These people are not serious people.
21
2
169
Replies
@brian_trollz The BIP 444 proposal is incredibly bad A bad actor who wants to conduct a double spend attack, could put CSAM onchain to cause a re-org and succed with their attack The proposal therefore provides an economic incentive for onchain CSAM
41
50
283
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz It would also freeze coins in miniscript wallets by removing OP_IF/OP_NOTIF.
2
3
23
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz They’re gonna have to hard fork to get their permissioned, centralised committee-run monetary ledger up & running
3
0
14
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Actually this is brilliant use of a game tree. The only move available that doesn't invite CSAM is to soft fork.
0
0
9
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Probably wait for a lot more confirmations than usual for the next few months then
3
0
6
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz @Puncher522 @TomerStrolight @tomyoungjr @dotkrueger @LorenHodl is this something you support?
1
0
5
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Ok, but couldn't they also trigger a reorg by putting the sermon in mount (KJV duh) there as this exceeds the threshold?
1
0
5
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Facilitating more ways to weigh Bitcoin down with unnecessary data is not The Way. SegWit & Taproot increased vulnerabilities that Core ignored. Regardless of legal risks, we need to defend Bitcoin from unnecessary data.
6
2
40
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz “This is an emergency response” “No time for careful deployment” “Since this results in an incoherent consensus system…” LMAO wut
1
2
30
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz It's even worse. Anyone that transacted in blocks that get reorged can also double-spend their transaction via RBF even if they weren't the attacker. They can just use this opportunity.
2
1
27
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Hate to break it to you, but bitcoin’s very existence is so disruptive it doesn’t need any additional incentives for attackers to exploit CSAM Flood Attack vulnerability.
0
1
24
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Luke is obviously an agent. This is a blatant attack on bitcoin and he's gonna take a lot of OGs that lost the plot to his permissioned fork with him.
0
0
22
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Core are providing mechanisms for user to easily upload CSAM to the timechain.
0
0
14
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Yep, that’s exactly what Peter Todd did when he authored the OP_Return PR on behalf of a third party whom only had corporate interests and bad intentions in mind. He began this BTC vector attack which started this WAR. Now y’all crying about BIP 444, checkmate you CP b*tches.
0
1
11
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz We’ve been trying to prevent that scenario and will continue to do so. The fact that you don’t care about the risk says more about you than us. The proposal provides no such economic incentive, that already exists for nation states not wanting to lose access to the money printer
0
0
10
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Not gonna give a single sec for these morons in future to listen to their opinions. I hope they fork off for serious now
0
0
6
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Bitcoin will never do anything as an "emergency response" over a contentious issue like this. There is no chance this goes anywhere
0
0
5
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz @CaminaDrummer4 I didn’t call it exactly, but also I totally called it.
@CaminaDrummer4 @adam3us Fees reduce DDOS. Filtering might actually introduce a new DDOS avenue...
1
0
4
Yikes BitMex coming out in favor of Unspeakable JPEGs on chain Cancel all @BitMEX accounts, IMMEDIATELY A reorg under 444 will only reorg that particular transaction and there is zero way to predict exactly when that reorg will happen to exploit it and pull off a double spend
1
0
4
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Wait, I still haven't read it. But retrospective activation and overwriting old blocks = chain split. lol
0
0
3
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Do these guys even believe in proof of work or they are some shitcoiners ?
3
0
3
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Its a WIP, but we are mostly signalling the miners that we are serious about this. Hopefully it works while we hammer out a more sane soft fork.
0
0
2
4
0
1
0
0
1
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Lets modify the BIP and propose changes. Lets not give either the government and spammers the easy chess move by making a mistake now @LukeDashjr @oomahq
1
0
1
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Unfortunately this is inevitable
@_Checkmatey_ What will be really sad is when someone on the Knots side anonymously commits CSAM to the blockchain to make their point so they can all point to it and say, “See! I told you so!” If someone can get more power from a crisis, they will create the crisis.
0
0
1
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz Has this even been submitted to the bitcoin-dev mailing list? Is Luke really the only one running the show over there? Knots is really beginning to embarrass themselves
0
0
1
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz does it also create moral or ethics incentives to say 'fuck core' ?
0
0
0
@BitMEXResearch @brian_trollz BIP 444 proposal is MADNESS ! Bitcoin is being tortured now. No to core v30 op return! No to knots fork! Bring privacy to btc network and solve this mess. https://t.co/BIoJc8WQaD
0
0
4