Because 29% of BTC nodes are hosted on AWS. This signature detection would kill the VMs running Core on those servers. Meaning 29% of the network suddenly goes offline.

And?

For whom? And why?

We only need one node for bitcoin to survive. It's not ideal but it would still work

AWS doesn't work the way you think it works.

?WAIT. ARE YOU SAYING PEOPLE USING A CENTRALIZED PLATFORM FOR BITCOIN ARE AT RISK IF AWS SUDDENYL DISLIKES BITCOIN. SOMEONE SHOULD FIX THAT.

Absolutely. But there's ownership risk then there's intentional disruption. I mean if someone found an exploit to target node runners through their specific ISP *cough* Shinobi *cough* that would also be bad and tough to mitigate.

I am not talking existential. I am talking adoption progress.

For exchanges that use them for feerate, for economic nodes for transaction broadcast utility, for miners for gossip relay, kind of a lot of things.

It absolutely does. I have pulled their docs many times to show their guard dog service kills VMs if malware is signature identified. I feel like you may be thinking first order effects and not secondary and terceary effects. I swear I am not as dumb as I look, and I don't take Luke, Mechanic, Murch, Antoine, Voskiul, or any other dev or talking head at face value. I take what they say and check it for validity.

GuardDuty Malware Protection for S3 - Amazon GuardDuty

Learn how to use GuardDuty Malware Protection for S3 to detect if a newly uploaded file to your selected Amazon Simple Storage Service (Amazon S3) ...

These docs? And we've gone over the whackamole with malware signatures. My previous company worked the red team for DoD. I promise you don't understand the cloud like you think you might. I also welcome all AWS bitcoin nodes failing. My sats remain safe.

Damn, cold Gary.

We're soft as a society.