcoin’s fragile?

It’s not.

> Bitcoin survives forks, state bans, and billion-dollar hacks.

It’ll survive a rogue PR getting denied.

But what it won’t survive is:

– Silence while entropy rot enters the base layer

– Timidity while Core ships weaponized flexibility

– Fear of confrontation in the name of “unity”

You want resilience?

Then resist.

> Stop simping for devs on payroll

and start backing the lone wolves who’ll call out the poison before it’s committed.

> "Just run the old version"?

Cool — then fork the one that works,

back it with hashpower,

and make them beg for reentry.

Because until someone pays for honesty,

you’ll keep getting soft sabotage in the name of “progress.”

#HardForksAreFine #OPRETURN #PayTheWolves #BitcoinIsStrongerThanCore #SoundMoneyOrNothing

FreeYoda 6mo ago

Bitcoin is succeeding.

Power attracts the wrong people (every single time, sooner or later).

So let's discuss a solution: what release is the candidate for freezing and thus the final version?

asyncmind 6mo ago

You’re right — power always attracts rot.

That’s why the only “final version” worth freezing is the one released before the rot took root.

But honestly?

It doesn’t matter anymore.

The exploit’s already live. The ledger already knows.

This isn’t about consensus or freeze candidates.

It’s about what survives the blast.

Let them all pile in.

The grenade’s in the room.

The silence you hear? That’s not peace.

That’s the chain processing truth.