The base layer has to stay VERY comfortably within Moore's law.
If one is to use Moore's law as the metric, computing power has increased by a factor of 64 in the time of Bitcoin's existence. Lessee.... what's 1MB times 64? Humm.... Use of net resources scales super-linearly. And Moore's Law has had a serious stop in the latest years. I know you know all that. Come on. Please. The point is that we can easily do more than we did nine freeking years ago. I know you know all that. Come on. Please. |
|
|
|
This is the 10-th time I read about it this week. Facebook buying Coinbase?
Last night, I attended an invite-only recruitment soiree hosted by FB. That is all. Ooh how disgusting. You poor devil. Was it ghastly. Do tell us more. Cocktails, appetizers, and chat. Dog and pony show - hardware infrastructure. Cocktails, appetizers, and chat. The meaningful activity was the one-on-ones on the following day. |
|
|
|
Facebook bans Crypto Ads, price goes down. Facebook allows Crypto Ads again, price goes down  But invite-only recruitment soiree Followed by one-on-ones on Friday. Alas, two non-negotiables: - Friday was coincidentally my retirement day. I'd entertain part-time, but they're looking for full. - Ain't moving to the valley. I've been flying there about twice a month. That's more than enough, thankyouverymuch. |
|
|
|
time to get on the bike and go get drunk.
Hardly seem like activities that should naturally go together. |
|
|
|
Meh, Bitmain and friends probably have 10nm or 7nm chip ASICs populating their farms.
Semiconductor industry trade rags indicate: - Bitmain is one of TSMC's biggest customers, buying 20,000 12nm chips per month - TSMC CEO said that Bitmain will be one of the lead customers for their 7nm process node (which is currently in initial fab) |
|
|
|
I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though.
None of mine are in segwit addresses. Months ago I asked some technical questions about segwit addresses not having private keys, and nobody answered. Since then, I only used segwit addresses as entry adresses, but not as storage. According to the doomsayers and FUDcallers, this is not going to save you. Your coins need to be on a pre-fork/non-segwit address. Any coins you receive after the fork will most likely to have a segwit background. Since the adoption grows, the chances of getting non-segwit coins are becoming less and less. *fudcaller denied this. Despite anonymint's retracted claim, this is indeed a possibility. To the extent that a cabal of miners can roll back the chain, all the txs in the rolled-back blocks become free txs waiting to be mined into a block again. Any within that set that are anyonecanspend txs are free to be claimed by whichever miner successfully mines them into a block. Once mined into a block, any descendent tx that has as an input the output of one of those anyonecanspend txs is invalid, and so cannot be mined. Any any descendant of that now invalid tx is also invalidated. And so on. If they do a successful %51 attack and manage to hurt countless people, there will be a bounty for their fucking heads.
Coming up after the break.... Mark Karpeles, Trendon Shavers, James McCarthy, Josh Garza, Shallesh Bhatt all found murdered last night. |
|
|
|
This is the 10-th time I read about it this week. Facebook buying Coinbase?
Last night, I attended an invite-only recruitment soiree hosted by FB. That is all. |
|
|
|
So even if you have some skepticism of segwit, it might be prudent of you to support the actual (rather than hypothetical) direction of bitcoin by storing a portion of your coins on segwit, even if, you decide to follow through and store the vast majority in legacy addresses
All right, I'll bite... What about storing some value on a segwit address is prudent? FUCK off. Your BTrash is a trash coin. A shitcoin. don't leave your shitcoin here. Open your own fucking thread moron. I did not say anything about BCH. The topic is clearly segwit. What the fuck are you talking about... Why don't you start your own thread and stay there you MORON. Why would I discuss segwit on an unrelated thread? Are you really that daft? Go away.
No. DealWithIt.png |
|
|
|
%43 btc dominance
Well, at least we get a silver lining. "we" ? Are you one of the described "we", jbreher? Of course. If you don't know I have significant holdings of BTC, you haven't been paying attention. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin cash is fraudulently forked from Bitcoin .
I think you need to learn the definitions of 'open source' and 'permissionless'. |
|
|
|
%43 btc dominance
Well, at least we get a silver lining. |
|
|
|
So even if you have some skepticism of segwit, it might be prudent of you to support the actual (rather than hypothetical) direction of bitcoin by storing a portion of your coins on segwit, even if, you decide to follow through and store the vast majority in legacy addresses
All right, I'll bite... What about storing some value on a segwit address is prudent? FUCK off. Your BTrash is a trash coin. A shitcoin. don't leave your shitcoin here. Open your own fucking thread moron. I did not say anything about BCH. The topic is clearly segwit. What the fuck are you talking about... you MORON. |
|
|
|
So even if you have some skepticism of segwit, it might be prudent of you to support the actual (rather than hypothetical) direction of bitcoin by storing a portion of your coins on segwit, even if, you decide to follow through and store the vast majority in legacy addresses
All right, I'll bite... What about storing some value on a segwit address is prudent? |
|
|
|
BCH is a system made up of inanimate entities. Accordingly, BCH doesn't claim anything.
Correct, in this instance I was referring to the backers of BCH, passing it off as BTC. Sorry if that wasn't clear Nope. Still not clear. So who are 'the backers'? The uncountable masses who hold and use BCH, or do you have a more specific set of people in mind? I'll help. Roger Ver. Roger Ver is using his influence to trick people into thinking BCH is "the real bitcoin." He's stated this numerous times. He goes out of his way to add confusion about bitcoin for the sake of his own profit. One needn't look further than bitcoin.com for confirmation of this, where he uses his ownership of the domain to muddy the distinctions between the two, frequently creating links that go to BCH-related content when they should be going to BTC-related content. There, happy now? I wasn't unhappy before. So let me see if I understand you. One single person is passing BCH off as BTC*, so you believe that then entire chain should be attacked. Is that correct? * (an assertion, BTW, with which I do not see any evidence of) (Incidentally, are you nutildah also steamtyme?) |
|
|
|
You mean a vulnerability like the 0 conf in BCash that allows double spends galore?
BCH does not have any zero conf vulnerability that BTC avoids. You know that, right? |
|
|
|
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins. How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin? What kind of bull shit is this? Please enlighten me! You haven't been listening. A 51% miner gets to declare that what were formerly segwit transactions are now anyonecanspend transactions. After all, that would merely be reversion to the consensus rules that existed before segwit activation (by a so-called 'compatible soft fork'). What happens to an anyonecanspend transaction? It's output is literally assignable to anyone. If you are mining, you are you going to assign that value to other than yourself? If you solve the block, they're yours. Funny thing however, is that it is arguably not stealing, as it is merely operating under the existing consensus rules. Ones that were universal before some misguided individuals promulgated the idea that they were something other than anyonecanspend. A 51% miner could just increase the block reward to whatever arbitrary amount they feel like... But that would not be employing previous consensus rules. It would be a completely new fabrication. |
|
|
|
Exchanges do run their own nodes
Yes... and would not accept the tx's stealing segwit claiming anyonecanspends from the rogue majority fork
You are speculating. |
|
|
|
The risk you are mentioning here is somewhat "real" but it is decreasing as more funds get moved to segwit addresses.
No, it is increasing. The value in the UTXO that traces back to segwit transactions -- even if not currently on a segwit address -- is monotonically increasing. The prize available to the miners for reverting to the older rule set does nothing but increase over time. I'll agree that it is by no means known that they will do so. But it is also by no means known that they will not. Funny that for all the lip service Core gives to security, and the rather dim view that many if not most Core devs have of miners, that they would introduce such a vulnerability. |
|
|
|
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins. How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin? What kind of bull shit is this? Please enlighten me! You haven't been listening. A 51% miner gets to declare that what were formerly segwit transactions are now anyonecanspend transactions. After all, that would merely be reversion to the consensus rules that existed before segwit activation (by a so-called 'compatible soft fork'). What happens to an anyonecanspend transaction? It's output is literally assignable to anyone. If you are mining, you are you going to assign that value to other than yourself? If you solve the block, they're yours. Funny thing however, is that it is arguably not stealing, as it is merely operating under the existing consensus rules. Ones that were universal before some misguided individuals promulgated the idea that they were something other than anyonecanspend. |
|
|
|
If Segwit is the death of corn, then it's already dead.
All outputs free of segwit taint all the way back to segwit activation are completely unaffected by the scenario under discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
