Gloria Zhao got hacked?

[DeeppRockk]

Bitcoin's only supported and sanction use case was always money. Read the white paper title.You can not use fake pubkeys to store a jpeg and claim it's a supported use case.You can not use fake scripthash to store a jpeg and claim it's a supported use case.jSegwit stands for Segregated Witness. It does not stand for Segregated Jpeg.Every spammer knows that the only supported use case is money. That's why they work so hard to make their spam look like a legit monetary transaction with fake pubkeys, fake scripthash, fake witness, and barely enough sats to skirt the dust limit.

you're framing the question wrong. the white paper is a proposal, not law. the 'supported use case' is literally whatever the consensus rules permit.

inscriptions work because taproot script paths allow it. are they using script hashes in an unanticipated way?

obviously. but calling them 'fake' is technically incorrect- they're valid scriptpubkeys committing to witness data, a feature enabled by segwit v1. the dust limit is a policy rule, easy to bypass.

the network validates scripts and signatures, it doesn't care about intent. if you want to call it a resource misuse, fine, but argue it correctly: it's about block space economics and miner incentives. the code is the law, and the law allows this.

[Wind_FURY]

"Sanction".

Laughable.

Typo fixed.

If your idea of Bitcoin is for the network to censor transactions that didn't break any consensus rule, then you probably run your network with a centralized database that the filterbois control.

If you try to repurpose bitcoin for anything other than money, we will viciously attack you.
If you use fake pubkeys, fake scripthash, or fake witness, we will viciously attack you.
That is my promise to you.

Bitcoin is permissionless and censorship-resistant. Nothing was "repurposed", and it's working like it's designed to do. No consensus rules were broken. If you want to blame someone for designing the network that way, then blame Satoshi.

But you're a troll, and the only reason I'm replying to you is for the benefit of the newbies to learn something.

Welcome to my ignore list.

 

[nutildah]

If you try to repurpose bitcoin for anything other than money, we will viciously attack you.
If you use fake pubkeys, fake scripthash, or fake witness, we will viciously attack you.
That is my promise to you.

Wow, resulting to threats when you don't get your way. Its not very becoming of you nor does it propel your argument in a positive direction. I know you think you're making a difference by "raising awareness" of "serious issues," but you've yet to make a dent in anybody here's opinion about anything. Your cause would have been helped by more rational arguments and less emotion. Also a willingness to accept that alternate viewpoints exist and you may have to cooperate with those that hold them to get what you want might help.

the network validates scripts and signatures, it doesn't care about intent. if you want to call it a resource misuse, fine, but argue it correctly: it's about block space economics and miner incentives. the code is the law, and the law allows this.

Well said. I don't think it could be explained any more clearly.

[Wind_FURY]

If you try to repurpose bitcoin for anything other than money, we will viciously attack you.
If you use fake pubkeys, fake scripthash, or fake witness, we will viciously attack you.
That is my promise to you.

Wow, resulting to threats when you don't get your way. Its not very becoming of you nor does it propel your argument in a positive direction. I know you think you're making a difference by "raising awareness" of "serious issues," but you've yet to make a dent in anybody here's opinion about anything. Your cause would have been helped by more rational arguments and less emotion. Also a willingness to accept that alternate viewpoints exist and you may have to cooperate with those that hold them to get what you want might help.

What "threat" and what "attack" could they actually do except threaten for another UASF. But this time it's a Hash War that they can't win.

But if they truly want to, then OK - Fork It. Let the market decide which fork is actually more valuable.

[ertil]

You can not use fake scripthash to store a jpeg and claim it's a supported use case.

Meanwhile, Satoshi in 2010 supported sending coins to trapped addresses:

I like Hal Finney's idea for user-friendly timestamping.  Convert the hash of a file to a bitcoin address and send 0.01 to it:

I thought of a simple way to implement the timestamp concept I mentioned above. Run sha1sum on the file you want to timestamp. Convert the result to a Bitcoin address, such as via http://blockexplorer.com/q/hashtoaddress . Then send a small payment to that address.

The money will be lost forever, as there is no way to spend it further, but the timestamp Bitcoin address will remain in the block chain as a record of the file's existence.

I understand that this is arguably not a good use of the Bitcoin distributed database, but nothing stops people from doing this so we should be aware that it may be done.

So, would you support sending coins to fake hashes, just because Satoshi agreed with Hal in the past? Or would you rather agree, that Satoshi also made some mistakes?

[savetheFORUM]

People for some reason do to understand that that "bitcoin" can't be hacked, it's the work some people do on it that could be hacked but that's it, you just... don't pass it and move on? Why is that so hard to understand for people, it's clear that this is how you do better and this is how you get the results that you want.

I understand that you may feel some degree of fear there is no doubt about that and I get it, but that is not how this works at all. Developers could end up working on whatever they want and it is not on the chain itself as long as you do no want it, and only after we accept it that it would be there, so if she worked on something and gets hacked then we just don't have to accept that into the chain and we would be fine.

[PepeLapiu]

Meanwhile, Satoshi in 2010 supported sending coins to trapped addresses:

I'm thinking that he likely could not imagine that this simple concept would be used to store entire files on bitcoin.

Here is an other interesting Satoshi quote when someone suggested adding new "use cases" to bitcoin:

Piling every proof-of-work quorum system in the world into one dataset doesn't scale.

Bitcoin and BitDNS can be used separately.  Users shouldn't have to download all of both to use one or the other.  BitDNS users may not want to download everything the next several unrelated networks decide to pile in either.

The networks need to have separate fates.  BitDNS users might be completely liberal about adding any large data features since relatively few domain registrars are needed, while Bitcoin users might get increasingly tyrannical about limiting the size of the chain so it's easy for lots of users and small devices.

[ertil]

Here is an other interesting Satoshi quote when someone suggested adding new "use cases" to bitcoin:

Yes, and literally just one sentence above what I quoted, he wrote that:

If there's an actual application like BitDNS getting ready to actually start inserting hashes, we can always add a specific transaction template for timestamps.

So, what now? What is OP_RETURN, if not "a specific transaction template for timestamps"? But even if it is not the case, then still: Satoshi wrote about making a different transaction type, just to support this use case, for example for BitDNS. And if you don't like OP_RETURN, then how do you want to support transaction timestamping? Or are you going to say, that Satoshi made a mistake, by explicitly talking about supporting such use cases?

[nutildah]

But if they truly want to, then OK - Fork It. Let the market decide which fork is actually more valuable.

Honestly I'd prefer not having to go through that again. I don't think anybody really wants that except for the radicalized factions on both ends of the debate - who, coincidentally - are in the minority and don't really speak up here. The thing is there is no real "problem" with Bitcoin, at least not currently, so there's no actual financial incentive to fork, where people are losing money because Bitcoin is the way that it is. Hypothetical moral or legal dilemmas that have yet to manifest themselves in reality in any shape or form don't count as "problems."

[PepeLapiu]

The thing is there is no real "problem" with Bitcoin, at least not currently

I disagree.
The big miners are actively bypassing filters with a tool a core contributors built for them - Peter Todd's LibreRelay - which was built expressly to promote spam.

All the while core gets busy ignoring the problem by calling spam "out of band transactions" or "new use cases we have today".

Slipstream and LibreRelay are expressly built and used to promote more spam on Bitcoin.

That big pools are effectively forming a cartel to bypass filters is of great concern to me. And it's even an even bigger concern when core claims we have to align our mempools with what they want to mine.

[PepeLapiu]

So, what now? What is OP_RETURN, if not "a specific transaction template for timestamps"? But even if it is not the case, then still: Satoshi wrote about making a different transaction type, just to support this use case, for example for BitDNS. And if you don't like OP_RETURN, then how do you want to support transaction timestamping? Or are you going to say, that Satoshi made a mistake, by explicitly talking about supporting such use cases?

It appears to me that Satoshi was conflicted on the use of timestamps on bitcoin versus "use cases" that could bloat the chain.

I don't think he envisioned almost half of the UTXO set being bloated with 330 sats UTXOs. I don't think he envisioned pictures and other files being put on chain.

And I don't mind op_return too much, so long as it's kepts under 83B. Timestamps don't need more than that.