New transaction malleability attack wave? Another stresstest?

[RussianRaibow]

Users of these defective implementations will have to upgrade, or if that is not possible, they will have to export their private keys and switch to newer software.

This is very close to hardfork.
Yes. I do understand that it is not a hardfork in strict terms.

So, are you sad that your latest attempt to save people from this great Ponzi is being crippled? I see, you are having great time with buttcoiners here...

https://www.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3okxo5/does_amaclin_need_some_btc_to_wreck_havoc/

What is your next plan? Going back to your boring job or buying some BTC as retirement fund?

[amaclin]

So, are you sad that your latest attempt to save people from this great Ponzi

I do not remember when and where I said this.
These are your words, not mine.

[gmaxwell]

This is very close to hardfork.
Yes. I do understand that it is not a hardfork in strict terms.

I don't agree, not even in the most lax of terms.

It's a standardizes rule,  and already on the order of 95% of transactions were already conforming.  If a wallet produces a non-conforming transaction anyone in the world can mutate it to the conforming form.  Even absent the auto-mutation, when it doesn't work-- it fails safe: you can still receive transactions, but your sends may not work; and you can either update your software or find someone/something to mutate them for you. It's likely that due to 'helpful' mutation and non-upgraded nodes and miners the remainder will continue to get confirmed (with delays) for some time... and that 5% remaining should drop as electrum and armory get updates out.

I would have preferred to continue to wait to activate the filtering, which has been implemented and waiting in Bitcoin core for years now, until even more users were upgraded... but the ongoing attacks made that a poor trade-off:  There is no reason that the creators of 95% of the transactions should suffer attacks because we were worried about inconveniencing the remaining 5%.   I also called in this thread multiple times for help driving that 5% down to nothing and no one else cares, so-- how much can the negative impact matter when basically none of all the noisy people in this thread cared to lift a finger to help mitigate it?

All the other avenues for "nuisance mutability" that we're aware of were closed long ago, some of those also required getting wallets to update, but far fewer wallets were broken with respect to those rules. Fortunately, until recently, no one who wanted to attack had bothered figuring out how to perform this particular attack (as it's ever so slightly tricker-- can't just be done by stuffing an extra byte in a transaction); unfortunately that didn't last, and so we got to lose huge amounts of effort dealing with this and creating a small amount of additional collateral disruption instead of working on other things; the result will likely also delay the deployment of CLTV some due to difficult in getting miners to update twice in rapid succession... but thats life.

[siameze]

I also called in this thread multiple times for help driving that 5% down to nothing and no one else cares, so-- how much can the negative impact matter when basically none of all the noisy people in this thread cared to lift a finger to help mitigate it?

I dunno, maybe some folks are busy working on producing results instead of kvetching about it on btctalk/reddit ?

[amaclin]

I don't agree, not even in the most lax of terms.

I mean you force somebody to do something.
I do not want to discuss now your good intentions. They are good. Today. Yours.
I absolutely agree that transaction malleability should be fixed. (OK, in fact not absolutely, but who cares?)
Was wondering why it was not fixed in BIP-66 when we changed the rules by "voting method".

I only notice that this is one another small step from decentralization to dictate.
You force the people which agreed to consenus rules in the past do something, but tell them that the consensus rules
have not changed. What if I say: "OK, do not use Bitcoin Core! It is too old software, use [name]"

Technically saying, if developers are able to force miners to upgrade their software today to "improved version"
then it woluld be possible to force them switch to a hardfork tomorrow.

[RussianRaibow]

So, are you sad that your latest attempt to save people from this great Ponzi

I do not remember when and where I said this.
These are your words, not mine.

What a big fat liar you are! Here is what you said...

Besides this, Satoshi seems to have had quite a few reasons to develop
Bitcoin such as fleeing from banks, creating a trustless system, etc.

OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoin
I want to prove that decentralized trustless system can not exists in long term.
It either transforms to centralized system or loses its security.

[Bifta]

So, are you sad that your latest attempt to save people from this great Ponzi

I do not remember when and where I said this.
These are your words, not mine.

What a big fat liar you are! Here is what you said...

Besides this, Satoshi seems to have had quite a few reasons to develop
Bitcoin such as fleeing from banks, creating a trustless system, etc.

OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoin
I want to prove that decentralized trustless system can not exists in long term.
It either transforms to centralized system or loses its security.

I think he was being sarcastic when he said that.

[RussianRaibow]

So, are you sad that your latest attempt to save people from this great Ponzi

I do not remember when and where I said this.
These are your words, not mine.

What a big fat liar you are! Here is what you said...

Besides this, Satoshi seems to have had quite a few reasons to develop
Bitcoin such as fleeing from banks, creating a trustless system, etc.

OK. So my reason is to protect your life savings from this ponzi scheme called bitcoin
I want to prove that decentralized trustless system can not exists in long term.
It either transforms to centralized system or loses its security.

I think he was being sarcastic when he said that.

Sarcastic or not, there is no point in blatantly denying something that someone actually said.

[amaclin]

So, are you sad that your latest attempt to save people from this great Ponzi

I do not remember when and where I said this.
These are your words, not mine.

What a big fat liar you are! Here is what you said...

I did not say that this attempt is latest. No, I am not sad.

[RussianRaibow]

So, are you sad that your latest attempt to save people from this great Ponzi

I do not remember when and where I said this.
These are your words, not mine.

What a big fat liar you are! Here is what you said...

I did not say that this attempt is latest. No, I am not sad.

That was a fact. You or me stating that fact makes no difference whatsoever. So, you did not say what is your next plan? Going back to your boring job or buying some BTC as retirement fund?

[amaclin]

That was a fact. You or me stating that fact makes no difference whatsoever.
So, you did not say what is your next plan?
Going back to your boring job or buying some BTC as retirement fund?

I am 100% sure that BTC (or any other crypto) is bad investment. Point.

[arnuschky]

Is there any script or webservice that allows one to check transactions for low-s signatures? Basically a service that does https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1198032.msg12624538#msg12624538 automatically.

[farreli]

Congratulations Amaclin for your successful attack . It seems that you have excellent coding skills, and thank you for invest your time showing to the bitcoin world such attack its feasible and possible.

Im totally agree with you, people only take things for free. Who support the core developers ? Bitcoin world, a 6 billion capitalization currency, lots of software implementations, lots of apps, lots os business, lots of transactions, but nobody cares about the code....someone will fix it ! they say

I think bitcoin its a powerful idea, and maybe a decentralized system is not cheaper, but i think its needed, its very possitive to have an alternative system, im convinced bitcoin will never scale and i think its better for the bitcoin ecosystem. Bitcoin will have a brillant future as an alternative currency : scarcity, secret, special, tool, elite ,... = value

So we have a brillant currency, but we dont want flaws, so a professional team of developers , 10 full time c developers well motivated and well payd its mandatory, how? through commissions... bitcoin network users must to pay for this service or there is no brillant future for bitcoin.

[amaclin]

but nobody cares about the code....someone will fix it !

Who? You? Me? Thanks, but no thanks

I think bitcoin its a powerful idea

Just one another ponzi scheme.

, and maybe a decentralized system is not cheaper, but i think its needed

No, it is not needed.

Bitcoin will have a brillant future as an alternative currency : scarcity, secret, special, tool, elite ,... = value

No, there is no future for any crypto. It is too expensive for maintaining.

So we have a brillant currency

Wrong. You have nothing, but 50 GB of junk data on your harddrive and a dream to be a $ millionare.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

but nobody cares about the code....someone will fix it !

Who? You? Me? Thanks, but no thanks

I think bitcoin its a powerful idea

Just one another ponzi scheme.

, and maybe a decentralized system is not cheaper, but i think its needed

No, it is not needed.

Bitcoin will have a brillant future as an alternative currency : scarcity, secret, special, tool, elite ,... = value

No, there is no future for any crypto. It is too expensive for maintaining.

So we have a brillant currency

Wrong. You have nothing, but 50 GB of junk data on your harddrive and a dream to be a $ millionare.

Good time for this post.  Marks the one year anniversary of Amaclin's prediction of $10 BTC "...within three months..."

[amaclin]

Good time for this post.  Marks the one year anniversary of Amaclin's prediction of $10 BTC "...within three months..."

I was wrong.
I thought that bitcoiners are more clever and able to do basic arithmentics
I was wrong.
They are dumb hodlers
Ok, this bubble is alive even today

[farreli]

Oh for sure we need a decentralized monetary system, and a decentralized world too.

You mention Tragedy of commons , an example of that you have in 2008 Lehman brothers collapse, pursuing they own rationale incentives, the banks and investment funds destroyed their loveled system, a flawed one , more than malleable,...

I have no time to arguee more,... but think , we have a world of 6 billion people , and surprise !! there are almost 100 people who control all this minds, they have the power. You are a smart guy, give me a reason why you are not  in this group of 100.

In the year 2116 people will laugh about this social-economical comepetitive system, and for sure they will ask themselves,.... why. 

In the year 1816 there was 8 year old children working at coal mines, not too smart i think , better for society in overal to keep those children learning things, so we ask ourselves today ,.... why.

Bitcoin and other cryptos are flawed? ok, but we are on the way, we have to explore , if we take a snapshop of global economy today , is not very promising , and is not a fair game, ...as a westerner i believe i have no more rights over a chinesse , indian or Tuvalu citizen to live in this world, so i dont pursue be millonarie, i pursue a better world for all

[amaclin]

Oh for sure we need

"we need" is not equal to "anyone wants to pay for it"

[alani123]

Good time for this post.  Marks the one year anniversary of Amaclin's prediction of $10 BTC "...within three months..."

I was wrong.
I thought that bitcoiners are more clever and able to do basic arithmentics
I was wrong.
They are dumb hodlers
Ok, this bubble is alive even today

Hey man, love your work. What brings you back to this forum? Did you suddenly feel an urge to bash bitcoiners?

[siameze]

Oh for sure we need

"we need" is not equal to "anyone wants to pay for it"

Such idealogy just smacks of communism doesn't it? Life is not fair, neither should we expect it to be.