1/ CVE-2018-17144 happens and you see a bunch of PoW & Core haters coming out of the woodwork. But they still fail at basic logical reasoning.https://twitter.com/killerstorm/status/1043243532423753729 …
-
-
#ossifynow (h/t@hodlonaut ) This has been a valuable wake up call. Threats will only grow more serious and insidious as nation states start to get involved. ex: what if Iran, Argentina, etc buys BTC before it moons again? Think the USA will simply let them enjoy their gains? -
If BTC is anywhere close to as successful as many of us expect it to be, no group of developers will be left unharmed or unpenetrated. It's not safe for the protocol or them.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
People who are intellectually honest should base their decisions on detailed threat modeling and analysis. What I see from Bitcoin developers, on the other hand, is to **rationalize** the system designed by Satoshi 10 years ago.
-
Let's take, for example, alert system. Yes, alert system is not very decentralized. But consider two scenarios: With a functioning alert system, in case of a software bug merchants can be warned automatically and risk is prevented. Without alert system, merchants might not know
-
about vulnerability and lose their fund. So it seems alert system is a clearly positive thing. Now, to do it properly, perhaps instead of naive method used by Satoshi it should be co-signed by multiple developers. Whether you want it or not, users already trust the developers
-
of software they run. 99.999% users have no capacity to review all the code, thus there's no way to make it trustless. If you are concerned that false messages can be distributed through alert system, well, create straight guidelines for users to verify those messages, share
-
this documentation beforehands, explain that they shouldn't just do what alert says but use other communication channels to validate information. Also users who prefer to be 100% decentralized/trustless should be able to disable alerts. Obviously, it should be an optional
-
feature and not a mandatory killswitch. So, here, in few tweets, I designed you an alert system which is a clear beneficial feature for the 99.999% of users. Do you disagree with that? This model -- analyzing actual threats which can affect actual users -- can also be used to
-
analyze the core protocol and improve it. But instead people prefer to handwave something about "decentralization" and "trustlessness" without ever considering the ACTUAL threat model. Did you ever consider what are you going to do in the scenario of a 51% attack? Suppose the
-
attacker has that amount of hashpower and does not mind burning 10 million dollars worth of electricity per day to DoS Bitcoin, what are you going to do?
@gavinandresen actually had some plans for that, but current generation of bitcoiners would rather jerk each other off - 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.

That is another job of good engineers: to point out errors way before shit gets implemented.
Engineers who correctly conclude PoS is inferior will potentially save you millions down the line.