Satoshis vision question.

[blockchain2k]

One of Satoshis main points were no forced updates, but that means that someone can still exploit the network by not updating. Infact if a mining pool wants money they can exploit the network by downgrading, right?

[1715286552]

1715286552

[1715286552]

1715286552

[pooya87]

One of Satoshis main points were no forced updates,

how did you come up with that conclusion?
bugs do happen in software development and sometimes they are critical and need to be fixed right away. it has happened before during "satoshi time" https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

but that means that someone can still exploit the network by not updating. Infact if a mining pool wants money they can exploit the network by downgrading, right?

if the bug is found then there is no way you can exploit it because the network will be aware of it after it is found and the "network" will always reject anything that is invalid within seconds. if a mining pool decides to do it then they will essentially fork themselves on an alternative chain that is rejected by the rest of the network and will be mining an altcoin.

[bones261]

but that means that someone can still exploit the network by not updating. Infact if a mining pool wants money they can exploit the network by downgrading, right?

if the bug is found then there is no way you can exploit it because the network will be aware of it after it is found and the "network" will always reject anything that is invalid within seconds. if a mining pool decides to do it then they will essentially fork themselves on an alternative chain that is rejected by the rest of the network and will be mining an altcoin.

Yes, but currently, there still seems to be a good number of nodes still running software that is vulnerable. https://coin.dance/nodes That means an attacking miner can fool a good portion of the network until the legitimate chain once again becomes the chain with the most work from the standpoint of the vulnerable nodes. I suppose an attacker couldn't do too much damage with the small time frame.

[ImHash]

No forced updates would also mean that the attacker would sit in a vantage point of an exploit, If an attacker could do any damage to the network by not updating or by downgrading, What makes you think that the rest of the network couldn't do the same to the attacker?
In bitcoin, Anyone with the most of the hashrate would want to keep the network safe and secure from any attacker, Once you have the hash power to do any sort of serious attack, You'd be attacking yourself, No one would do that. Small attackers would have no luck as long as they are small and against the most powerful miners, Those miners are the ones keeping the network safe because they own the network.

[coinwizard_]

Satoshi left bitcoin in safe hands. Gavin has access to the source code and can enforce any necessary updates if needed. So far there has not been a need to hit the alert button, the days of a 51 attack have passed.

[franky1]

One of Satoshis main points were no forced updates,

how did you come up with that conclusion?

its called "consensus"

i think the OP meant UPGRADES. not critical bug updates
EG the difference between the mandatory segwit UPGRADE ... vs the 0.16.3 critical UPDATE

segwits team of the mandatory game plan due to not getting the amount of votes needed but having private investor $25m contract deadline of november 2017 was just wrong on so many levels. to threaten pools with block rejects and nodes with ip bans if they didnt comply in august

i do find it funny how they are not organising such mandatory node ban ceremony to protect the network, but did so for an upgrade