You haven't thought through the implications, there's no need to scare yourself.

At 46 million outputs, that's probably around 300 B each (some will be using compressed keys, others uncompressed keys, others multisig). That's roughly 13 GB of transactions in total. At 1MB blocks, it takes 13,000 blocks to move them all across. That's only around 6-8 weeks.

Not everyone will move (Satoshi's coins may never move, for instance). And everyday commerce isn't going to hold that back; I'll be giving out Segwit addresses for people to pay me, for instance. The shift to Segwit keys can and will be folded into everyday use, there's not much incentive to continue to use the legacy keys, so people will stop providing them for others to use.


So, you're scaring yourself unnecessarily. I think the price action might be getting to your nerves, calm down.

That makes little sense Dwarf.

BU comes with no guarantees about larger blocks, it simply moves the shouting from the forums onto the network. Guess what? Wildly diverging opinions will be expressed, and that can only be resolved with forking into separate chains, which is what BU more or less does guarantee. You'll get bigger blocks. And several forked BU coins with which to use them. And an exchange rate to reflect that volatility.



Segwit literally does guarantee larger blocks, it's a defined 4MB hard limit. But because it upholds consensus instead of making it easy to break, there is no added risk of forking along blocksize lines.



It's true that the Bitcoin Core wallet doesn't support Segwit keys out of the box right now. That's because the Core devs want to use the initial few weeks after activation to continue testing, and to make sure that a large enough proportion of regular nodes are ready to accept the new, bigger blocks.



What makes you think that?

It's unlikely to be practical or safe, today. The cryptography that ZK proofs entails is relatively new, something like 18-36 months old. It needs careful mathematical study before it can be comfortably used in real software, especially with digital assets.

I don't see why it shouldn't be possible in theory, but the devil may well be in the details.

In China, the larger your "private" company is, the more direct and overt interference you will end up with from the PRC government. They don't infiltrate businesses in subtle/clever ways like in the West, or outright strongarm you like in a despotic Middle Eastern regime. It's the law in China that enterprises of set sizes are subject to progressive levels of hands-on, close government supervision, sort of like an honest form of despotism.

In relation to the Chinese Bitcoin industry, make of that what you will.

You should try following my instructions for using the Finder to find hidden folders. you found /Library/Applications, which is superficially similar to ~/Library/Applications Support/, but not the same.

You need to hit pretzel-shift-F in an active Finder window, then type ~/Library/Applications Support/ into the text box that appears, then click OK


In this sub forum. He's around regularly.

The Windows build of Armory is less problematic than the Mac build, in general. It's complicated.

The Linux build has been most stable of all I believe, but it's possible you may not be inclined to take that on (possibly your techier friend may be able to help with that)


If you're pressed for time for some reason, Windows is likely the best option. If not, sit tight for Droark to help with the Mac based issues, or even attempt Linux if you're feeling brave.

You may need to use the pretzel-shift-F key combination to achieve this, that folder is typically hidden in the MacOS Finder app.

Describe in detail what happens when you try launching Armory after overriding Gatekeeper.


Note that goatpig doesn't generally handle issues with Armory on MacOS, droark is the go-to guy for Mac specific issues, and yours is resembling what we've seen on MacOS in the past.

Be respectful and leave.

You have demonstrated already that you have zero useful knowledge of the Armory software, your propensity to subtle trolling is the only reason you could possibly even be browsing this sub board


Again, be respectful and leave

It does.

Please leave this to people that are familiar with debugging Armory, you're an unwelcome presence Danny Hamilton due to your reputation as a passive-aggressive troll, as you know already

Is it impossible to do this with zero knowledge proofs?

I like #4, "argent sans frontiers"

Now we're talking!

This is exactly what I'm looking for, smart ideas about how to utilise Bitcoin Core's overwhelming node majority to neuter the BU threats, and to quell the misuse of the activation mechanism to hold Segwit back.   



If you don't have any thing like that to offer, you're off topic

So, change = stasis, and stasis = change

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight

See what I mean?

If you can't win the argument, just start playing with the definitions of words that are important to your opponent's argument, lol



Consensus = everyone disagreeing, lol

Right.

But BU depends on using it's version string for it's divergent consensus mechanism (ExcessiveBlock and AcceptanceDepth signalling is taken from the user string, AFAIA), so faking the version string breaks the mechanism BU can use to disrupt the network. They're damned if they do, and damned if they don't.

This is how these trolls operate: heavily heavily repeating their re-definition of words like consensus


LEARN CONSENSUS, Lauda (i.e. the troll wants you to learn what consensus does not mean: their preferred definition of the word)


What's the source of that information? Roger talking, and I think we all know now the dubious nature of Roger talking

And yet you started by saying that miners would never attack Bitcoin because of rational self interest?


Knowing you, you will pretend this conversation never took place at some time in the future. You will just reiterate that miners are only incentivised towards co-operative behaviour, as if we're all living in a Bitcoin bubble where everyone thinks it's wonderful, if it suits your purpose.


Why do you make contradictory statements as and when they suit your argument du jour?

Suzy

Think of the MacOS Gatekeeper like a doorman at a VIP club for celebrities; if your name's not on the list, you're not getting in the club.


You can control the Gatekeeper, tell him that it's actually your club, and you want your friend Armory to be admitted to the club. droark's link and a bit more searching should be able to help you learn how to do it.


Sadly, this is Apple's policy these days. They make money from doing it this way, it's a part of their business model. I don't recommend using Apple computers any more for this reason (amongst others)

This is entirely my attitude also.

They're not going to give up, ever. The next campaign is highly likely already being planned. The tactics employed are so aggressive that we're really being left with no choice but to play the antagonist's card; it's exceptionally likely that messy chain re-organisations, network partitioning and chain forks will happen at one point or another.

Preempting messy splits in the network with a decisive, and aggressive, counter move is the best way to handle this (IMO). We've tried being conciliatory, and of course, those who wish to disrupt Bitcoin are too determined, too pathological to simply say "well, I suppose that's reasonable, we'll play nice instead". They will play every dirty tactic, over and over and over again.



The real danger when the disruptors are so hell-bent on forcing extreme conflict, is an invocation of the classic "thesis (bitcoin) <-> antithesis (BU) -> synthesis (neoBU)" dialectic.

In practical terms: prepare a very, very subtly bad idea to be presented as "the ultimate compromise", and to only present that idea to the Bitcoin community when they are in a weak position to think rationally (BU forks, Bitpay Coinbase & DNmarkets follow them, exchange rate crashing, BU forks into BUthis and BUthat.... etc).



If a large number of nodes take step 1, the same effect will be realised (gradual erosion of non-compliant mining node's ability to get their blocks into the chain). And the risk of large re-orgs, chain splits and partitioning would exist with both methods, but it seems to me that targeting ~8% of the network that constitute BU nodes initially carries less risk than targeting the ~75% of nodes that constitute non-BIP9 signalers.

Why do you believe starting with a larger proportion of the network carries fewer such risks?