On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:22 PM sick...@gmail.com <sick...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For some reason I don't understand, Andrea Suisani is stating on > > twitter that the the report by awemany was a report of an inflation > > bug, contrary to the timeline we published. > > guess that the fact you don't understand it, it's probably related to the fact > that you didn't read properly the tweet you are referring to, for reference > this > the tweet URL https://twitter.com/sickpig/status/1043530088636194816 > > This is the text of such a tweet
OKAY. The only tweet I was shown was this one: https://twitter.com/sickpig/status/1043428373530390528 It doesn't many any mention to him not reporting it and I encountered it in the context of another person citing it to claim it had been reported. > Furthermore as you should be aware, having been copied on the report, > awemany specifically > said that "[the assert(is_spent)] *seems* to prevent the worse outcome > of monetary inflation" Yes, in fact I referred to the that specifically in my message as well as including his entire message in my post. > I guess that in the hurry of informing you and other people involved of the > DoS > vector he identified and proved, he decided to give priority to > informing Core about that > rather than waiting and continue exploring the idea he had about exploiting > the > code to create coins out of thin air. I'm unclear what you're now stating. Are you stating that awemany knew that it could cause inflation but indicated otherwise to us or are you stating that he did not know and in the abundance of caution he sent the report as fast as possible before making that determination? I'm just asking because I'm confused by your response; I don't think it's particularly important one way or another. _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
