This man should not be taken seriously.
View quoted note β
Login to reply
Replies (44)
He went off the deep end. Effen crazy.
Yeah? Sounds like a good argument. Jimmy song too? Samson Mow?
BDS
Why?
Bad actor?
@Matthew Kratter has a long history of being a bad actor in the Bitcoin space. He has so many videos discussing the virtues of Bitcoin and why people should adopt it. Have you seen his views on freedom? The guy actually thinks I should be free to run whatever FOSS software I want on hardware I own. He's also advocating for running alternative software if I agree with his position. Not by force, but by choice! Can you believe it? What a bad actor.
Its you who should not be taken seriously.
Wrong
Yeah⦠all of that while FUDing an defaming all the way through.
You bad actor too?
Indeed! I check with the core team
They said βhe is retardedβ
CHECKMATE!
View quoted note β
Its wild we are at a point in Bitcoin filter discourse that a failed day trading instructor is seen as a credible authority to make comments on bitcoin development.
Its all gutter tier TMZ drama reporting on people, no technical merits (because they chose to not understand).
Can't block on Nostr Kratter π
View quoted note β
View quoted note →
Its wild we are at a point in Bitcoin filter discourse that a failed day trading instructor is seen as a credible authority to make comments on bitcoin development.
Its all gutter tier TMZ drama reporting on people, no technical merits (because they chose to not understand).
Can't block on Nostr Kratter π
View quoted note β
View quoted note →
I love a good appeal to authority instead of a break down of the actual arguments.
Who's authority? I have my own node impl better than knots or core.
You should run it.
GitHub
GitHub - average-gary/bitcoin-garrys-mod: Bitcoin Garry's Mod
Bitcoin Garry's Mod. Contribute to average-gary/bitcoin-garrys-mod development by creating an account on GitHub.
Defaming? Sounds like a statist to me.
Maybe I will!
Outside of the inflooenser yada yada. Are we saying that the Read-only containers that AWS hosts DOESN'T scan for malware? Because that would be a very big attack surface for them. If so, would not the contiguous bytes of a malware file not fit the fingerprint of the fuzzy hash digest they would check against? Meaning rightly or wrongly, they would assume the transaction being verified is a malware executable and kill the VM?
Is that truly not an attack vector? I kind of don't even understand how that's not within the realm of possibility. Again I AM NOT SAYING THE MALWARE IS EXECUTABLE. Just that the fingerprint could read as such to the hypervisor watchdog.
Right... Again I am not talking about activation or deployment... The point is FOR the malware to be found. THAT is the attack. The reflexive response. I don't care about embedded data, steganographic or otherwise. You literally CAN'T put contiguous bytes together to trip Malware detectors now because of the PUSHDATA limit (unless Side-channeled obvsly).
Also, can we not throw AI outputs at each other? Especially when it completely misses the point the other person is making?
Because 29% of BTC nodes are hosted on AWS. This signature detection would kill the VMs running Core on those servers. Meaning 29% of the network suddenly goes offline.
And my point was that it IS relevant to the point I was making. Which again, is not "malware activating due to blocks having packages embedded in them"
My point is if you want to shut the airport down you don't hide the gun, you wave it around so everyone can see.
This misses my point.
Yes, in this analogy, the bitcoin network would be the airport. The malware would be the gun.
Absolutely. But there's ownership risk then there's intentional disruption. I mean if someone found an exploit to target node runners through their specific ISP *cough* Shinobi *cough* that would also be bad and tough to mitigate.
I am not talking existential. I am talking adoption progress.
For exchanges that use them for feerate, for economic nodes for transaction broadcast utility, for miners for gossip relay, kind of a lot of things.
It absolutely does. I have pulled their docs many times to show their guard dog service kills VMs if malware is signature identified. I feel like you may be thinking first order effects and not secondary and terceary effects. I swear I am not as dumb as I look, and I don't take Luke, Mechanic, Murch, Antoine, Voskiul, or any other dev or talking head at face value. I take what they say and check it for validity.
How do you scan encrypted content, genius?
When you have to validate the content, also genius.
Nodes don't validate OP_return content, moron.
Oh, you don't know what you are talking about, cool.
Damn, cold Gary.
LMAO.
Shitcoiner
Yes. "We don't care" doesn't mean "bytes not read" on validation. The bytes don't magically disappear. They are pruned post script read.
Can you show me what lines of code read the OP_RETURN data?
This actually took we quite a while because the serialization, Output definitions, and where it is added to the output stream is like 4 different files.
SERIALIZE_METHODS is a macro that writes both nValue and scriptPubKey(including the OP_RETURN and all its data push to the transaction output stream.
GitHub
bitcoin/src/primitives/transaction.h at 919e6d01e93a57d991ed456bc67c43605583ada8 Β· bitcoin/bitcoin
Bitcoin Core integration/staging tree. Contribute to bitcoin/bitcoin development by creating an account on GitHub.
π―π―
Looking forward to the crash out. can we get a pool going on the date?
Need to unpack that macro more
Just think logically, if the data is retrievable later (the whole point of saving the arbitrary data in the first place) it has to be saved somewhere and passed to the next node.
Yes, for the purposes of creating and parsing UTXOs the OP_RETURN data is not needed but, it is still read and written to memory.
Right be what are you deserializing as indicatea
the intent.
There is already case law on this.