the basic angle seems to be : "COINBASE ATTACKED"


maybe it's a hitpiece against mozilla too, but all browsers that interpret javascript are susceptible to these issues really, javascript's so powerful that it's a permanent security nightmare (and hence a bad fit for Bitcoin). This Firefox bug wasn't in the javascript interpreter, but a sandbox escape bug (the sandbox is there to mitigate the damage that malicious javascript can do)

total nonsense


...except if sufficient numbers of people believe it

and that really lays bare what this "news" piece is: it's pure 100% psychology and zero % empiricism. No analysis can predict future behavior in free-market currency prices accurately, especially such a commodity with an absolutely fixed supply schedule. "Uptrend" is about the best price prediction anyone can give, the rest is (at best) pure guesswork, or (at worst) pure market manipulation

I don't believe this story, at least not without more details


Security vulnerabilities in a browser would only affect the website if they're serving web content using the browser software. Who the fuck uses Firefox to serve web content?!?!?

This basically sounds impossible, so someone is very confused about this, not least of all myself



Edit: maybe Coinbase users of Firefox are being targetted? Don't see what makes Coinbase any different to any other exchange, and so it's still baffling tbh

pfffff, who cares, Bitcoin is designed to handle exactly that problem. It's a bit like the US gangsterment threatening to blacklist people from using SWIFT or dollar based bank accounts; when there are alternative networks, and all the blacklisted people are trading with one another over those, then it's not only a non-credible threat, but it actually harms those doing the blacklisting more than it does their targets

we're waaay OT, but:

I don't think it's relevant, Satoshi's not here, or perhaps anywhere. To re-iterate, he wasn't perfect anyway, and he was happy to be wrong to make Bitcoin right.

I don't see the point in using something that no longer exists and wasn't always right as any kind of measuring stick

Indeed, although it looks more and more like a very adept compromise every day. 4MB blocks are theoretically possible, but because the Bitcoin ecosystem took so long to support and use segwit addresses, the average block is only ever ~ 1.3MB



sure, but the best limit is the smallest possible. That might mean dozens of megabytes block weight, but it's really impressive to see the work being done to make more efficient use of 4MB. The ideal to me would be if further space utilization improvements renders 4MB too much, and a cut is instituted instead (assuming of course that 4MB is too much for a fully mature Bitcoin market with highest possible adoption)

A remarkable fact about Satoshi (which is all too often forgotten) is recorded right here on Bitcointalk: sometimes, he got even fairly significant things wrong


Even more remarkable: Satoshi was happy to be wrong, because he wanted to get Bitcoin right. He wasn't jealously guarding the design decisions made in the original Bitcoin 0.1, it was the complete opposite. He fully welcomed and encouraged others to poke holes in Bitcoin, to make it as good as possible.

What would he think now? Who knows (we may never hear from him/them again). We've got to get this right now, not him, and that appears to be exactly what he wanted.

0. The "no input" operation is being very very carefully thought out. Several ways to achieve it have been proposed, but so far everyone seems happy to continue to think about it some more. This is because it introduces a specific form of malleability (deliberately) to transactions, which could be misunderstood or abused. Note that this is not the same form of malleability that was removed when tightening signature rules, or with segregated witness, this is a different type of malleation than those.

so, the most important point imo is: whichever way "no input" gets introduced to Bitcoin script, it might not be in the form of any of the proposals that are around now. Wait and see, things could change (they have a couple times already).

---

1. It means the inputs can be unspecified when transactions are signed. That would be rejected by Bitcoin validation now. Some have suggested the amount should be specified.

2. all inputs and outputs are basic scripts, written in Bitcoin's own scripting language. What I think this probably means (without reading the original) is that the input script must be the same logic as the output script, but not necessarily the same money input needs to be used as the money output

^ this is what I'm talking about. Don't you think that the US military have access to that information? If the Iranian government aren't stupid enough to attack a shipping company that defied sanctions against them, why would the US government attack that company's vessel as a false flag? You're happy to believe the Iranian government are smart enough to avoid such a mistake, but that the Americans are not? That argument doesn't make sense.

I disagree that the US establishment perpetrated this as a false flag



"US did it" reasoning: are Iranians dumb? they have nothing to gain


Unfortunately, the exact same reasoning applies to the US; they cannot in 2019 be so dumb to expect such a false flag attack (blaming the Iranian military) to be effective. Not in 2019.


It would be far far wiser to consider why we have been offered this "it's an obvious false flag" incident at a time like this. I notice, for instance, that a significant part of the reporting was the UN statement whereby they cast themselves as a neutral voice of reason.

I strongly suspect that this was theater, but not to advance US power.

that's not what I meant though



that ^^^ is what I meant.


Don't give them money. They give it to their friends to conduct public projects, then both put some or most of the money in their pockets. They're corrupt.


Be sure to give your money to people who do spend your money on good things that benefit others, and there's no real way of pointing a finger at you saying you're the problem.

sure, if any group is pooling money to subsidize something of which they have joint ownership, they would be wise to keep track of the transactions that take place in the pool



people in power can't misspend your money if you don't give it to them. so Bitcoin does solve that problem.

if you think that you will give your BTC to corrupt people if (when) they pressurize you, I reiterate: please sell to someone who won't give away their democratic rights to corrupt bullies

yes it was, it was designed to engender outright financial independence. that includes people using Bitcoin to do immoral things, as well as the moral



no it's not, if everyone has a "swiss bank account" then no-one need pay money to corrupt officials to begin with

---

it's very simple.

Bitcoin is code. The code does exactly what it does, nothing else. It enables complete financial independence. If you don't want that, you bought the wrong thing: do everyone a favour, sell

if you want a productive thread with useful answers to these questions, lock this thread and re-open as a self-moderated thread. This one will turn into a 100-page troll-a-thon

if you don't like watchtowers, put an LN node on a raspberry pi. It's easy. Problem solved

in essence it means: trust required

what are their options, lol


there's one thing that's guaranteed to work, but cannot be done for other reasons: cripple or switch off the internet. But even that can only really work short term, as everyone pissed off by that action will simply build a new internet to route around the bs

Every other possible angle of attack has already been considered and mitigated or neutralized

which direction is computation/battery capacity/storage size technologies moving in? increase or decrease?

and as I said, Bitcoin is becoming less demanding on the hardware, except storage space (which is incurable under a satoshi style full node design). All that has to happen is storage capacity has to continue to outperform blockchain growth rate, and phones will continue to become more viable as Bitcoin nodes. All signs indicate that storage tech will do so, NAND flash continues to scale up nicely.

Bitcoin was designed to support exactly this type of behaviour. You should sell your BTC if you don't like this state of affairs, you clearly didn't even understand what it was before you bought.

Your mindset is incompatible with the tool you are using. You can't buy an airplane, then go on to complain that you can't drive it on the highway or park it in your garage.

payjoin