This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 9, 2019. It is now read-only.
forked from bitcoin/bitcoin
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 55
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
Revert merge of 2017_optin_replay_jcansdale
- Loading branch information
Showing
6 changed files
with
3 additions
and
59 deletions.
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
democratic
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
And this change is done without any notification, which is unusual given your previous modifications.
Why did you removed the replay protection in the past? Of all the large code base Bitcoin codebase, only this change? What is the benefit of deleting a safe feature? What's benefit for S2X to be dangerous for other forks? Why not improve Bitcoin code for your fork, or bug fixing, or contribute something at least? Why make it just more dangerous? I'm trying to understand you. It's same as turning off ABS or airbag for your car, which makes no sense at all.
Now you're rolling back after some users complained, and spread further without proper testing.
Only the thing that I could guess, if you want to turn off the methaphor airbags, your intention is to cause unnecessary chaos in the bitcoin space? You can do just better for the progress of financial sovereignty, instead of causing havoc and chaos for personal reasons.
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If this is not leading up to better replay protection implementation, then this is most "rage about loosing" commit I've ever seen.
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jgarzik is discussing alternatives for replay protection that he thinks will be better suited in slack. There are varying opinions on every side, though no 2x supporter is espousing the idea that 2x adds replay protection that will break compatibility with existing SPV wallets.
Feel free to join in slack with your opinions on the best optional replay protection approaches.
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@JaredR26 Let's remind everyone the secret @jgarzik won't reveal. This is being reversed because Peter Todd and David Harding found a security vulnerability that would allow LN users to steal funds from each other. Notice how btc1 devs did not find it? Good luck with your fork.
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@CosmicHemorroid Harding was directly referenced in open slack, as one of several valid peer reviews. We take good feedback.
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@CosmicHemorroid LIGHTNING HAS USERS??
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@jgarzik Point taken. I should have checked slack first.
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@JaredR26 "@jgarzik is discussing alternatives for replay protection that he thinks will be better suited in slack" is this the most centralized open source project with a one man show in your opinion or do you know of another one?
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@CosmicHemorroid
LN is vapourware and is being developed under the toxic core environment that's full of innovation gatekeeping. You know that so stop trolling.
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@CosmicHemorroid - now you are proper trolling if you want to tag the btc1 project as hostile & toxic. No one is surprised that it is ONLY core devs finding these security vulnerabilities as they've made the environment so toxic to non core devs they dare not tread.
You should be asking yourself why it is only core devs finding these bugs, I mean, this is a planet of billions with at least a few hundred (if not thousand) devs competent to work on bitcoin code. So why only core devs? It is telling, isn't it?
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@CosmicHemorroid
Innovtion gatekeeping that serves their roadmap of being critical and essential to bitcoin development (and you've fallen for it by the looks of it)
At being toxic, I agree.
The environment being fostered in the btc1 project will attract more developers to the new reference client link
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ALL please keep it technical - we have enough toxicity in virtually every other channel that we don't need it in github as well.
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well @jgarzik this is a step in the right direction. I'd rather have no protection at all than that broken ass opt-in crap that people would be exploiting left and right. Thanx for the revert, glad you are finally seeing the light. I hope to see a true replay protection method soon. Who cares if wallets have to upgrade to support it like its some sort of altcoin. They will do so or the users of those wallets will complain and go elsewhere. It will just go to show that 2x can stand on its technical merits rather than hostile takeover attempts (well, that is IF you implement a replay protection thats worthwhile of course, I hope this commit is a step in that direction).
98c0af5
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Core should start considering to add in replay protection on their end, and possible POW change also? I know they have expressed desire to do so in the past, I think it would be courageous of them to stand up to these Chinese bully miners and fire them.