Haha. D^4, you have all the arguing skills of a precocious seven year old.
kampai!
Straight from the Bcash handbook: accuse your opponent of what you are doing. Nice try Jonald Fyookball. You're laughable, D^4. I ain't Jonald. You have posted exactly zero evidence. Your 'rebuttals' amount to nothing more than 'I said no!'. |
|
|
|
-edited-
Might have some relevance.
Speaking of relevance little bear.. Is this really about bitcoin and bitcoin cash fighting it out? or is this about a community that stands together against the status quo of fiat and centralized banking? Seems to me there is much effort wasted in this dialogue worrying about "future problems" when we are surrounded on all sides. Agreed. One might note that I am playing defense here. That is bullshit. You are not playing defense unless you actually present non-speculative facts. If there is some innocent claim here, then I will be open to hear it. Your framing the matter as if you are "playing defense" is to attempt to assert that you have already presented valid facts and logic and I doubt that is the case, unless I am missing something. Not only are you missing something, you are conflating two distinctly different discussions within a single thread. Flail away, JJG - flail away. |
|
|
|
As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities.
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.
now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility. Just because a coin is being used in a specific way that does not make such coin more or less fungible than if such coin is used in another way. Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Geez jbreher... I see no reason for me to look up anything related to fungibility. You are trying to make some kind of assertion that lack of fungibility is an issue, and seems that you are just making shit up. Absolutely false. I am merely saying that Segwit creates a triple-classed asset. And that this is by definition a lack of fungibility. You said that I am "now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility". You were 100% wrong. Own it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.
O.k. Fungibility issues would exist if some coins were easier to spend then others or if I could not get my coins sent because of some issue with them being tainted in some kind of way. Again, where is the evidence of this seemingly fabricated issue (and if it is not completely fabricated it is surely greatly exaggerated)? The evidence is already given. Segwit creates a triple-classed asset. And that this is by definition a lack of fungibility. Sure some BIG BLOCKER nutjobs are going to continue to exaggerate negative speculation, like you seem to be doing, and to spread disinformation about supposed catastrophes of lightning network in order to pump their stupid-ass and largely non-substantiated negative talking points.
If you want to argue the facts of the matter, step up. I made some assertions of fact. Assertions of facts do not make facts, true if you don't show evidence.
but I did. Pony up some counter-arguments. If what I said is 'disinformation', then it should be a simple matter for you to put forth proof that they are false.
I have no burden to put forth facts to rebut your bare assertions, because I have not seen anything rising to the level of meaningful facts ( beyond assertions about what could happen ... not something that is actually happening) Facts about what could happen. Exactly. |
|
|
|
So you cede that these issues exist. Great.
Did my reply imply as much? I don't think they are issues - that's why I was asking. After bitserve, fluidjax too pointed out the meaninglessness of focusing on 51% attacks as segwit-specific attack vectors. Fungibility isn't a real issue, either - still IMHO. As SW transactions become the majority, only old or newborn coins will be left in your Type 1 (coins that were never touched by a SW transaction). Besides, LN acts as a kind of giant mega-tumbler. If/when LN really gets into widespread use, it will only help fungibility rather than undermine it. Segwit isn't flawed all of Jbrehere arguments are all flawed  Typical Bcasher's echo chamber. Haha. D^4, you have all the arguing skills of a precocious seven year old. kampai! |
|
|
|
So you cede that these issues exist. Great.
Did my reply imply as much? Yes. But I don't mean to put words in your mouth. How about: so you cede that these properties exist. Would that be fair? |
|
|
|
We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue.
I didn't know that. If you gave me a legacy BTC address (if we had some sort of deal or transaction), I'd send you some BTC that came from a native segwit address. You'd still get your BTC, and you'll likely get it confirmed in a block faster too. Why would you not accept that? Would you return it? I'm just saying that a couple of people upthread made that statement. That is -- by definition -- a lack of fungibility. As to why, there may be several reasons. For me, it is the additional attack vectors. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin Gold 51% attack, there are many people who say Bitmain was behind that attack.
Hmm. So... jump to hasty conclusions, accept hearsay is if it were proof, and berate the merely suspected. Got it. |
|
|
|
Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.
If the miners are as trustworthy as you big blockers think, then it shouldn't even be an issue. Mining is orthogonal. We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue. Might have some relevance. Were it not for DOGE's legacy as a joke coin, and its infinite emission schedule. I'm not a mathematician, but doesn't that make bcash at least 3X more of a joke coin? No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value. |
|
|
|
A 51% attack allows the miners to change ANY consensus rule.
But this would be 'soft-forking' (ha!) to the old compatible rules. |
|
|
|
Were it not for DOGE's legacy as a joke coin, and its infinite emission schedule.
They state transactions not revenue so BCH is 859 dollars each and a doge is one fifth of a cent each. So triple the transactions would not seem much when its likely far less revenue in value terms, less significance. If thats what they meant by the graph Volume (24h)
$334,153,000 USD
50,989 BTC vs Volume (24h)
$8,586,680 USD
1,310 BTC 39x the revenue in BCH favour. This is why people dont trust graphs and statistics I guess. Maybe their point was people, not value My guess is that their point was 'let's ridicule BCH'. |
|
|
|
Can you give me a scenario where a Segwit 51% attack actually allows the attacker to profit.
Yes. I already did upthread. Segwit was activated by redefining what was initially an anyonecanspend transaction into a Segwit transaction. A 51% attacker can revert to the old rules. This would make Segwit outputs anyonecanspend outputs. To the extent that a 51(plus)% miner can roll back the chain, the Segwit transactions formerly included in the now-orphaned blocks are now free transactions. Those free transactions that were Segwit are now (again, assuming a reversion to the previous consensus rules) anyonecanspend transactions. The value in the outputs of these anyonecanspend transactions are free to be gobbled up by the 51% miner by including them in a block, and claiming them to themselves. This ability for a 51% miner to siphon up value is unique to Segwit. It is a novel attack enabled only by the security-impairing so-called 'soft fork' activation method that was employed by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. But this is all elementary. We've been over this dozens of times, since the so-called 'soft fork' activation methodology was first proposed. If this is new news, then you have not been participating in the widely-held discussions. (Indeed, if this be new news, you may have isolated yourself within a core-dominated echo chamber) |
|
|
|
-edited-
Might have some relevance.
Speaking of relevance little bear.. Is this really about bitcoin and bitcoin cash fighting it out? or is this about a community that stands together against the status quo of fiat and centralized banking? Seems to me there is much effort wasted in this dialogue worrying about "future problems" when we are surrounded on all sides. Agreed. One might note that I am playing defense here. |
|
|
|
The one time I went to a steakhouse in Toronto, I took a girl (before we went to the Queen/Billy Squier concert), and the maître D' looked at us and said (after looking down at my running shoes) "This is a dining room you know!" to which I replied "Yes, I know." In hindsight, I wish he had said, "You really can't afford this, my friend", because I had to spend my souvenir t-shirt money on dinner. It was a good steak but the bill and tip was nearly two weeks rent money - I ate a lot of peanut butter sandwiches over the next couple of weeks.
Well, you got a nice story out of it anyhow.  I think it would be cool to meet some of the faces behind the names.
If I have cause for a return visit in the near future, I'll ping you via PM. |
|
|
|
Might have some relevance. Were it not for DOGE's legacy as a joke coin, and its infinite emission schedule. |
|
|
|
(quotes snipped and cherry-picked for manipulation) /s ... I would have liked to include some quote with "nutjob" or "ratt's ass". Maybe next time. You still get the picture  So you cede that these issues exist. Great. This branch of the thread started with someone asking me to name some specific attack vectors which led to me being a Segwit skeptic. You don't seem to think they are significant. I think they may very well be fatal at some future date. Now we understand each other. Peace out. (I wonder if we can unroll that stack back to the speculation about paid shillery that prompted my claim of Bitcoin* believer / Segwit skeptic? Thread kind of veered off-course from that) |
|
|
|
As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities.
1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions;
2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and
3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction.
now trying to pervert the concept of fungibility. Just because a coin is being used in a specific way that does not make such coin more or less fungible than if such coin is used in another way. Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting. Sure some BIG BLOCKER nutjobs are going to continue to exaggerate negative speculation, like you seem to be doing, and to spread disinformation about supposed catastrophes of lightning network in order to pump their stupid-ass and largely non-substantiated negative talking points.
If you want to argue the facts of the matter, step up. I made some assertions of fact. Pony up some counter-arguments. If what I said is 'disinformation', then it should be a simple matter for you to put forth proof that they are false. And I am in no way exaggerating nor claiming catastrophe. I made no value judgement on the matter, and even pointed out that the current debate is how significant these flaws are. All you are doing is bloviating. Buck up or shut up. |
|
|
|
|
I was in Toronto at the beginning of the month. Had a great meal at Hy's downtown. Don't know why I didn't think to look any of y'all up.
|
|
|
|
(snipped for relevance) I don't see exchanges, devs and users complaining how flawed Segwit it, nobody lost money ore saw critical errors. I only see that bullshit in the Bcash camp.
Can you provide me technical arguments/proof why Segwit is 'flawed' ore show it at the Github?
Yes. Fungibility. What's the issue with fungibility that's so specific to segwit? As I posted between there and here, Segwit creates three classes of Bitcoins. Each with distinctly different exposure to security vulnerabilities. 1) Those that are completely free of any Segwit taint all the way back to their constituent coinbase transactions; 2) Those that are not currently output from a Segwit transaction, but have Segwit taint between here and their constituent coinbase transactions; and 3) Those that are the output of a Segwit transaction. Reliance on miners not to revert to 'anyonecanspend' - an incentive for which only increases over time. That is, reliance on miners not to try a 51% attack. Does this imply the chain without segwit is invulnerable to 51% attacks? No. But without Segwit, all miners were able to do with a 51% attack is roll back transactions. They were unable to steal funds. If miners choose to revert to considering Segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transactions, then they can claim every one of the outputs of all those anyonecanspend transactions for themselves. As over time, transactions tainted by Segwit is a monotonically increasing count, the incentive to roll back to Satoshi rules is ever-increasing. And the funny thing is that this would arguably not be stealing. After all, Segwit is said to be compatible, right? All the miners would be doing to claim these funds is to revert to the previous rule set. That's compatible. Besides, any such attack would appear as a fork, which the non-mining nodes would be free to follow or disregard. No substantial change from the pre-segwit state of things, I would say. A new ability for miners to fail to validate all portions of blocks. You mean miners running pre-segwit software that have to skip SW transactions? No. Due to the way the block hash is calculated under Segwit, one can extend a chain atop a block that one does not fully validate. A miner refusing to validate this portion of the block will have a minor benefit in that it can get back to hashing so many milliseconds sooner than one that fully validates. A miner might choose to operate in this manner, believing it unlikely that some other miner might have cheated in this area. If this lax behavior becomes predominant, we could find ourselves with a chain that includes what are invalid blocks by current rules. Why don't we focus upon these issues first, before moving on? Note that these are all recognized as attack vectors by pretty much all who have studied the matter. The only real debate is in the probability of these flaws actually ever being invoked. |
|
|
|
if BTG is a scam then BCH is a scam and ETC is a scam, and every fork is a scam.
I think you need to learn something about the initial distribution of the coins you are cavalierly grouping together. One of these stands out as being something other than a pure fork. Can you guess which one? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitcoin_Gold#The_forkThe premine is peanuts, and it is supposed to be used for development. Bitcoin has a premine too remember? The premine is not peanuts, and Bitcoin had no premine. |
|
|
|
Why is there so many people with negative trust ratings here?
Because Lauda ran rampant through this thread, 'awarding' negative trust to anyone who stated an equivalence between BCH and Bitcoin. If you'd bother to look into it, you would learn that Lauda is a proven extortionist, who uses the trust system as a cudgel. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
