Haha. Wrong band, but otherwise on target. Touche'!

Complete failure? Not at all. For those transactions worth waiting for, you can wait for block inclusion. It is an option that BTC does not give you.

Well, the claim is actually that non-mining fully-validating entities provide no benefit to the Bitcoin network. But why let accuracy get in the way of a good satire, when a strawman suits your purpose so much better?

I misunderstood. Didn't realize you were talking VPS. 10TiB for less than 0.02 BTC is buying a physical drive.

Have you looked at AWS?

Doubtful.

It is obvious that the IMF is grooming the Special Drawing Right (SDR) as the new world reserve currency. There is also a quite compelling argument that Chinas massive purchases of Gold is in order to pull their gold_reserve/GDP ratio in line with that of other major currencies, such that the Yuan can be included in the basket that makes up the SDR. The G7/G20 act like the insiders are fully invested in these plans.

Will crypto waylay their plans? Probably not in the near term. We can hope for the longer term. Perhaps.

While I understand your frustration, 10TiB costs about 0.02 BTC in today's marketplace.

Nope.

Jihan isn't my fuck-buddy. Indeed, I've never met the dude.

I don't recall that Segwit no longer allows for ASICboost.

I don't recall any credible evidence that Jihan ever profited from covert ASICboost.

I don't remember any demonstrable irritation on Jihan's part regarding segwit's impact upon ASICboost.

But feel free to bring forth any evidence that might cover my knowledge gaps. (as if)

::ahem!::

More importantly, your deflection has exactly zero to do with the fact that the implementation of Segwit introduced novel attack vectors to Bitcoin. Perhaps we should discuss this first, before deviating to your smokescreen. Hmm?

Nope. If you want to negotiate with me, I'd be willing to send you a CD of my (charting) album for less than 1 BTC - as long as that BTC isn't tainted by Segwit in its past.

That's better than 17% discount! Such a deal for you!

Segwit has altered the Bitcoin security model. This is inarguable.

We can argue about whether or not this new security model is or isn't a threat. Such is not my interest at this time.


Interesting assertion.

Your continued mischaracterization of my position -- especially in light of my repeated corrections -- is antisocial aggression. (haha! Don't I just sound like an SJW?)

I have continually stated that I am merely pointing out that a reduction in fungibility is endemic to the design of Segwit. I said nothing about a current attack.

Just. Fucking. Stop.

A major problem with Segwit is that now that it is activated, it is impossible to reverse it.

Well, without the miners getting a windfall off the back of Segwit-holders' losses, that is.

So implement Segwit through a mechanism that introduces new attack vectors.

Nope. Still doesn't make sense.

Which of course would just result in a niche that needs filling by an entrepreneur to found an exchange that deals strictly in Segwit-free bitcoins. Market pressures always result in market solutions. Kinda econ 101, that.

Thanks for the analysis. While it should be obvious to most, this model employs electricity as the only cost to mining. Of course, we know this is not the case. I wouldn't know what capital acquisition, cooling, rent, plant, maintenance, labor, etc might add to the cost.

OK. Sorry for the mischaracterization.


Thanks.


Well, first, the vast majority of USD exists only in digital form. Such USD has no serial numbers or such letters. As for the small faction of USD in physical form, the letter of which you speak is a discernible characteristic. However, such letter has no operational consequence. This is quite unlike the three segwit classes, each of which implement differing security models. While the letter of which you speak is a fungibility hole, it is of a much weaker variety than Segwit's three classes.

As a snarky aside, why the cliche'd request for 'small unmarked bills'? What of bills marked by the exploding dye pack?


As I sad, it is legitimate to argue over the significance of the effects of these characteristics.


Well, in this conversation I am not so much concerned with taint, as much as the differing security models implemented for each of the three classes created by Segwit.

But I am happy to agree to disagree.

Correct. I did not say that. Then again, I also did not say the converse.


That I did.


To any extent which I might, it would be at a discounted rate.


Well, if that BTC-denominated digital music distributor is still in business, you can still by a copy of my CD for 1.2 BTC. I'd even accept 1.2 Segwit coins for a copy.

Indeed. Changing the algorithm would be stupidity of the first order. See Bitcoin Gold, et al, for the logical conclusion of that path. No good can come from jettisoning Billions of $USD worth of dedicated security appliances. The idea itself is being floated by economic ignoramuses.

Thanks for the (disingenuous) offer, but I don't have any Segwit tainted coins.

No. I am not asserting a theory. I am asserting fact. Not theory. Fact. Segwit's separation of Bitcoin into three distinct classes is a readily-observable fact.

You really have a problem with basic definitions here.

Obviously.


It is not FUD spreading. It is truthful statements about properties of Segwit.

You, on the other hand, either were completely wrong or lying in your assertion that these properties did not exist.


When backed into a hole of your own digging, you accede to what all can see. How big of you.


What I am asserting remains what I have been asserting all along. I am asserting that these properties are endemic to Segwit. Period.

What is more, I only offered this up when someone asked me to explain why I was a Segwit skeptic. This narrative of me calling certain and immediate impending doom is one of your own deluded invention.


No. I even stated point blank that the significance of these existing properties is a subject of debate.


Probably because I stick to the facts.


How is it that you want WO peeps to treat you seriously and with credibility, JJG, when you seem to take nearly every opportunity to exaggerate my position and stick words in my mouth - only after having been exposed as either ignorant or duplicitous?