Storemen Gudrun

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@We_Are_Satoshi @thecoastguy @CsTominaga Realtoshi

[Babbage | BRC100 @ProjectBabbage]

@steverabinow @Eatmybitcorn We’ve covered this distinction in more detail here:

https://t.co/K4PgMBuGIT

That thread has the fuller context. I don’t think it helps anyone to restart the same loop under every reply.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@ProjectBabbage @steverabinow Social coordination is at the core of Bitcoin. The original Bitcoin Alert Key was an emergency system that allowed developers to broadcast network-wide messages to all Bitcoin nodes. It was built to warn users about critical bugs or network issues.

[Babbage | BRC100 @ProjectBabbage]

@steverabinow @Eatmybitcorn Social coordination was always part of the system.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@ProjectBabbage @steverabinow Yes I will leave it there as well. Anyone with reason will see that Steve painted himself into a corner.

Anyone interested in learning how bitcoin works should listen to AA. It was common knowledge back when BTC was bitcoin.

https://t.co/3MpV1wr8LF

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage Great. Now apply that same standard to BSV 2021: the attacker's double-spend chain was 'never valid' because it broke Bitcoin's rules, even though it was longer. You just argued yourself into agreeing with the BSV rollback. You're welcome.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage Steve, you said the 184B BTC transaction was 'never valid' because it broke Bitcoin's rules, even though the code accepted it and it was in the longest chain.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage Again broken by Satoshi himself.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage You're confusing 'can happen' with 'should be accepted.' If double-spends are valid, why did Core patch CVE-2018-17144? Why did BTC roll back 184B BTC? Answer: because validity matters more than chain length. Always has. You just don't like it when it applies to a chain you hate.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage @cryptoupdate_io No i read the whitepaper.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage Satoshi said double-spends are possible, he never said they're valid. If a longer chain with invalid transactions wins, Bitcoin has no rules at all. You can't defend the 2010 rollback and condemn the 2021 one without admitting you're moving the goalpost.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage Broken by Satoshi in 2010.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage This Satoshi himself broke in 2010.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage And "try" the attacker did. Success was not granted.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage Try reading. He can "TRY". What honest nodes should accept, Satoshi said only valid transactions.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage A double-spend is, by definition, spending the same coin twice. That violates the most fundamental rule of Bitcoin. Validity isn't determined by chain length it's determined by whether inputs are unspent.

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage In fact, the whitepaper makes clear that invalid transactions are rejected (Section 5: "Nodes accept the block only if all transactions in it are valid and not already spent").

[Storemen Gudrun @Eatmybitcorn]

@steverabinow @ProjectBabbage In the WP Satoshi described what an attacker can do, not what honest nodes must accept as valid.