- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.
Hmm. Where have I heard that before? 51% attacks require nothing more, and they can do anything....ANYTHING. They can make every bitcoin address contain an mp3. The whole discussion about Segwit is bollox. Of course if you are running a full node you wouldn’t accept the mp3 invested junk, but then, non segwit people don’t run nodes, they rely on miners. Blanket statement is ignorant falsehood. |
|
|
|
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.... Nope. Actual use of computers over that time says nope. It's not a fucking universal principle, it was a trend until it wasn't, and now it isn't. Well, if you were to state that 'Moore's law' is misnamed, and is really something akin to 'Moore's assertion' or 'Moore's rule-of-thumb', I'd agree. However, the situation cAPSLOCK brings up is valid. Whatever the rate, computing power becomes ever-so-more affordable as time goes on. Typical home computers can now handle 100 tx/s even before fixing the broken Core threading model (500 tx/s has been demonstrated with a mockup). If you can't pony up for a typical home computer, I'm happy to say bye-bye to your node. |
|
|
|
I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.
I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
Could you provide me with a link where I can read about that? I remember anonymint's post, but I did not pay enough attention and now I can not find it. Geeze, guys. We've been discussing these very same aspects of segwit since years. Have you had your fingers in your ears and blinders on up 'til now? Agreed. It's unbelievable how people are coming NOW with points that were debated for years and were (even if slightly) a concern until a few months ago. And now that those are completely debunked they act as if they just discovered em.... Except they haven't been debunked. Well, other than with a handwavey 'we don't believe this to be a significant exposure'. |
|
|
|
For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.
Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument. Because using LN requires opening channels on chain. To do this in a decentralized fashion, LN can onboard no more than several hunnert thousand peeps per day. Several hundred thousand peeps opening/closing LN channels per day seems a bit overkill currently, don't you think? Currently? Yes. But I thought LN was supposed to be a scalability solution. And eliminate the benefit of bigger blocks. |
|
|
|
Why is bitcoin being attacked?
Willie Sutton knows. |
|
|
|
Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.
I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier. Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though. Group identity is a powerful thing. What's important now is what to do going forward. I didn't even know why it might be bad, I just had a funny feeling due to the lack of open discussion of its pros and cons. When only one side is being talked about, it's time to be careful. Welcome to ignore |
|
|
|
Welp. We know how high level money and power works. When it's financially worthwhile to do so, someone will get together the required processing power and buy off the proper authorities and make an honest attempt to steal segwit coins. Whether it succeeds or fails, it will be a big blow to the faith people have in the system (bitcoin in all its forms, authorities, moneyed people (us, even if simply by association)).
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck.
I feel dumb. I've been a segwit cheerleader without knowing all the facts. I see now that some of it is tribalism, as you mentioned earlier. Anyway, it's what we've got now, and I still support Bitcoin. I won't be keeping my cold storage coins in a segwit address though. Fair enough. I'm just glad the scales have fallen from your eyes, allowing you to make an objective evaluation based upon actual fact. |
|
|
|
Might wanna fix your quotes there Yogi.
Sorry. Reworked it. We good now? Thanks, BTW. |
|
|
|
The hard fork should be left for huge emergencies like finding a bug that makes Bitcoin vulnerable to collapse (as was done in the past). Upgrades should be done via soft fork if possible.
The choice of using the so-called 'soft fork' kluge was what introduced the gaping security hole into The Segwit Omnibus Changeset. If it would have been a hard fork, they would not have overloaded anyonecanspend, but rather just made a simple segregated witness upgrade free of side effects. IOW, you may wish to rethink your position. |
|
|
|
- Non-segwit transactions require 51% of the hashpower and a private key to steal. Segwit transactions just require 51% of the hashpower.
Just the first line in your post sold it for me. What in the actual fuck. Hmm. Where have I heard that before? |
|
|
|
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.... |
|
|
|
I've been reading anonymint's writings for the past week or so, which also prompted me to dive into some other rabbit holes.
I'm more convinced now of the dangers of segwit. Don't mistake that for being a promotion of bcash.
Could you provide me with a link where I can read about that? I remember anonymint's post, but I did not pay enough attention and now I can not find it. Geeze, guys. We've been discussing these very same aspects of segwit since years. Have you had your fingers in your ears and blinders on up 'til now? |
|
|
|
For the current leg, and I repeat myself yet again, why was segwit better than simply doubling the blocksize? Nobody seems willing to explain that bit, for whatever reason.
Answer why doubling the block size is even needed at this point in time. With actual logic and facts to back your argument. Because using LN requires opening channels on chain. To do this in a decentralized fashion, LN can onboard no more than several hunnert thousand peeps per day. |
|
|
|
The point is that people who come in here criticizing Bitcoin for being somehow broken, or not working as intended, when the exact *opposite* is true, do need to be told to SHUT THE FUCK UP.
For all the good it will do. NelsonMuntzHaha.png |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
Unless their only issue is that Bcash is claiming to be Bitcoin.
BCH is a system made up of inanimate entities. Accordingly, BCH doesn't claim anything. |
|
|
|
Brainwashed.
Who is your employer? Roger, Jihan or Brian? Lol. You obviously didn’t read the “ Satoshi not Core” link. I don’t work for scammers. Nor do I work for Core scammers. Yet I repeat myself. I hope you aren’t under some illusion that BCH is Satoshi’s immutable protocol. Nope. I ve read it and as I see you are just a different attacker who is trying to fork another altcoin from btc without any segwit in it. That's retarded because it already exists, bcash. Since bcash is a failed coup and will never ever succeed, i guess this is Roger&Jihan's next plan. A direct attack coming from miners. You know who else described a similar story not so long ago? Jbreher, another bcash shill. Haha mindrust, you're such a treat. Words have meanings. I am not renumerated by others for my BCH advocacy. Accordingly, I am not a shill. Further, it seems your comprehension skills are completely lacking. To read anunymint's writings and conclude that he is trying to fork an altcoin off of BTC is just laughable. Lastly your seeming insistence that Roger, Jihan, and Brian are some sort of boogeymen belies a very childish world outlook. |
|
|
|
*watch* as BCH is being hacked/51% attacked for being not legit
Ho hum. BchUserUnaffected.png |
|
|
|
If not, we can always find kiddie pics on your pc's, whether they were originally there or not.
It's one thing to come here to gloat and make veiled threats to a predominantly law-abiding community. It's quite another to openly admit that you are happy to fabricate evidence in order to implicate the innocent. Fuckin' jackboot. Hope you enjoy the power that your petty badge gives you. Because you'll rot in hell for your actions. Does your mother know how dishonest you are? She must be so proud. |
|
|
|
Really had it in for satoshi
Which, of course, perfectly explains why Satoshi left Gavin in charge. /s  Who cares Manifestly, you do. You are the one that brought him into conversation. Weewy, the weird is wunning wampant this week. <- read that in a Baba Wawa voice. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
