I'm guessing his "hack" is storing illegal data on the blockchain.
Fits the ~$30 price tag (what other type of attack would be in that price range?), his use of the words "tragic" and "ugh", his evident awareness of OP_RETURN and not much beyond that
And his subsequent claim that "it works on all of the alts as well"
danrobinson has quit
nullfxn joined the channel
CoinHeavy has quit
arubi joined the channel
rusty joined the channel
jannes has quit
gmaxwell
the poison is wrong!!!!!
AaronvanW has quit
sipa
...?
midnightmagic
sipa: He's watching the CSW video. CSW misspelled 'Poisson' referring to the process.
sipa
well, poisson is just french for fish
some thing, really
*same
midnightmagic
Named after a French guy though isn't it?
sipa
indeed
the abbreviation CSW is confusing
i keep thinking it's opcode
like OP_VER
midnightmagic
OP_AFFINITY_FRAUD
waxwing
OP_CHECKSATOSHIWRIGHT always returns False
kanzure
op_cantsignwrongkey
goofie joined the channel
Ylbam has quit
MaxSan has quit
Belkaar has quit
Belkaar joined the channel
Belkaar has quit
Belkaar joined the channel
gmaxwell
not just misspelled, but also mispronounced many times. saying "the poison is wrong!"
danrobinson joined the channel
Dizzle joined the channel
danrobinson has quit
deusexbeer has quit
deusexbeer joined the channel
I wonder what my favorite part of the talk was, -- probably where he goes on claiming that quadratic sighashing was added recently because of "shit code" and then shows two different screenshots of the mempool descendant feerate tracking (obviously unrelated to transaction validation) which he found by searching for N^2 in the codebase (the search appears to be the prior tab up in the browser)--
an unrelated comment in txmempool.cpp mentions that the sanity tests are off by default because they have O(N^2) cost.
rusty has quit
He then appears to show a "fix" which is a one line change which does nothing but change a condition in an assert statement; which I believe would make the software instantly crash when checking is enabled.
e.g. changes assert(stepsSinceLastRemove < waitingOnDependants.size()); with assert(stepsSinceLastRemove > waitingOnDependants.size());
d9b4bef9 has quit
d9b4bef9 joined the channel
ah no, sorry, he replaced it with a comparision with a constant-- that wouldn't crash but it doesn't do anything (size() on a list is O(1) in C++11)
Giszmo joined the channel
rusty joined the channel
rusty has quit
legogris has quit
legogris joined the channel
anon616 has left the channel
anon616 joined the channel
TheSeven has quit
TheSeven joined the channel
Giakamo has quit
Giakamo joined the channel
ivan joined the channel
_whitelogger joined the channel
licnep has quit
bedeho joined the channel
blackwraith joined the channel
Fibonacci12358 joined the channel
Fibonacci12358
Hey Nerds! :D
I'm trying to figure out which side to support on the Fork. Any breakdown of the various features yet?