Who is talking about forks? We're talking about the potential for exploits in the actual Bitcoin code everyone is using (although I suspect some miners and maybe nodes could be running custom stuff, but that doesn't really make it any better). Maybe I'm missing the point you're making, though regardless, the point is exploits exist (like the one I mentioned). That happens with every piece of software, but that's also why...most...software has multiple ways of dealing with exploits (and often that involves it simply not being a big deal if such an exploit was used). I mean, something like that log4j exploit existed for 8 years (in systems arguably more important than all of Bitcoin), and that allowed for arbitrary code execution. I wouldn't want something like that in a software system involving the world's monetary system, especially if that system essentially relies on a "prevention only" security model. More xkcd:
Cute cartoon. I am an advocate for open sourced software. Closed sourced software will be looked upon poorly in the future. I would never trusted closed source software like Solana or FTX or nearly every **** coin version out there. That is what Bitcoiners try to tell people. Stay away from this stuff, but yet, they flock to it and believe and trust in it so they can get their 100x gains. How many times or how much resources have been lost to closed sourced software? Billions upon billions. How much has been lost due to Bitcoin code? The problem with your cartoon is that it assumes people like myself claim that Bitcoin is bulletproof. Its not. Its just a hell of a lot more resilient than everything else. The day bitcoin hardforks is the day I walk away. Its a very possible reality. The trouble with the idea that 'hackers' are sitting on '0 day warez' is to assume they are not economically driven. These people are very very far and few and these type of people tend to be libertarian. They are the first to quietly implement fixes. Again, its is most certainly a probability <0 that some selfish cretin would capitalize on it, but as Bitcoin becomes more and more valuable in the grand scheme, the less likely these people exist.
Um not sure why you keep bringing up closed source software. For reference, the log4j exploit I mentioned existed in OSS, and there's actually an argument that this proves the flaws of relying on OSS. I'm not necessarily advocating for that argument myself, though I do think there are huge problems with the way systems rely *heavily* on OSS without actually investing much (if anything) back into OSS/community efforts. I actually have no idea how much has been lost due to Bitcoin code. I would guess it isn't on those huge scales (especially since BTC isn't really *that* big/old, and most people involved are true believers), but it isn't like this is a particularly well regulated and audited industry. For all I know, the exploit I shared is already running on some nodes and creating some problems. And funnily enough, the existence of Bitcoin makes it a *lot* easier for these other software systems to lose a lot of money. Thanks Bitcoin for one of your actual legit use cases (albeit not one I'd classify as good). When you go with a decentralized P2P system that seems to rely purely on prevention for security, you're kinda claiming your system is bulletproof (or damn near close to it). Of course, it isn't...and that's what actually makes it much *less* resilient than just about everything else IMO. Hence the cartoon. Alright (and I don't even doubt it will hardfork...again...either), but I'm still curious what this has to do with this exploit talk though. I'm not sure I agree with these claims as this definitely doesn't seem like a principle I'd find in any security textbook. Well at least they're aren't any shady folks involved in Bitcoin/crypto...oh wait.
I am not well versed in the days of Bitcoin during development. I have read certain vulneraries were patched during early release. But once Satoshi walked away, the code has been bullet proof so far. Again, I acknowledge that could change. but so far .... I am not sure OSS is a good analogy. You can't have decentralization w/out open source. I have never claimed its bulletproof, you have. And then you state its less resilient than everything else. You're literally stating FTX and Solana is more resilient than bitcoin. Usually it seems you're coming in here with a good faith conversation. Bitcoin has never been forked. Anyone can copy the chain and create their own version like Bitcoin Cash. Oh and its not semantics. There are many many shady people in bitcoin. I think any bitcoiner would tell you this. Trust but verify.
Honestly, I haven't bothered to keep up with Bitcoin exploits/vulnerabilities either (except for the one I initially shared). I'm aware of the inflation bug from late-ish 2018, which sounded...not great...but I *guess* it got fixed before being exploited substantially (though the way it was done was kinda un-OSS from what I recall, which also gives some credence to the concerns about Bitcoin's maintainers). Regardless, it is definitely not bulletproof (see existing exploit), and even if it seemed that way, so did log4j for ~8 years (and I'm sure there are better examples than that). Furthermore, as I alluded to earlier, I'm not 100% convinced all the nodes/miners are actually running the open-source version of Bitcoin, and even if they are, it is possible/likely they're running alongside other custom software (OSS and proprietary). All of that could contain vulnerabilities. I'm going to claim that my team built a bulletproof app, but since we leveraged log4j for our logging, it wouldn't have mattered much in terms of overall security. (never mind all the potential for social engineering and whatnot) You 100% can have decentralization without open source. I can run proprietary code running on AWS servers/services (which themselves contain proprietary code) distributed across multiple regions. There probably is some sort of OSS that helps with that, and it would be silly not to use it, but I'm just making the point there is no relationship here. I'm not sure why you think there is one. Maybe I'm not following whatever connection you're trying to make there. And to be clear, I'm *not* claiming Bitcoin (or any of these crypto systems) are bulletproof. If anything, I'm claiming very much the opposite. What I am claiming is that in order for Bitcoin to not fall apart, it pretty much has to be bulletproof. If you *don't* think it is bulletproof...why would you rely at all on such a system as the one I described above (i.e., decentralized P2P relying only on prevention for security)? Well I did say "just about everything else." Of course any other crypto that *basically* does the same thing as Bitcoin will have the same flaws at the very least, and companies like FTX that rely on Bitcoin/crypto is similarly flawed. That should be pretty obvious. I'll be honest and say I'm too lazy to research every type of crypto there is. I vaguely recall some that actually used trusted authorities, and *maybe* that could be better, but honestly I have no problem stating that Bitcoin has the most resilient system of anything crypto related (because I'm too lazy to argue otherwise). I would say that's more of a slight on crypto overall than a badge of honor for Bitcoin though. If it wasn't obvious, I was stating that traditional software, including what banks do or even what my own team puts out, is more resilient than Bitcoin. At least some of that is due to the fact that we have entirely different (and significantly simpler) security models. Also at least for my team, we don't use C++. It has 100% been forked (both the code and the data), which is partly why the exploit I mentioned earlier actually affects all the crypto that forked Bitcoin. There's clearly some...weird definition y'all are using for fork that is not the typical definition us programmers use. Feel free to explain it to me if you'd like, though again I still don't know what this has to do with the topic of exploits. I guess you might be meaning that it has never introduced breaking changes in the core repo (or something along those lines), which is...not a fork...but I could *maybe* see that being what y'all keep going on and on about.
There's some semantics around this that need clarifying. You can hardfork Bitcoin yourself without anyone's permission. Your new coin will be effectively worthless because it isn't Bitcoin anymore, but you can still do it. The Bitcoin base layer/protocol still exists after a hardfork. That's what happened with Bitcoin Cash. The community was divided over a protocol change and so a hard fork happened that spawned BCH. Of course history now shows us that this protocol change was not a good idea and thus BCH is failing. So, BTC can hardfork a million times you're still fine. You still hold your BTC, unchanged, everliving.
Bitcoin has been hard-forked over 100 times since its release. https://www.bitstamp.net/learn/crypto-101/exploring-bitcoin-forks/ There is a strong case that the Bitcoin protocol has only implemented 1 practical permanent hard fork. at least 1......maybe 100 https://blog.lopp.net/has-bitcoin-ever-hard-forked/
Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV and Bitcoin gold all are hardforked from Bitcoin. Bitcoin itself is not hardforked. Segwit is a softfork from Bitcoin Core and Taproot is a softfork from segwit. Much like Ethereum classic was hardforked from Ethereum. Ethereum has hardforked when it does 'upgrades'. The Bitcoin chain has always remained the same since the genesis block, unlike BCH.
Based on what you're saying here and what I see elsewhere on Google, yeah you're just talking about breaking changes. I guess crypto people have decided to throw confusing terminology into this (because why not), but really you're just talking about semantic versioning I think (or rather, this would help illustrate the intended meaning): https://www.baeldung.com/cs/semantic-versioning (this doesn't really matter that much, but I think it would be good for us to understand the terminology we're all using)
Semi-related to Bitcoin updates, @Space Ghost / @DonnyMost / etc what do you think of inscriptions/ordinals? Seems to be dying off in hype, though I know it was a bit of a big deal within the community earlier in the year. Might have been discussed already in the thread, but if so, my quick search didn't find it. Of course I think they're dumb (especially since "let's allow arbitrary data to get added" isn't usually great for security), but curious to see how the community in general is debating these ideas.
I honestly do not understand the noise around ordinals. Its labeled as an unintended consequence of taproot, but I don't think I agree with this take. The way its being used is extremely wasteful (its their right, just like a miners right to use their electrify how they see fit). Like miners, one day they may solve a real world problem. Clogging the mempool will get really expensive. Nobody should expect cheap transaction fees if they believe some nonsense of everyone using bitcoin to buy coffee and their mcdonalds.
The secret life of one who has stolen – and lost – more than $3 billion in Bitcoin In 2012, someone stole 50,000 bitcoin from the Silk Road, an illegal dark web marketplace. Over time, the value of the stolen bitcoin skyrocketed to more than $3 billion dollars and for years it remained one of the biggest mysteries in the world of cryptocurrency. Almost a decade after the 2012 hack, the thief made a critical mistake that allowed the IRS-CI to crack the case.
As they sorted through the evidence, agents discovered something else about the unusual Mr. Zhong. He was, in crypto slang, an "original gangster," or OG. In other words, a hacker who had been involved in the development of bitcoin itself went on to become one of the biggest bitcoin thieves of all time. ______ Ouch.
more corroborating evidence that oracle of Omaha, Warren Buffet, has been right all along when he had offered this sage advise
Man who hid US$3.4 billion in stolen bitcoin inside popcorn tin and underground safe gets year in jail James Zhong stored billions of dollars worth of bitcoin in both an underground safe and a Cheetos popcorn tin. At the time the bitcoin was seized, it was valued at US$3.4 billion and today is still worth more than US$1.5 billion, according to the DOJ
sage advice to avoid the best performing asset of the last decade? everyone gets into bitcoin at the price they deserve
