Quote from: pooya87 on Today at 06:34:14 AM

Quote from: Wind_FURY on April 13, 2024, 09:16:47 AM

I don't doubt those many ways of shutting this "attack" - according to your opinion - down. I'm asking actually HOW? Those are valid transactions that paid the fees/followed the consensus rules. It's a very dangerous path for the community if shutting it down gets consensus. Because that would start a cycle, in that, another group of people could also complain about some other use case and demand that it should be "shutdown".

I disagree because we're talking about an exploit not "use case" and we've been doing this for always and this is literally the first time the Bitcoin community is showing resistance against fixing an exploit in the protocol! Nobody ever called any of them "censorship" nor where they ever worried about it starting "a dangerous path"!

For example before SegWit soft-fork in 2017 you could exploit the protocol by abusing the dummy stack item in OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) ops to inject an arbitrary data to the chain. After the fork, this exploit was patched and such transactions are invalid now. Same with the conditional ops bool that is popped from the stack.
There are also countless examples of how we prevented a lot of different exploits through standard rules that we've already covered a thousand times such as the limits on OP_RETURN outputs.

You can call it an "exploit", or a "bug", or something else, but from the network's viewpoint those transactions followed the consensus rules, paid the fees, and miners are also incentivized to include them in their blocks because of that. You can have your opinikn what it is, but that's merely what it is. An Opinion. But if removing the "exploit/bug" gets community consensus througn a soft/hard fork, then OK. Fork accepted.