This is exactly why Bitcoin is built on simplicity and elegant cryptography with decades of real world usage instead of the newest and shiniest complicated zk-proofs.
The link for this post uses a read-only front-end for Twitter, which can be easier to read for viewing a full Twitter thread. The Tweet that kicked off the thread is:
Swaps are momentarily turned OFF to squash a bug ... apologies in advance ...
To the user that took advantage of this bug, we would greatly appreciate if you share how this trick was done 😁
FYI if you come across a bug, please be an honest user and notify the public TG group!
Not to deliverately expose anyone. This is the onchain address bc1qgm3gfntdzra8c6zt32lnwleky5juvautwja8ey if you are involved with this, I would very highly appreciate input on what was the procedure to get the trick done (I knew it was not too solid, but still...)
oof didn't robosats just get some big push recently? don't remember if it was something released but they made a few headlines last week. I know they've been around awhile I'm just curious if this is an attack in response to that not that it matters
Oef, that's the trouble with building someones always going to be testing your security, and I guess that's the cost of building tools that become anti-fragile over time
They don't become antifragile. That statement makes no sense. I believe you wanted to say they are antifragile since the beginning, which is wrong anyway.
Antifragility is a property of systems in which they increase in capability to thrive as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks, or failures.
Never read Antifragile by Taleb. Just seems to make sense.
I think you could look at it that way, counting the devs as part of the system. But if you do that, they become the weakness. Attack the devs that fix the bugs & take down the system.
Devs are the white blood cells, fixing the system when it needs fixing, but there is nothing antifragile about that.
This is exactly why Bitcoin is built on simplicity and elegant cryptography with decades of real world usage instead of the newest and shiniest complicated zk-proofs.
@DarthCoin insert Moon sexdoll meme here pls
Why that meme? Is it related?
oh man, hope it doesn't hurt them too bad.
The link for this post uses a read-only front-end for Twitter, which can be easier to read for viewing a full Twitter thread. The Tweet that kicked off the thread is:
https://twitter.com/RoboSats/status/1635432123648622593 [Nitter]
Here's where the amount and the destination bitcoin address are discussed:
https://t.me/s/robosats/19161
https://t.me/s/robosats/19164
Is the way they joke on they wanting to know how user did it. Platforms that learn from their bugs grow faster
More security procedures should be used on sats protocols and platforms
They will find the wallet, but prob not the identity of the culprit(s)
The culprit really should take this route & claim a possible reward:
"the user that took advantage of this bug, we would greatly appreciate if you share how this trick was done 😁"
<
<This is the way>
>oof didn't robosats just get some big push recently? don't remember if it was something released but they made a few headlines last week. I know they've been around awhile I'm just curious if this is an attack in response to that not that it matters
Can someone point me to their swap specific code?
This is the PR for the fix: https://github.com/Reckless-Satoshi/robosats/pull/388
From https://nitter.net/shyfire131/status/1635630834551259136
Oef, that's the trouble with building someones always going to be testing your security, and I guess that's the cost of building tools that become anti-fragile over time
They don't become antifragile. That statement makes no sense. I believe you wanted to say they are antifragile since the beginning, which is wrong anyway.
fiatjaf, why diesn't that make sense?
Antifragility is a property of systems in which they increase in capability to thrive as a result of stressors, shocks, volatility, noise, mistakes, faults, attacks, or failures.
Never read Antifragile by Taleb. Just seems to make sense.
The system doesn't become stronger by itself. It literally needs devs to fix the bugs, or the system would die.
Sure, I can see that nuance.
I guess I was working with the premise that devs fixing bugs on a project is a system of sorts.
I think you could look at it that way, counting the devs as part of the system. But if you do that, they become the weakness. Attack the devs that fix the bugs & take down the system.
Devs are the white blood cells, fixing the system when it needs fixing, but there is nothing antifragile about that.