Yeah. I'd rather you hadn't done that personally.
> If some duplicate inputs would have been permitted without crashing nodes then the update appears to fit the definition of soft fork. If this were the case it would be a complete failure of the system, rather than a…
> Previously, blocks containing transactions with duplicate inputs would have been considered valid. Now, such a block will be rejected by patched nodes. No, they would have crashed the node, they would not have been…
> The cost of the attack would far exceed ~80k USD in bitcoin block rewards because it requires a substantial amount of hashing power to have a realistic chance of successfully producing a block that reaches consensus…
I agree, essentially. It's actually fascinating how broken something can be and have multi million dollar a day trading volume. It shows a complete disconnect between what exists (the network), and what is being…
You can walk the network and crash all nodes with listening sockets, this ruins pretty much everything. There's some non-public infrastructure that would perhaps make mining continue, but non-listening nodes can't exist…
The ethereum network has substantial issues stemming from very poorly defined consensus rules, which manage to grow in complexity every time you look away. The sheer scale of the consensus critical code makes it review…
> This article is wrong and plain ol' fearmongering. A coordinated denial of service on network nodes is theoretical at best, as it would require a series of further, orchestrated actions on the rest of the blocks to…
> Nobody would have lost any money or bitcoins. That's not entirely true. The current crop of Lightning Network nodes rely on their host being up for the safety of their channels. If their node is not contactable for…
Bitcoin Core has, from day one, been a remarkably safe code base generally speaking. The protocol is free (or used to be) of any string manipulation or other behavior that often leads to code execution. Many major issue…
> Do the blocks need to be mined twice? Or do you just have to submit a garbage block for the second one? No. One transaction included twice in a single block.
Yeah. I'd rather you hadn't done that personally.
> If some duplicate inputs would have been permitted without crashing nodes then the update appears to fit the definition of soft fork. If this were the case it would be a complete failure of the system, rather than a…
> Previously, blocks containing transactions with duplicate inputs would have been considered valid. Now, such a block will be rejected by patched nodes. No, they would have crashed the node, they would not have been…
> The cost of the attack would far exceed ~80k USD in bitcoin block rewards because it requires a substantial amount of hashing power to have a realistic chance of successfully producing a block that reaches consensus…
I agree, essentially. It's actually fascinating how broken something can be and have multi million dollar a day trading volume. It shows a complete disconnect between what exists (the network), and what is being…
You can walk the network and crash all nodes with listening sockets, this ruins pretty much everything. There's some non-public infrastructure that would perhaps make mining continue, but non-listening nodes can't exist…
The ethereum network has substantial issues stemming from very poorly defined consensus rules, which manage to grow in complexity every time you look away. The sheer scale of the consensus critical code makes it review…
> This article is wrong and plain ol' fearmongering. A coordinated denial of service on network nodes is theoretical at best, as it would require a series of further, orchestrated actions on the rest of the blocks to…
> Nobody would have lost any money or bitcoins. That's not entirely true. The current crop of Lightning Network nodes rely on their host being up for the safety of their channels. If their node is not contactable for…
Bitcoin Core has, from day one, been a remarkably safe code base generally speaking. The protocol is free (or used to be) of any string manipulation or other behavior that often leads to code execution. Many major issue…
> Do the blocks need to be mined twice? Or do you just have to submit a garbage block for the second one? No. One transaction included twice in a single block.