News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended by IncRnd on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @02:02PM (#15655741)
> Satoshi could be a whole building of people, we don't know who he was, and so it's not even clear what "authentic" would mean in his case.

That doesn't matter, because people can independently look at the design of the crypto. Your point about authentic in this context is meaningless.

> Integrity of the message doesn't matter - if you see a message and it makes sense to you, then that is all that is necessary.

That's exactly why you sign a message, to judge the veracity of the contents according to a trust anchor.

> If it's something stupid, what does it matter that it's signed?

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the purpose of signing messages. You don't sign to check stupidity, but to assert that important yet unsigned messages can be repudiated from the party believed to be the origin.

Another way to illustrate this - in the Bitcoin world it is best to assume all messages are spoofed and never trust signatures.

That's WHY you sign messages. It isn't a reason not to sign messages. You are confusing authentication of origin with identity of sender.

Re:Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended by gtrubetskoy on Wednesday November 08, 2017 @04:23PM (#15657198)
> You don't sign to check stupidity

Right, you use your brain to check for stupidity, and once that check is complete, identity, authenticity and consistency of the message does not matter.

Bitcoin is a trust-less protocol, you cannot and should not trust any node, miner, developer, any online or offline post. Trust is not a thing in the Bitcoin world, and the tradition of not signing communications is generally rooted in this concept.

Re:Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork Suspended by IncRnd on Thursday November 09, 2017 @11:41AM (#15663809)
Trust in digital signatures is 100% of how Bitcoin works, and other nodes, miners, and developers are definitely trusted.