23
How is this possible? What happened to allow for this?
The same way that any website can be hacked. Bitcoin.org isn't hosted in some special way that makes it unhackable, it's a website, like every other website. As such, it can be hacked in all of those ways, including, but not limited to: web server compromise, DNS server/account compromise, registrar ...
11
There are no websites that represent bitcoin, as bitcoin is decentralised.
bitcoin.org is owned by a person and is a site that gives information about bitcoin, as many other sites do, and there is no particular connection between the security of the bitcoin.org domain name and the security of bitcoin software clients.
10
I'm immediately removing every single instance of "bitcoin.org" in my code, in particular the scripts that check for new updates of Bitcoin Core and AUTO DOWNLOAD/INSTALL them after verifying the signatures which it also gets from the same domain...
No version of Bitcoin Core has ever has any contact with bitcoin.org, no version checking, no ...
3
It is not dangerous in that the private key can be revealed. Rather it is dangerous in that an attacker can make a version of that transaction which is functionally the same but has a slightly different signature and so has a different transaction id.
This issue is a part of a set of issues referred to as transaction malleability. Transaction malleability is ...
2
Block verifiers don't manipulate the block chain. What matters is the economical weight of those verifiers, not the number of node processes they run.
2
My question is that why does the locking script for multsig address contain their public keys instead of PubKeyHashes(addresses)?
Why would it?
The reason for using a hash of the public key in P2PKH is because it resulted in shorter addresses (in Satoshi's time, before compressed public keys, public keys were 65 bytes, so using a 20-byte hash was ...
2
Each Bitcoin transaction is signed using the private key(s) of the sender(s). The cryptographic signatures both provide authorization of the payments and ensure integrity of the transaction. The signatures commit to a digest of the transaction, which means that the signatures are invalid out of the context of exactly that transaction, even if the transaction ...
1
Every full node validates transactions and blocks. They do not change transactions based on some percentage.
Decentralization: What makes the bitcoin network decentralized? is it the nodes or the miners or both?
Nodes and consensus rules: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/a/108045/
Importance of economic nodes: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Full_node#...
1
I’ve read online with regards to crypto that, as hardware wallet users, we should treat all devices, computer, mobile phone, software, exchanges/wallets, etc. as compromised.
Yes. This is the most important thing about Bitcoin.
You consider software compromised, so you only go for open source solutions and stay up to date.
You consider exchanges ...
1
This is my opinion because "safest" can be different for other people. Available hardware wallets that most of the Bitcoin users prefer using for long term (I have sorted them based on security):
Coldcard
Trezor
Bitbox
Jade
Although all these hardware wallets are secure, coldcard is at top because it's only used for bitcoin, tried and tested for ...
1
If the nodes are what keep Bitcoin decentralized, what if some big internet company spun up 60%+ majority nodes?
Nothing. There is nothing special about the number of nodes.
What’s stopping them from manipulating the blockchain to change transactions?
When one node talks to another node, it either sends valid messages or it sends invalid messages. If it ...
Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible