user140270: See:
Feb. 16, 2023
https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-core-maintainers-crypto-7b93804
Not sure if this is considered a "hit piece". But this is classic MSM. Writing a superficially neutral article that is actually laying the groundwork for future defamation of target individuals.
The most likely attack vector I can see against Bitcoin right now is through the usage of inscriptions. Unlike Ethereum NFTs, which are simpyl URLs, Bitcoin Inscriptions are the indelible storage of data on chain for the rest of eternity.
Adversaries of Bitcoin are likely to inscribe thousands of illicit images onto the base layer of Bitcoin. Note that the FBI has the world's largest collection of CSAM. Every time they bust a case, they store everything.
Running a Bitcoin Full Archival Node involves the deliberate storage and distribution of information. It is most closely analogous to running Bit Torrent. Once thousands of illicit images get inscribed on chain, it is then very difficult to argue in court that running a full node is of the same nature as browsing the web and then accidentally having illicit images stored in your Temporary Internet Files folder. If distributing illicit images via Bit Torrent is illegal, then running a Bitcoin Full Archival Node would become illegal, under such an attack scenario.
This could result in the deplatforming of Bitcoin Core from Github and the prosecution of core developers. The media's role in all this is to whip up public opinion by characterizing Bitcoin as a centralized project that is being used for the distribution of illicit images. This is how the MSM works. Defame, then deplatform.
The attack vector described above is not some castle in the sky fud. It is a clear and present danger.
So I would suggest a Bit Torrent model of Bitcoin development for the future. There is no "reference implementation" of Bit Torrent. No Bit Torrent client has a 99% monopoly over the market, unlike Bitcoin Core which has 99% monopoly. I think Bitcoin Core should voluntarily remove itself from Github. Core developers should join Bitcoin companies and develop standalone implementations of Bitcoin Full Nodes.

user47827: This will probably get closed due to inconsistent moderation on what does and doesn't constitute an opinion. A lot of interesting technical questions require some element of opinion and this site caters for multiple answers to the same question so I'm not entirely sure why an inconsistent crackdown on opinions is necessary. Clearly this isn't a site for legal advice so I won't touch on the legal aspect.

The most likely attack vector I can see against Bitcoin right now is through the usage of inscriptions. Unlike Ethereum NFTs, which are simpyl URLs, Bitcoin Inscriptions are the indelible storage of data on chain for the rest of eternity.

I do not see this as an attack vector at all. OP_RETURN has allowed up to 80 bytes of data to be stored in an output for years dating back to Bitcoin Core versions prior to 0.10 (2015). If it truly was an attack vector it would have been disabled many years ago. There will always be ways to include a relatively small number of bytes in a transaction as a transaction is just a set of bytes/bits that meet the consensus rules. You could argue that the OP_RETURN limit should be smaller but 80 bytes is not huge. Apparently a 1x1 grey pixel JPEG is 125 bytes for comparison.

Adversaries of Bitcoin are likely to inscribe thousands of illicit images onto the base layer of Bitcoin. Note that the FBI has the world's largest collection of CSAM. Every time they bust a case, they store everything.

This is also nothing new. Dating back years we can expect bad actors to include data referencing illicit images in transactions on the blockchain. The illicit images themselves are too big to store in say a single Bitcoin output, transaction or block so it is merely references and inscriptions. It is possible they could be split and spread over many blocks but this is the same as splitting an illicit image into many fragments and then sending multiple emails with a single letter in them. Banning or censoring email for this reason is clearly ludicrous as would attempts to ban or censor the blockchain (to the extent that this would even be possible).

This could result in the deplatforming of Bitcoin Core from Github and the prosecution of core developers.

There are alternatives to GitHub and Bitcoin Core as a project could still function (although less efficiently) with no central repository say by emailing patches to maintainers. Legal action against developers (unfortunately) is also nothing new.

Core developers should join Bitcoin companies and develop standalone implementations of Bitcoin Full Nodes.

Some Core developers already work or are funded by Bitcoin companies. Alternative Bitcoin implementations exist, both consensus compatible forks of Bitcoin Core like Bitcoin Knots and rewrites of Bitcoin Core in various different languages e.g. libbitcoin in C++, bcoin in Javascript, btcd in Go. Bitcoin Core is the dominant implementation on the network and there have been instances of some of these rewrites of Bitcoin Core falling out of consensus with Bitcoin Core and not being as performant.

Can Bitcoin survive without Bitcoin Core?

With regards to the title of your question I certainly think so. In a long term worst case scenario where Bitcoin Core was totally compromised by bad actors a code repository can be forked and distributed outside of the Bitcoin Core GitHub organization. It would clearly be disruptive but Bitcoin's future needn't and shouldn't exclusively rest on a GitHub organization not being compromised.

140270: <p>See:
Feb. 16, 2023
<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-core-maintainers-crypto-7b93804" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.wsj.com/articles/bitcoin-core-maintainers-crypto-7b93804</a></p>
<p>Not sure if this is considered a &quot;hit piece&quot;. But this is classic MSM. Writing a superficially neutral article that is actually laying the groundwork for future defamation of target individuals.</p>
<p>The most likely attack vector I can see against Bitcoin right now is through the usage of inscriptions. Unlike Ethereum NFTs, which are simpyl URLs, Bitcoin Inscriptions are the indelible storage of data on chain for the rest of eternity.</p>
<p>Adversaries of Bitcoin are likely to inscribe thousands of illicit images onto the base layer of Bitcoin. Note that the FBI has the world's largest collection of CSAM. Every time they bust a case, they store everything.</p>
<p>Running a Bitcoin Full Archival Node involves the deliberate storage and distribution of information. It is most closely analogous to running Bit Torrent. Once thousands of illicit images get inscribed on chain, it is then very difficult to argue in court that running a full node is of the same nature as browsing the web and then accidentally having illicit images stored in your Temporary Internet Files folder. If distributing illicit images via Bit Torrent is illegal, then running a Bitcoin Full Archival Node would become illegal, under such an attack scenario.</p>
<p>This could result in the deplatforming of Bitcoin Core from Github and the prosecution of core developers. The media's role in all this is to whip up public opinion by characterizing Bitcoin as a centralized project that is being used for the distribution of illicit images. This is how the MSM works. Defame, then deplatform.</p>
<p>The attack vector described above is not some castle in the sky fud. It is a clear and present danger.</p>
<p>So I would suggest a Bit Torrent model of Bitcoin development for the future. There is no &quot;reference implementation&quot; of Bit Torrent. No Bit Torrent client has a 99% monopoly over the market, unlike Bitcoin Core which has 99% monopoly. I think Bitcoin Core should voluntarily remove itself from Github. Core developers should join Bitcoin companies and develop standalone implementations of Bitcoin Full Nodes.</p>
 47827: <p>This will probably get closed due to inconsistent moderation on what does and doesn't constitute an opinion. A lot of interesting technical questions require some element of opinion and this site caters for multiple answers to the same question so I'm not entirely sure why an inconsistent crackdown on opinions is necessary. Clearly this isn't a site for legal advice so I won't touch on the legal aspect.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The most likely attack vector I can see against Bitcoin right now is through the usage of inscriptions. Unlike Ethereum NFTs, which are simpyl URLs, Bitcoin Inscriptions are the indelible storage of data on chain for the rest of eternity.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I do not see this as an attack vector at all. OP_RETURN has allowed <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/78572/op-return-max-bytes-clarification">up to 80 bytes of data</a> to be stored in an output for years dating back to Bitcoin Core versions prior to 0.10 (2015). If it truly was an attack vector it would have been disabled many years ago. There will always be ways to include a relatively small number of bytes in a transaction as a transaction is just a set of bytes/bits that meet the consensus rules. You could argue that the OP_RETURN limit should be smaller but 80 bytes is not huge. Apparently a 1x1 grey pixel JPEG is <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2253404/what-is-the-smallest-valid-jpeg-file-size-in-bytes">125 bytes</a> for comparison.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Adversaries of Bitcoin are likely to inscribe thousands of illicit images onto the base layer of Bitcoin. Note that the FBI has the world's largest collection of CSAM. Every time they bust a case, they store everything.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is also nothing new. Dating back years we can expect bad actors to include data referencing illicit images in transactions on the blockchain. The illicit images themselves are too big to store in say a single Bitcoin output, transaction or block so it is merely references and inscriptions. It is possible they could be split and spread over many blocks but this is the same as splitting an illicit image into many fragments and then sending multiple emails with a single letter in them. Banning or censoring email for this reason is clearly ludicrous as would attempts to ban or censor the blockchain (to the extent that this would even be possible).</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This could result in the deplatforming of Bitcoin Core from Github and the prosecution of core developers.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>There are <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/99634/what-are-some-of-the-github-alternatives-that-you-consider-for-bitcoin-core-and">alternatives</a> to GitHub and Bitcoin Core as a project could still function (although less efficiently) with no central repository say by emailing patches to maintainers. Legal action against developers (unfortunately) is also nothing new.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Core developers should join Bitcoin companies and develop standalone implementations of Bitcoin Full Nodes.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Some Core developers already work or are funded by Bitcoin companies. Alternative Bitcoin implementations exist, both consensus compatible forks of Bitcoin Core like Bitcoin Knots and rewrites of Bitcoin Core in various different languages e.g. libbitcoin in C++, bcoin in Javascript, btcd in Go. Bitcoin Core is the dominant implementation on the network and there have been instances of some of these rewrites of Bitcoin Core falling out of consensus with Bitcoin Core and not being as performant.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can Bitcoin survive without Bitcoin Core?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>With regards to the title of your question I certainly think so. In a long term worst case scenario where Bitcoin Core was totally compromised by bad actors a code repository can be forked and distributed outside of the Bitcoin Core GitHub organization. It would clearly be disruptive but Bitcoin's future needn't and shouldn't exclusively rest on a GitHub organization not being compromised.</p>
