Right which is why I said I think the specific functionality as it exists now (which I wasn't aware of until this thread![1]) is probably more of a risk to the developers than other users. It's currently mitigated because it seems few know about or use the feature, but if it were to become ubiquitous it would potentially paint a target on their backs of developers. It's not a hypothetical risk either,  we were already sued by a party essentially demanding edits to the UTXO set-- an event that contributed to multiple long time contributors quitting the project.   And as anyone knows a lawsuit doesn't have to have merit to cause a lot of harm, in fact they can be even more damaging the stupider they are.  It helped that there was no credible means to actually do what they demanded,  but as is this 'load a hash of the utxo set embedded in the software' has moved closer to that functionality (or something that could be confused for that functionality) existing. There also appears to be a new entity that thinks it can just claim to "take possession" of random older wallets.  Presumably their next step is to apply pressure either legally through lawsuits or extra legally through kidnapping, torture, or extortion to whatever parties they think can make their claimed ownership actual. -- I assume they have some plan to actually do so, otherwise why waste thousand of dollars on press releases and spam? [1] I knew of the assumeutxo work but I'd been expecting it to eventually get used by some more tamper resistant process, rather than just having some snapshot hash in the code that isn't even easy to verify.
Right which is why I said I think the specific functionality as it exists now (which I wasn't aware of until this thread![1]) is probably more of a risk to the developers than other users. It's currently mitigated because it seems few know about or use the feature, but if it were to become ubiquitous it would potentially paint a target on their backs of developers. It's not a hypothetical risk either,  we were already sued by a party essentially demanding edits to the UTXO set-- an event that contributed to multiple long time contributors quitting the project.   And as anyone knows a lawsuit doesn't have to have merit to cause a lot of harm, in fact they can be even more damaging the stupider they are.  It helped that there was no credible means to actually do what they demanded,  but as is this 'load a hash of the utxo set embedded in the software' has moved closer to that functionality (or something that could be confused for that functionality) existing. There also appears to be a new entity that thinks it can just claim to "take possession" of random older wallets.  Presumably their next step is to apply pressure either legally through lawsuits or extra legally through kidnapping, torture, or extortion to whatever parties they think can make their claimed ownership actual. -- I assume they have some plan to actually do so, otherwise why waste thousand of dollars on press releases and spam? [1] I knew of the assumeutxo work but I'd been expecting it to eventually get used by some more tamper resistant process, rather than just having some snapshot hash in the code that isn't even easy to verify.

Right which is why I said I think the specific functionality as it exists now (which I wasn't aware of until this thread![1]) is probably more of a risk to the developers than other users. It's currently mitigated because it seems few know about or use the feature, but if it were to become ubiquitous it would potentially paint a target on their backs of developers. It's not a hypothetical risk either,  we were already sued by a party essentially demanding edits to the UTXO set-- an event that contributed to multiple long time contributors quitting the project.   And as anyone knows a lawsuit doesn't have to have merit to cause a lot of harm, in fact they can be even more damaging the stupider they are.  It helped that there was no credible means to actually do what they demanded,  but as is this 'load a hash of the utxo set embedded in the software' has moved closer to that functionality (or something that could be confused for that functionality) existing. There also appears to be a new entity that thinks it can just claim to "take possession" of random older wallets.  Presumably their next step is to apply pressure either legally through lawsuits or extra legally through kidnapping, torture, or extortion to whatever parties they think can make their claimed ownership actual. -- I assume they have some plan to actually do so, otherwise why waste thousand of dollars on press releases and spam? [1] I knew of the assumeutxo work but I'd been expecting it to eventually get used by some more tamper resistant process, rather than just having some snapshot hash in the code that isn't even easy to verify.

Right which is why I said I think the specific functionality as it exists now (which I wasn't aware of until this thread![1]) is probably more of a risk to the developers than other users. It's currently mitigated because it seems few know about or use the feature, but if it were to become ubiquitous it would potentially paint a target on their backs of developers. It's not a hypothetical risk either,  we were already sued by a party essentially demanding edits to the UTXO set-- an event that contributed to multiple long time contributors quitting the project.   And as anyone knows a lawsuit doesn't have to have merit to cause a lot of harm, in fact they can be even more damaging the stupider they are.  It helped that there was no credible means to actually do what they demanded,  but as is this 'load a hash of the utxo set embedded in the software' has moved closer to that functionality (or something that could be confused for that functionality) existing. There also appears to be a new entity that thinks it can just claim to "take possession" of random older wallets.  Presumably their next step is to apply pressure either legally through lawsuits or extra legally through kidnapping, torture, or extortion to whatever parties they think can make their claimed ownership actual. -- I assume they have some plan to actually do so, otherwise why waste thousand of dollars on press releases and spam? [1] I knew of the assumeutxo work but I'd been expecting it to eventually get used by some more tamper resistant process, rather than just having some snapshot hash in the code that isn't even easy to verify.