In order to combat a rise in spam submissions, a minimum account age has been set for this subreddit. If you have read the rules and still feel your submission is relevant to this community, please message the moderators for approval.
Your submission was automatically filtered because coindesk.com is not an approved site. You can read more about the changes on /r/altcoin this here. If you think coindesk.com should be whitelisted, please submit coindesk.com here.
Yes, all bad news is horseshit and fud and we should only talk about good things.. This sub is like the fox news of crypto.. Do you not realize that, had this been exploited, your entire investment could be worth $0? Does that AT ALL bother you??? Christ almighty, you people and your whatabouting will be the downfall of these systems. This would be UNACCEPTABLE had it happened to the thing everyone touts as outdated (visa) yet with bitcoin it's just fud and let's just all pretend nothing bad ever happened..
Are you suggesting we should suppress negative info to try and trick newbies into buying?? No wonder Bitcoin didn't get the damn ETF...
You're being downvoted because this sub is garbage. People only fucking care about bull runs and Lambos anymore, nobody gives a shit about the technology apparently... I really hope there are supporters out there (not on reddit) that don't fall prey to this tribal bullshit...
btceacc11 months old | CC: 1173 karma MIOTA: 2057 karma1 month ago
Exactly what isn't tribal about your accusatory title?
Now, I know we're all excited for the upcoming bull run, but be careful with downvoting posts like this, This is not "FUD", it's a real, serious problem. There was a network-breaking bug out there for OVER A YEAR that GOT WORSE over time, and developers decided to keep it a secret while they attempted to fix it.. That's SERIOUS..
Not only that, but projects that forked off Bitcoin in that time may also still have this vulnerability..
Luckily nobody discovered it or used it (as far as we know), but to everyone out there yelling "Bitcoin's never had a bug!!!", well, this doesn't look to great does it...
Robby165 months old | Karma CC: 1841 BTC: 5681 month ago
Get a clue lol.
No, that's standard practise in the security industry for disclosing vulnerabilities. Literally every single company in the world will not disclose discovered vulnerabilities until after they are fixed. Doing otherwise is suicide. Absolutely nothing remotely unprofessional with how they handled it
Funny you tell me to get a clue, so.. why are you using cryptocurrencies then? If you want some private company privately fixing bugs on their private network, then use Visa. We aren't using a product designed by a company, and for that exact reason your response makes no sense.. Bitcoin is owned and operated by it's users, and as such, should be maintained by its users. You want a big group of a few devs making decisions and modifying the whole network? That's what EOS does. Yet this sub shits all over EOS for essentially doing exactly what Btc did here...
grumpyfrench10875 karma | Karma CC: 801 NANO: 3671 month ago
>There was a network-breaking bug out there for OVER A YEAR that GOT WORSE over time, and developers decided to keep it a secret while they attempted to fix it.. That's SERIOUS..
The fact that you think developers should have made this exploit public makes me seriously doubt your intelligence.
>we all develop it
you must have a very loose definition of "develop". if your name isn't on a repo or two, you aren't a BTC/crypto developer. you are a BTC/crypto user. Nothing wrong with that. Nothing wrong with a few developers discovering an exploit that is unknown to the public and quietly fixing it instead of making a big federal case about it.
This is actually scary, there needs to be ways to protect and reassurevpeople they’re not going to lose everything. What if theres another serious bug they havent found yet and a malicious hacker finds it first?
We know that it was awemany of BU. Why can’t that be positively acknowledged ?
earlz found it later according to the published timeline, and probably because the first DOS element lead directly to the inflation issue.
No, rolled back because the longest chain is the valid one. The invalid, inflated chain, would not have been kept after the fix.
The DAO happened due to a malicious dev making perfectly valid and legal use of Eth's scripting language.
The most important difference is that the DAO situation was a bailout of a private organization and a deviation from expected system behavior, whereas in this case an unexpected bug in the system would be uncontroversially undone. Nobody on Earth is going to seriously suggest that because of this bug, Bitcoin should now allow anyone to print as much BTC as they want. Similarly, if a bug in Script was found which allowed you to spend anyone's BTC, and this was exploited, then it would be totally justified to undo all of those theft transactions.
You want to minimize this sort of manual intervention, firstly because it's just very disruptive, and secondly because in large part the point of Bitcoin is to remove fallible humans from this stuff. But economics/money is an inherently human thing, and furthermore nobody knows how to make bug-free software yet, so from time to time these sorts of manual adjustments have been and will continue to be necessary.
The ability to make manual changes is what allows us to say that Bitcoin isn't ruled by miners. If "the code was king", then miners could softfork in anything they wanted (including certain types of evil denial-of-service+sidechain schemes which could be viewed as subsidy increases), and Bitcoin absolutely would be ruled by miners. This *isn't* the case only because we can hardfork to a different PoW in the event of such an attack by miners.
A less philosophically-important but more practically-important difference between this and the DAO incident is that this was a softfork, so:
* It has very clear precedent in the value overflow incident, which was a similar bug resolved in a similar softfork, though in that case some blocks were *actually* deleted / rolled back.
* Only a majority of miners and/or an economic supermajority need to upgrade in order for everyone to be protected. You don't need *literally everyone* to upgrade.
* In the aftermath of an attack, the end result would look like a long reorg, which is within the realm of expected system behavior. Risk is related to number of confirmations, in the end you get a consistent block chain with consistent transaction chains, etc.
There may be some differences between this and the DAO, but there are a lot a lot of similarities.
The biggest similarity with the DAO, is it wasn't just a private organization that was effected. IT EFFECTED ANY ETH HOLDER. The amount of ETH that was put into the hands of one actor pretty much guaranteed the market to be fucked for years to come. Saying it only effected DAO people is just not true.
If there was a list of the [50 most heavily moderated subreddits](https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/9huvwc/oc_the_top_50_subreddits_in_july_2018_with_the/) made by sampling the data, and this one wasn't on it; would that convince you otherwise?
Not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but the censorship you refer to I call moderation, and I'm very glad mods to enforce it strictly. (Not strict enough, sometimes, imo.) Makes the conversations around here much more pleasant and, mostly, about Bitcoin. shitcoins are not welcome here, and neither are their shills.
Btw, keep talking about censorship... it's a great way to get banned. After a while, it just gets annoying, having to explain moderation is not censorship.