raw_avocado on Nostr: Did you know OP_RETURN had a bug that allowed anyone to spend anyone's Bitcoins? The ...
Did you know OP_RETURN had a bug that allowed anyone to spend anyone's Bitcoins?
The bug would skip over the instructions and return 1, interpreted that spending conditions are meet.
But was found and reported by Artforz in 20 July 2010.
A fix was quickly issue by Satoshi and downplayed, probably in the hope of not triggering an exploit.
He also included some improvements in the upgrade.
The fix made the OP CODE return false, meaning outputs are now provably unspendable. - i.e. can never be spent = burned!
3/4
in 2013 people were doing odd hacks to insert in the blockchain:
- random data
- use it as a timestamp
But these hacks would forever stay in the the UTXO set!
A decision to set OP_RETURN as a parameter that allowed 40 bytes of data to be added.
This data can be pruned!
And ever since it was introduced, OP_RETURN always caused controversy and was changed quite a few times.
And the conversation was always about HOW MUCH data it should allow?
And now we are having this conversation yet again.
What do you think?
Published at
2025-05-01 16:54:14Event JSON
{
"id": "7b48d2797fd79a5131d17d8f24a403f7eb310aa4f007b4a27392d1c6551666fe",
"pubkey": "0f28196ced1024be7ceb3d7b194337bf8f21e7ad0a8be803b1ec0a7c52e926de",
"created_at": 1746118454,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"r",
"wss://eden.nostr.land/",
"read"
],
[
"r",
"wss://nostr.wine/",
"read"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.damus.io/",
"write"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.nostr.band/",
"write"
],
[
"r",
"wss://relay.snort.social/",
"write"
]
],
"content": "Did you know OP_RETURN had a bug that allowed anyone to spend anyone's Bitcoins?\n\nThe bug would skip over the instructions and return 1, interpreted that spending conditions are meet.\n\nBut was found and reported by Artforz in 20 July 2010.\n https://blossom.primal.net/9e61e40cc2369184299f4435419cc537a73a5b40eada4454fbf499708794843d.jpg \n\nA fix was quickly issue by Satoshi and downplayed, probably in the hope of not triggering an exploit.\n\nHe also included some improvements in the upgrade.\n\nThe fix made the OP CODE return false, meaning outputs are now provably unspendable. - i.e. can never be spent = burned!\n https://blossom.primal.net/0709f192a2b7f7f237781deb3f61f479dd79cccb42796ee76ef37470d46804d0.jpg \n\n3/4\nin 2013 people were doing odd hacks to insert in the blockchain:\n- random data\n- use it as a timestamp\n\nBut these hacks would forever stay in the the UTXO set!\n\nA decision to set OP_RETURN as a parameter that allowed 40 bytes of data to be added.\n\nThis data can be pruned!\n https://blossom.primal.net/f8721ff19d09cdec06682a806dd72de28895f29ee2efcd221e02437b98e79ab1.jpg \n\nAnd ever since it was introduced, OP_RETURN always caused controversy and was changed quite a few times.\n\nAnd the conversation was always about HOW MUCH data it should allow?\n\nAnd now we are having this conversation yet again.\nWhat do you think? https://blossom.primal.net/5072eef6c9f644fec94ae847140114aaf9a15918973bf9f5487f7e8910a8ec03.jpg ",
"sig": "0bf9e041955f253488ff55ac74de35568a3a05946538bd20f880c7208534a854cd5a8b66e61ac04d6b9a783b363e482766d254a534ec4625d7cd372d70d7a606"
}
