|
Red Emerald
|
 |
March 09, 2012, 12:00:43 AM |
|
All of this technical stuff is way over my head, but I'd like to share my ignorant thoughts anyways.
It seems to me that 8 days is not enough time for people to really do their research on the matter. If I were a miner, or the operator of a mining pool, I would want to know EXACTLY what I'm doing before I made any serious changes.
Secondly, even if 8 days is enough time there is something unsettling about this. What you essentially have is a few highly skilled coders in the know. If they can dupe the mining community into something, anything, nefarious it could destroy Bitcoin. Obviously, I'm not saying that they will, but posit this:
Imagine highly skilled feds, or any other criminal organization, infiltrated the upper echelon of Bitcoin coders. They spent long hours making it better and building a reputation for themselves, slowly but surely dominating the entire field of coders. Then, one day, it's time to destroy Bitcoin and they issue some sort of scenario similar to the one we're dealing with now, for the mining community to go to a new blockchain or something, and the mining community takes their word for it, and BAM, Bitcoin is hashed forever.
I understand this is conspiracy theory stuff, but can anyone unsettle my fears about this scenario?
Simple. As long as the process is completely transparent and open there's really nothing anyone could "sneak" past everyone else in order to cause damage. And if you checked the OP, it pretty much doesn't get any more transparent then how they're going about with this fix. I mean you can even read the mailing list how the devs formulated the fix.. Two more questions then: Is 8 days really enough time to vet a potentially nefarious plan? What if a few people DO see something nefarious in it, will they be listened to, or ignored? Also (all?) of the coders are known by real name. If they f*ckup bitcoin, they will be known by everyone as the person who screwed things up. That would be the same as destroying many peoples money, and time invested and many companies and that is not like something you would like to do, ofcourse there is allways the possibility that they are threatened by jail or whatever unless they do this. But in this case its far from very likely. No one is going to jail for destroying someone else's bitcoins until a government considers bitcoin a currency. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The trust scores you see are subjective; they will change depending on who you have in your trust list. |
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
ssaCEO
|
|
March 09, 2012, 12:23:43 AM |
|
I'm running a CentOS 5.6 build that I had to compile myself. Major alterations had to be made to the make file and tons of libraries had to be prepared. And I really, really don't want to do that again.
Any chance of a CentOS binary anytime soon? I know a lot of merchant sites could really use one. And if not - what happens if we don't upgrade?
|
|
|
|
mc_lovin
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1190
Merit: 1000
www.bitcointrading.com
|
|
March 09, 2012, 01:28:46 AM |
|
Wow, I'm glad you guys are so smart. I posted this on BitcoinTrading.com to spread the word. Keep up the good work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
BlackPrapor
|
|
March 10, 2012, 01:37:14 PM |
|
Very unlikely. Someone would need to plan the attack very carefully, have huge amounts of hashing power hiding offline, and gain essentially nothing from it.
I don't see very much as unlikely when you're talking about challenging the global banking cartel.
Exactly. When you see these kind of guys rolling out of blue, and security fix is coming up, it makes you think twice before you do anything. Bankers can gain from this one thing, the only thing they want is total control. If BTC is destroyed, then there is no alternative. Or, it would have to be done all over again, from scratch, taking into account all previous mistakes. Cheers, May the BitForce be with you  |
There is no place like 127.0.0.1
In blockchain we trust
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 10, 2012, 08:05:43 PM |
|
Do we have an ETA on the patch getting merged and included in rc3 or whatever?
This is already part of 0.4.4rc3 and 0.5.3rc3. |
|
|
|
|
Diapolo
|
|
March 11, 2012, 10:37:11 AM |
|
Do we have an ETA on the patch getting merged and included in rc3 or whatever?
This is already part of 0.4.4rc3 and 0.5.3rc3. I guess the question was, when will an 0.6 RC3 be released, that includes this fix  . I use RC2 and don't want to switch back to 0.5.x. Dia |
|
|
|
|
neofutur
|
|
March 11, 2012, 10:53:55 AM |
|
Do we have an ETA on the patch getting merged and included in rc3 or whatever?
This is already part of 0.4.4rc3 and 0.5.3rc3. is there an ebuild and / or a USE flag for bip30 in the gentoo ebuild ? |
|
|
|
|
Pieter Wuille (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1072
Merit: 1174
|
|
March 15, 2012, 04:38:24 PM |
|
|
I do Bitcoin stuff.
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 15, 2012, 05:03:30 PM |
|
is there an ebuild and / or a USE flag for bip30 in the gentoo ebuild ? There are 0.4.4 and 0.5.3 ebuilds. It's not optional, so no USE flag. |
|
|
|
Luke-Jr
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2576
Merit: 1186
|
|
March 26, 2012, 09:17:29 PM |
|
FWIW, this issue has been assigned CVE-2012-1909
|
|
|
|
|
