Published on: 2011-09-09T09:15:38+00:00
The Bitcoin alert system has been a topic of discussion among developers. Some have criticized the system, however, others argue that it is not a significant concern. Those who support the system say that even if someone managed to compromise the private key, the most they could do is spam graffiti messages or try phishing. There are much worse things that could happen to the network, in which case an alert system could come in very handy.In a conversation on September 8, 2011, Luke-Jr suggested that the alert system should relay messages regardless of the key used to avoid favoring one client over another. He noted that if everything is relayed through the alert system, it could have DDoS potential. Mike Hearn had previously expressed concern about Bitcoin's lack of automatic updates or notifications, stating that the network relies on people upgrading for stability, scalability, and new features. Without a way to communicate upgrades to end-users, he believed it would be difficult for Bitcoin to achieve mass market penetration.To address this issue, Hearn proposed that the alert system should relay messages regardless of the key used, so it wouldn't give any client special status and could be used for other clients as well. Hearn’s suggestion aimed to maintain decentralization while allowing for efficient communication between users and upgrades.In a discussion thread, a user named Steve brought up the possibility of an alert being sent by Satoshi, and how it might be the only way to ever hear from him again. This raised concerns about who has the ability to send such alerts, and whether the system should be changed to ensure that only current developers have such privileges. The idea is to prevent a malicious source from sending an authoritative-looking alert if Satoshi's key has been compromised. These concerns were raised in the context of Satoshi Nakamoto, the pseudonymous creator of Bitcoin, who has not been heard from since 2011.On September 9, 2011, Matt Corallo wrote to the Bitcoin development mailing list about discussions on the Bitcoin StackExchange site regarding the alert protocol. Some have suggested that it may carry potential for abuse and others have argued that it is merely deprecated. Due to enough concerns being voiced, Corallo forked bitcoin/bitcoin, removed the questionable code from main.cpp, and submitted a pull request. Gavin Andresen noted that the topic deserved discussion and some consensus should be reached before acting on the pull request. He also argued that the feature was still more useful than dangerous and would argue against its removal.In a Bitcoin StackExchange thread, concerns were raised about the potential for abuse of the alert protocol. David Perry forked bitcoin/bitcoin, removed the questionable code from main.cpp and submitted a pull request. Gavin Andresen noted that it merited discussion and consensus before acting on the pull request. He argued that the feature was still useful rather than dangerous. The question posed was whether the alert system is valuable, an unnecessary risk or just deprecated code.There has been discussion regarding the alert protocol in the Bitcoin StackExchange, with concerns raised about potential abuse (spam/DoS) and whether it is necessary. David Perry forked bitcoin/bitcoin and removed the code from main.cpp that makes the questionable call, submitting a pull request for discussion. Gavin Andresen argued that the feature was still more useful than dangerous and suggested consensus should be reached before acting on the pull request. The alert system could be altered so it only carries a notification of an alert, with individual clients checking a central trusted server for actual content.Recently, on the Bitcoin StackExchange site, there has been a discussion about the alert protocol in Bitcoin. Some users have expressed concerns about the potential for abuse, while others believe it is merely deprecated. To address these concerns, a user forked bitcoin/bitcoin, removed the snippet of code from main.cpp, and submitted a pull request. However, Gavin Andresen noted that consensus should be reached before taking action and argued that the feature was more useful than dangerous. The question being posed is whether the alert system is valuable, an unnecessary risk, or just deprecated code that should be removed. In order to make a decision, further discussion and consensus is needed.In an email conversation on September 8, 2011, user "Luke-Jr" expressed skepticism regarding Deepbit's reported control over more than 50% of Bitcoin mining power. Although Deepbit had supposedly reached this level of control multiple times in the past, Luke-Jr claimed to have never seen it happen. The implication was that even if Deepbit did have such control, they had not abused their position to manipulate the market or otherwise harm other users. It is worth noting that an alert would have been issued if Deepbit had demonstrated any problematic behavior while exercising this level of power.In a forum post from September 8, 2011, user theymos discussed the importance of an alert system in Bitcoin's network.
Updated on: 2023-08-01T02:25:27.414303+00:00