A 96 Bitcoin ransom payment ends up on Bitfinex

Re:A 96 Bitcoin ransom payment ends up on Bitfinex by CallMeMarc on Wednesday January 29, 2020 @11:12AM (#22182080)

[1] is about Bitcoin Cash, not Bitcoin. [2] is basically a Tumbler/Mixer based on a smart contract which there are plenty of available (at least non-smart contract ones)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 96 Bitcoin ransom payment ends up on Bitfinex by dylkil on Wednesday January 29, 2020 @06:12PM (#22187056)

anything useful on bitcoin cash is easily ported to bitcoin, vice versa.

with cashfusion not even the server owners know which transactions belong to who, which isnt the case with normal mixers[1].

[1]https://medium.com/@james.waugh28/is-cashfusion-really-anony...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 96 Bitcoin ransom payment ends up on Bitfinex by lawn on Thursday January 30, 2020 @12:32AM (#22189109)

No, it's not "just copy it" because Bitcoin Cash has some OP codes that Bitcoin doesn't have. See OP_CHECKDATASIG for example.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 96 Bitcoin ransom payment ends up on Bitfinex by dylkil on Thursday January 30, 2020 @09:48AM (#22191601)

if OP_CHECKDATASIG is beneficial btc can implement it

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 96 Bitcoin ransom payment ends up on Bitfinex by lawn on Thursday January 30, 2020 @02:48PM (#22194743)

With Bitcoin's history of extreme hardfork aversion, it's not that simple. In theory you're right, but in practice it's much harder.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 96 Bitcoin ransom payment ends up on Bitfinex by andirk on Thursday January 30, 2020 @11:21PM (#22199017)

You should be able to add an optional functionality w/o a hardfork yes?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:A 96 Bitcoin ransom payment ends up on Bitfinex by lawn on Friday January 31, 2020 @01:50AM (#22199656)

You can technically introduce anything as a softfork yes. The only difference is how difficult it is to implement, which I think would go beyond "just copy it".

[ Parent | on HN ]