Dathon Pwn

If the database doesn’t work, bitcoin can’t be money.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

https://t.co/XbHjySaRlB

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@start9labs @dathon_ohm @LukeDashjr If its not a consensus bug, why is there a patch to make sure there are no consensus issues?

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

Thank you to Start9 for patching the Block Slop consensus bug that is in the BIP 110 activation client, left unpatched by @dathon_ohm and @LukeDashjr

[Start9 @start9labs]

From: Core or Knots (pre-RDTS)
To: Knots (BIP-110 RDTS)
Code: https://t.co/ODR228w0CE

From: Knots (BIP-110 RDTS)
To: Core or Knots (pre-RDTS)
Code: https://t.co/3n1cuycfHM

Pruned handled as well.

Same recovery module in all six PRs (Core 28–31, Knots RDTS and pre-RDTS)

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@MayaPar25 @adam3us @phil_geiger Dathon Ohm was the vibe coder, he had acknowledged as much.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@time2hodl @MrHodl @LukeDashjr @dathon_ohm He has blocked me instead of addressing his consensus bug.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

Unfortunately, @LukeDashjr is lying (he blocked me so I'm unable to engage with him directly).

BlockSlop (linked below) is a well known consensus bug vector, so much so that BIP 148/Segwit nodes had specific checks against this, as I cited in my report.

More info 👇

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

Link to the consensus bug:

https://t.co/mVLkpYvQNQ

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

https://t.co/XbHjySaRlB

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

In my report, the reasoning behind doing a public disclosure was shared.

We are 3 weeks out from a UASF, it is not Luke's call on if those nodes should be informed of the bug (which, as you can see from his posts, he doesn't think is necessary).

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

Looks like BIP 110 added an additional consensus rule in their code, but not documented in the BIP.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@Mandrik Fortunately it will fail, for many reasons including the fact it has a consensus bug in the implementation.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

https://t.co/XbHjySaRlB

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@rleder @dathon_ohm You are correctly informed to the incentives of a UASF when one side has less than 1% hashrate.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@rleder @dathon_ohm I am simply pointing out that BIP110 has a consensus bug in it.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

https://t.co/XbHjySaRlB

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@vostrnad @dathon_ohm @murchandamus This is concisely and narrowly scoped. The issue is with BIP110, not BIP433.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@vostrnad @dathon_ohm @murchandamus @JimAndrews77 You are correct, because P2A specified no change to consensus.

Therefore, BIP 110 has undocumented consensus changes in its documentation.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@boomer_btc @stephanlivera @jamesviggy @GrassFedBitcoin I would exercise caution in following the heaviest chain that emerges.

There is a consensus bug in the 110 activation client disclosed could result in following neither chain.
@LukeDashjr @dathon_ohm @cguida6 and @GrassFedBitcoin are all aware of this.

https://t.co/mVLkpYvQNQ

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

https://t.co/XbHjySaRlB

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@asanoha_gold How many pro-BIP110 plebs have actually read and understood the consensus bug in the activation client?

https://t.co/mVLkpYvQNQ

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

https://t.co/XbHjySaRlB

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@BitMEX_Jon @murchandamus @dathon_ohm @JimAndrews77 @FoundryServices Between this and the block slop consensus bug (https://t.co/3K1PVSKXFB), miners at @FoundryServices should be updated to be informed of material updates in the bip 110 consensus change since voting allegedly started.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@murchandamus @dathon_ohm @JimAndrews77 You are right. A P2A spend is defined based on the outputs of a transaction, not the inputs. @dathon_ohm is wrong.

[Dathon Pwn @DathonPwn]

@murchandamus @JimAndrews77 @dathon_ohm This is correct. The implementation modifies the P2A spec, which explicitly says there are no consensus changes.

This is not documented as part of rule 3, which references BIP 433.