Thank you for your answers.
Then my questions is:
1. What about attack against all or majority of developers, not just one person?
If someone launches a simultaneous attack on an entire community, there are larger concerns than bitcoin being compromised. This would require government cooperation between at LEAST 5 countries (maybe more), operating with complete precision, outside the bounds of the law, and violating personal liberties. Like I said, in that case, bitcoin would be the least of our issues.
2. What about attack, that involves only one person, but is based on the "plausible deniability"?
What does it matter if that person meant to or not? If the code is bad, we don't accept it, regardless of if it was malicious or not.
What if a modification to the code is hard to identify as something evil in the first place?
Given that we have a complete history of the code, we can compare VERY specifically the areas that changed. We know what it did before, and that specifically highlights the areas that changed. It's unimaginably hard to hide something malicious in a couple lines of code under close scrutiny.
And after it is identified, it is hard to ever confirm someone's responsibility to the fact.
Yes, things like that sometimes happen in the real world. And even in the Open Source part of it.
Again, what does it matter who's responsible? Bad code, don't use it. If it happens repeatedly from the same person, just stop using their code base.
And what if it is a modification to the rules with some untransparent consequences, not visible to your code guards?
Again, see above.
Not saying anything in particular, just vague generalities.
That's my whole problem with your posts. It's nothing but vague generalities, backed up by nothing but your own whim in creating fantastical and inaccurate situations in your head.
What if it will be accepted by the devs? Aren't they the central authority then, that can be silently hijacked?
Not everyone who reviews the code is a developer who supports the system. Some people want to specifically see it fail, and are looking for any excuse to point out a flaw. Again, see above about the simultaneous hijacking.
I am not talking about the interruption of the development team!
What about the well-planned impersonation of the development team of the Bitcoin software.
There is only one team. Well, I suppose, that would be difficult to catch just EVERY developer, but if we talk
about difficulty, then we should compare that to other difficulties, like cracking the SHA function, for example.
What method is less impossible, how do you think?
There isn't one dev "team". I'm not on a "team" with satoshi any more than I'm on a "team" with the microsoft developers. Just because we're both programmers doesn't mean there's "one team".
If you're going to follow that logic, isn't there only one "team" of people who use the software? Doesn't that make everyone who uses it but ISN'T a coder a central authority?
Show Posts
Lemme know, I'll sell you every coin I have.
