Dathon Pwn

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

@adam3us @phil_geiger @DathonPwn I wouldn’t call Luke a vibe coder

Bitcoin deserves higher quality engineering than this poorly designed, rushed, out of consensus soft fork. Bitcoin is not a game where we can just throw our hands up and test stuff in prod. It's the world's last and best chance at sound money.

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

@DathonPwn @MrHodl @LukeDashjr @dathon_ohm

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 👇

Link to the consensus bug: x.com/DathonPwn/stat…

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).

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

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

The core group of BIP110 backers spent a year saying anyone who doesn't support them is in favor of CP and other disgusting things. I'm not interested in being friendly with anyone who chose to align themselves with these scumbags.

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

@dathon_ohm That was never in question. Pretty low hurdle to pick an activation height to start enforcing mandatory signaling, and write that into your code. Convincing a majority of miners to hash it or users to stick with it if they fail to is a whole separate endeavor.

Breaking: the #BIP110 comms account @dathon_ohm has confirmed that the backers of this #Bitcoin soft fork attempt will be not be abandoning their fork chain and returning to the legacy chain should it fail to gain adoption as a successful soft fork! It remains to be seen what percentage of the #Knots users signaling for the fork plan to leave Bitcoin behind and adopt the new token.

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

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

@dathon_ohm @murchandamus Come on. This is the entirety of the P2A spec. It just says what a P2A output is, and what P2A inputs are standard in Bitcoin Core. What exactly is vague about it?

@dathon_ohm @murchandamus The vague wording of the BIP most likely contributed to the initial implementation having the wrong consensus rules to begin with. You really should fix it, although I guess you never expected anyone to use the BIP as a spec to implement BIP-110 in another node software anyway?

@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_ohm @murchandamus @JimAndrews77 No, (unknown) witness version is a concept that only ever applies to outputs. You can spend a P2TR output e.g. with an annex, which will make it non-standard, but it will still be a known output type. Likewise, spending a P2A output always spends a known witness version.

It was pointed out to me today that the February update to the RDTS implementation added a requirement that the witness stack of P2A must be empty. github.com/dathonohm/bitc…

@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. x.com/DathonPwn/stat…

I have stated that we will be watching very closely at 961,632 and the subsequent blocks. We will follow the heaviest chain that emerges (and the one which is widely recognized as Bitcoin.) There are two primary reasons for this. The first is obvious, you are correct Stephan, I have a business to run and a responsibility to my investors and employees, so I must make be able to produce profits and pay my people. The second, and more important broadly, is that while I clearly support BIP-110, there are aspects that I don't love, and I feel a split chain of any material length is bad for Bitcoin. If BIP-110 doesn't succeed then I think we just all work together, hopefully more peacefully, to make Bitcoin better going forward.

"If that means I'm on some dead isolated chain where people are talking about proof of work changes, I don't care” - @GrassFedBitcoin ​This is what everyone has been warning about. If you run BIP110, there is a risk you will fork yourself off the network. It will knot be Bitcoin

@asanoha_gold How many pro-BIP110 plebs have actually read and understood the consensus bug in the activation client? x.com/DathonPwn/stat…

How many anti-BIP110 plebs have actually read and watched all of the resources on this page? wtfhappenedinfeb2023.com/resources/

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

@DathonPwn @murchandamus @dathon_ohm @JimAndrews77 @FoundryServices .@FoundryServices are you going to reply to this? You really should pull your vote ASAP.

@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_ohm @JimAndrews77 Interesting take. A P2A spend is an input that spends a P2A output.

@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.

@JimAndrews77 @dathon_ohm BIPs are supposed to be a comprehensive specification of the proposed change. They are supposed to be detailed enough so other projects can implement the proposed change from the BIP. Here, the reference implementation and document disagree.

@otaliptus @dathon_ohm @murchandamus @JimAndrews77 The seperate release of @dathon_ohm's RDTS stand alone client was created to fix this, but left out proper documentation to update BIP 110. Here is the updated version which adds an undocumented consensus change. github.com/bitcoinknots/b…

@dathon_ohm @murchandamus @JimAndrews77 You may want to double check the implementation because that was one of the very early weird findings I also had when I was reviewing the code (ultimately moved on to do different things)

@phil_geiger @MayaPar25 This is honest reporting by Murch.

@MayaPar25 More issues discovered. It's not ready for production