No, that's a question for Sparrow

The exploit works because Core neglected to update the spam filters a few years ago, and refuses to fix the vulnerability.

And no, you're wrong. Satoshi's spam filters were VERY picky about what was inside transactions. Anything that he didn't foresee being used was rejected.

Core30's malicious changes have nothing whatsoever to do with Taproot.

Each user decides for himself. Collectively, our nodes form consensus around what is spam and what maybe isn't.

F2Pool is actively attacking the network RIGHT NOW. All it takes is one attacker to send them a single instance of CSAM, and Bitcoin users will have to knowingly and intentionally receive, store, and distribute it until the end of time. This will permanently impact Bitcoin adoption regardless of whether governments turn a blind eye or prosecute. If miners are going to switch pools when they do bad things, NOW IS THE TIME.

I don't care if you switch to Foundry or even Antpool. Obviously I would prefer you make your own blocks and use OCEAN, but this is too critical and time-sensitive to be picky. We can work on mining decentralization and spam issues over a longer period of time, but CSAM is an insta-kill we MUST avoid.

Bitcoin is not a finished product. We may be on a detour to address spam, and part of the crisis did originate with (mishandling of) the Segwit and Taproot upgrades - but to improve the world, we still need more functionality. Stopping all improvements forever ("ossifying") is fatal.

Part of addressing the issues with Core needs to be ensuring we don't repeat the same mistakes: if an upgrade introduces unforeseen vulnerabilities, those need to get addressed in a timely manner. All protocol changes require support from the entire community, so we developers are going to have to earn that reputation back.

There are fairly simple, low-risk softforks like CTV, or even a consensus cleanup (though I have reservations about BIP 54), that should not introduce vulnerabilities, and could be a starting point to regain confidence after Core is out of the picture.

The next step up is probably native zero-knowledge support, BitVM optimisations, and similar. This is when it *might* make sense to start considering Bitcoin L1 "complete", and capable of handling further improvements and even scaling on true trustless sidechains. We have a long road to get there still, and every step will take consensus - possibly quick mitigation of unforeseen outcomes - but we shouldn't lose sight of the end goal: a decentralised currency that nobody can undermine, and hopefully one day onboard the entire global economy.

It's possible to accomplish, but we will have to work for it.

Be careful out there... The bad actors are now attacking individual Knots nodes. If you have data limits, pay a visit to the maxuploadtarget option (in the GUI under Options -> Network tab -> Try to keep upload traffic under ____ MiB per day - only in Knots)

https://x.com/nazgulHODL/status/1959009018602537450?t=aWEE2gViZAAJWTUZGPP5FQ&s=19

4 different solo miners using OCEAN also found blocks this week:
- 888094 found by Penguin
- 888283 found by Munich International Mining
- 888418 found by ZettaPOW
- 888908 found by Elektron Energy

Here's a real block to celebrate:

Brent & Allie (whoever they are) solo mined block 876020 with a mere 10 Ph/s, empowered by DATUM to share rewards with other miners using @nprofile1q....

Unlike fake "solo pools", Brent & Allie made this block themselves, using their own full node

https://mempool.space/block/00000000000000000001012b000fa4657f362bb757a984548e7018ee84bc1543

- Softforks can never cause hardforks.

- Hardforks rarely make sense, and don't in this context.

- Replay protection doesn't make sense for hardforks or softforks.

- Hardforks require unanimous consensus. A minority-supported hardfork is IMPOSSIBLE. Just look at failed attempts like BCH.

No, segwit also wasn't a mistake. Just increasing the block size limit

Lightning was not a mistake

42 is 40 + 2 opcodes (which are counted in the current versions)

If you think Core gets to just dictate things, get over your centralization mindset.

Knots has used 40/42 since 2013. Samourai are the ones who chose to exceed it.

PSA: “Inscriptions” are exploiting a vulnerability in #Bitcoin Core to spam the blockchain. Bitcoin Core has, since 2013, allowed users to set a limit on the size of extra data in transactions they relay or mine (`-datacarriersize`). By obfuscating their data as program code, Inscriptions bypass this limit.

This bug was recently fixed in Bitcoin Knots v25.1. It took longer than usual due to my workflow being severely disrupted at the end of last year (v24 was skipped entirely).

Bitcoin Core is still vulnerable in the upcoming v26 release. I can only hope it will finally get fixed before v27 next year.