Bitcoin isn't software, it's an open source protocol akin to TCP/IP. Like TCP/IP, it's a very "dumb" protocol with a small attack surface (unlike something complex and hackable like Ethereum). Bitcoin is the largest hacker bounty that has ever existed, and it hasn't been cracked. It is anti-fragile, it mutates into something stronger when it is attacked (the hashrate has only grown since China tried to outlaw mining for example).
OK, so what do you call the code that implements the Bitcoin protocol? You can't have machines execute protocols directly (just like TCP/IP). https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin This code repo is called "Bitcoin" so I don't know what else to call it. I'm not even sure the protocol itself is all that well designed, but for the sake of argument we can just assume it is (as I'm more interested in the vulnerabilities produced by this software that implements the protocol). Not sure I buy some of these claims without more evidence. I spoke to some of this previously, but I'm not sure it hasn't been exploited (and there are definitely existing exploits/unintended consequences being found). Plus I also think many hackers prefer keeping it in the current state given the success they've had utilizing it for their nefarious purposes. I guess allowing hackers to steal tons of money can be thought of as a security system, but not sure it is something I'd be proud of (and it probably wouldn't last forever). Not sure what the hashrate and China have to do with software exploits.
I think he repeats some claims that got debunked from that podcast I shared earlier (including the big point of "Bitcoin is good for the environment!"), but ignoring those and focusing on the new stuff, I *guess* these are interesting ideas, though like with most hypothetical proposals thrown out by Bitcoiners, I'd like to see actual working examples with data comparing their results with traditional systems (vs words & pictures on a powerpoint slide). For example, I feel like a lot of these proposals assume comparisons to resistive heating, but from what I understand, there's a big movement to utilize heat pumps to significantly increase heating efficiency (because they move heat rather than generate it). Perhaps there's a heat pump application you can utilize with mining, but I'm not sure I can envision it currently.
Think of it as the transportation layer, vehicle and vault. Bitcoiners typically care about the vault. They do not worry about JPowell, or the IRS or Congress or any other authoritarian looting their Bitcoin without their permission. Once its there, its safe and only you can authorize that transaction (with or without force). There have never been any vulnerabilities discovered. There are absolutely vulnerabilities elsewhere in the ecosystem. Wallets are the most vulnerable. Wallets are basically the vehicle to move the bitcoin onto the transportation layer for it to be authenticated. The transportation layer is generally safe and highly resistant to attacks, although not perfect. This is the mining pool, the miners and the nodes. While 0 day exploits could exist, they will not revealed until the most opportune time. (as pointed out, a bounty). If in the future Bitcoin because extremely valuable (5mm+) and large transactions are needed, different security measurements can be implemented to reduce chances of imagined interceptions. For example, banks would route bitcoin through their own miners. It might take them a few days to find the correct nuance, but if time is not of the essence, they certainly can go about it this way to avoid any weird **** happening at other mining farms.
I understand all the general design principles of Bitcoin. None of that matters because machines don't run those principles. They run code. 100% there are vulnerabilities in pretty much any part of the Bitcoin ecosystem that relies on this code, and the security model Bitcoin relies on makes these vulnerabilities not easy to resolve if they were exploited. I don't want to rely on a monetary system that is built that way. Unless it is bulletproof...which it is isn't (because I'm not sure any code is bulletproof). You mention ways of potentially resolving these issues, though without specific details, I'm not sure exactly how that would work. You could certainly have designated authorities to help with these issues, but that would pretty much invalidate the entire model Bitcoin is trying to run with (kinda makes the whole blockchain pointless). I'd prefer a solution along those lines, but I'm guessing most Bitcoiners wouldn't.
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2023-October/022032.html https://github.com/ariard/mempool-research/blob/2023-10-replacement-paper/replacement-cycling.pdf This is an exploit for Lightning, which honestly I don't really care much about (and I'm guessing most don't care about either since it seems to function primarily as a talking point). Nevertheless just pointing out potential problems with these designs. As he noted, you pretty much have to get things right the first time. Good luck.
This has some "I don't always test my code, but when I do, I do it in production" vibes. Can throw this into the pile of ways Bitcoin isn't really all that secure like some might think.
I am not sure of your position and how you view this discussion. Its important to understand Bitcoin is its own thing. It has its own unique architecture, its own jargon, ect ... Just like the whole fork semantics... You view the fork discussion as an important talking point. I don't care about it. People can fork off Bitcoin all they want. Its like taking a picture of a piece of gold and claiming you just duplicated gold. Im not going to spend my time trying to convince a fool that his picture of a piece of gold is worthless, no matter how many times he's copied it. But if you get enough fools to believe it, value will be created. Bitcoin's price has consistently increased. All the other shitcoins have decreased as people realized they have a worthless token. Rant aside. I don't think you appreciate the TCP/IP protocol analogy. TCP/IP is not bulletproof. Bitcoin is not bulletproof. Getting into perfection talk, such as 'Bitcoin will save the world' is meaningless. Instead view it as a potential tool and weight the pro's and con's. Yes, all software has vulnerabilities. Some are harmless, some not so much. The bigger the package the increase of risk. Protocols tend to be open sourced. The Bitcoin protocol (remember, capital 'B' in Bitcoin refers to the protocol, lower case 'b' in bitcoin refers to the asset) is very small and light and everyone agrees to use the same protocol. Maybe someone has discovered a 0 day and waiting to use it. It would be fixed instantly. If its a theft, that person is going to be in a lot of trouble. However almost all Bitcoiners will tell you never to trust outside of the protocol layer, including wallets, exchanges, off chain transactions. You are literally agreeing with them while shaking your head no. Do not trust lightning, do not trust taproot (ordinals), even people should be very careful with segwit. These are all Bitcoin extensions that have increased attack vectors. If you're not afraid to lose some loose change, then its ok to use. Its very beneficial to send direct aid to poor people in africa. If thats all its every used for, that is pretty cool. But yes, as Bitcoin grows, its going to face challenges. And there are some serious ones. What I like about Bitcoin is it tends to shrug off bullshit. In Bitcoin, all that matters is what node operators and miners do. Nodes almost have no attack surface. I suppose you could wipe out Bitcoin if you could delete every node. Miners are unique and powerful. This is Bitcoins biggest weakness. Eventually miners will be owned by governments.
Alright, you're really losing me here. I'm the one that cares about the fork discussion as an important talking point, and you don't care about it? I don't even know why we're talking about forks, as it has little relevance to the topics I keep bringing up. The only time I really talked about forks were in the following 2 contexts: 1) Why are you talking about forks? 2) Semantics around forking terminology (which I think I barely even contributed to, but I felt was worth clearing up) I'm too lazy to quote both of our posts, but I fail to see how one can come to the conclusion you have stated above. I didn't appreciate it because I didn't care about what the protocols say. Well, at least not in this context. As I think I mentioned earlier, for the sake of argument I am assuming the Bitcoin protocol is essentially bulletproof in its design. TCP/IP isn't bulletproof, but even if it was, I don't think that would have stopped the log4j exploit (or a number of other exploits). No need to introduce complexities like protocols and their design in this discussion. For context, the Bitcoin repo has nearly 1000 C++ files, along with a good chunk of files using C, Python, Shell, etc. I'm too lazy to dig into exactly what does what, but that's a decent sized codebase. Not sure you were necessarily talking about this, but I threw it in anyway. Why do you think it would be fixed instantly? I've been lucky to have very little experience with the worst kind of exploits, but even the few I've been exposed to can take a significant amount of time to recover. Something like the PSN hack took 23 days before services got turned back online (and I would guess things being decentralized/P2P wouldn't help with matters, especially if "data cleanup" was needed). You'd certainly *hope* it could be fixed instantly, but I wouldn't assume that. If the one doing the theft is a nation-state (or something along those lines), not sure they care. Which is one of the initial points of this entire conversation. Though I could possibly see a miner or someone like that deciding to pull something like this off (under the right circumstance). I don't necessarily disagree, though I'm not sure this is all that useful practically speaking given how the community open promotes many of these things (if not outright embracing them, especially for the valuable talking points they provide). I've been too lazy to even look into exactly how these other projects impact the Bitcoin blockchain (or operation of nodes running the core code), but assuming they do in some way, that does introduce vulnerabilities into the core Bitcoin project itself (e.g., arbitrary data inscription allowed on the blockchain). If you targeted a RCE via a worm, you could probably take down the Bitcoin network in a matter of seconds (FWIW I'm stealing this exact idea for Nicholas Weaver in case people don't believe this). This is one of the downsides to a P2P system like Bitcoin...hence why I said I wouldn't trust this design for a monetary system. I do agree that miners are likely one of the biggest weaknesses of Bitcoin's design. If there ended up being a problem with Bitcoin that wasn't some software exploit like I've been talking about (i.e., no real "hacks"), it would probably involve the miners in some way.
all you have to do is allocate a portion of each paycheck to bitcoin and then leave it alone it's the simplest and best investment strategy in the world, and yet most people find it too hard to simply sit still, hold, and wait
A ten percent bump feels like nothing nowdays. The etf ticker posting or seeding is supposedly the reason behind this sudden movement... But this is going to feel like a fart in the wind compared to what happens in the summer of 2024 after the etf approval and halvening.
https://www.theblock.co/data/crypto-markets/prices/btc-pearson-correlation-30d 3 out of 5........ 3 times it correlated well the past year 2 decouples now another one...
