Show Posts
Anonymint
If you know Satoshi's protocol, you would know that ANYONECANPAY has existed since the very early days, and was always intended as a feature to upgrade script types such that old nodes didn't experience the new scripts as a hard fork, no doubt ANYONECANSPEND was used for the introduction of multisig addresses too (yet you're leaving those out of your TheftCoin idea for no reason at all). So you can keep pretending that the developers have deliberately created a vulnerable new spend type all you like, you're not fooling anyone (except apparently cellard, and youralter ego friend from trilemma.com).
If you know Satoshi's protocol, you would know that ANYONECANPAY has existed since the very early days, and was always intended as a feature to upgrade script types such that old nodes didn't experience the new scripts as a hard fork, no doubt ANYONECANSPEND was used for the introduction of multisig addresses too (yet you're leaving those out of your TheftCoin idea for no reason at all). So you can keep pretending that the developers have deliberately created a vulnerable new spend type all you like, you're not fooling anyone (except apparently cellard, and your
You are mistaken yet again, OP_CHECKMULTISIG does not require P2SH:
https://bitcoin.org/en/glossary/multisig
ANYONECANSPEND is put there so that any idiot scammers who want to soft fork provide the miners the means to force the soft fork to forkoff in a hard fork by taking P2SH transactions as donations. It is provided so that miners and the economic majority (i.e. the whales) decide when to cause a soft fork to hardfuckoff. It is also put there to give the useless idiots a belief that they have some political control over Bitcoin to serve as a spanking lesson about how Satoshi Bitcoin destroys and disintermediates politics (even disintermediating the sovereignty of nation-states with jurisdictional arbitrage).
Gavin proposed OP_CHECKMULTISIG and P2SH. Let’s remember that that Gavin and John Nash were both at Princeton at the same time. Hmm.
What we can see is that Satoshi put in some invariants (1MB block size, limited number of sigs in a multi-sig) that would tempt others to want to attempt to upgrade his protocol. Those upgrades (no matter how they would have been proposed in a BIP) would only be a soft fork if old clients treat them as “cannot decode”. If there’s UTXO that is “cannot decode” then miners can create a spend script which has no sig for the payer from that “cannot decode” UTXO to a new UTXO which is a standard output understood by the Satoshi protocol. So that is why I say although Gavin proposed P2SH, Satoshi actually designed ANYONECANSPEND into his original protocol via the invariants and what he knew humans would try to do to his protocol.
There is no doubt in mind that Bitcoin will prosper when Core is kicked off.
Bitcoin is not driven by these useless minnows who think Bitcoin was created to be a popular transaction scalability system.
Besides when someone releases a proof-of-stake system without the nothing-at-stake flaw, then the on-chain transaction scalability problem is going to disappear overnight.
That will drive huge widespread demand for cryptocurrency in general and Bitcoin will continue to be the unit-of-account for power money. Thus my work will actually help grow Bitcoin.
I am not worried at all. The future looks like $billionaire around the corner for me. Now if y’all don‘t mind, I will STFU because I can’t get my work done while arguing on BCT.
Hi, Newbie here
I posit that the "event" that results in Core being kicked off Bitcoin won't necessarily be greed motivated but will be a direct result of "Re-introducing imperial barnacles".
Can someone point me to more information about "Safe" addresses. Are those legacy addresses? Or just 1addresses? How best to create, use?
http://trilema.com/2017/integration-is-bad-for-bitcoin/
Quote
I. Re-introducing imperial barnacles into the Bitcoin protocol is of no service to the Republic and something the Empire is entirely dependent on. There is absolutely no conceivable reason you might have to open a ssl connection to whoever you're paying. If you're willing to do that, which is to say : if you're willing to include the Great Inca in your payment structure, just fucking send a wire. It will be "cheaper"ii and "safer" than dicking around with Bitcoin, which evidently is not for you.
II. Giving minersiii pretexts to break the protocol is not in anyone's interest (miners themselves included). Excluding a validly signed transaction for any reason is breakage of Bitcoin, and should not be tolerated for the directly obvious consideration : the reasons will change down the road.
So no, integration is not good for Bitcoin, irrespective of whether you mean "integration of NSA into your payment flow", or "integration of merchants and customers", or "integration of payers and miners" or any other kind. Bitcoin is valuable and powerful for being fragmentary, not for being unitary. There already exists such a thing as the unitary payment stack, and not only everyone hates paypal but moreover we're here in the first place because we wanted an alternative. Which we now have. What's the grand idea, "take these torrents and make them moar like netflix" ? That's not much of an idea, is it now!
Needless to say, the reference Bitcoin implementation as maintained by the Bitcoin foundation (not to be confused with various scammers' phishing attemptsiv) will never implement or support such nonsense. I suppose, given Bitpay's absolutely minuscule size we don't even need to revisit 2015-era points about who's got the money and therefore who makes the rules.v
Never forget :
Bitcoin is valuable today because for the past five+ years I've been intransigently sinking each and every attempt of all the scum and barnacles sticking to its mighty hull to make it "more acceptable to governments" which is to say useless and stupid.
It was true in 2015 like it was true in 2013 like it is true in 2017 and like it will stay true in 2019.
II. Giving minersiii pretexts to break the protocol is not in anyone's interest (miners themselves included). Excluding a validly signed transaction for any reason is breakage of Bitcoin, and should not be tolerated for the directly obvious consideration : the reasons will change down the road.
So no, integration is not good for Bitcoin, irrespective of whether you mean "integration of NSA into your payment flow", or "integration of merchants and customers", or "integration of payers and miners" or any other kind. Bitcoin is valuable and powerful for being fragmentary, not for being unitary. There already exists such a thing as the unitary payment stack, and not only everyone hates paypal but moreover we're here in the first place because we wanted an alternative. Which we now have. What's the grand idea, "take these torrents and make them moar like netflix" ? That's not much of an idea, is it now!
Needless to say, the reference Bitcoin implementation as maintained by the Bitcoin foundation (not to be confused with various scammers' phishing attemptsiv) will never implement or support such nonsense. I suppose, given Bitpay's absolutely minuscule size we don't even need to revisit 2015-era points about who's got the money and therefore who makes the rules.v
Never forget :
Bitcoin is valuable today because for the past five+ years I've been intransigently sinking each and every attempt of all the scum and barnacles sticking to its mighty hull to make it "more acceptable to governments" which is to say useless and stupid.
It was true in 2015 like it was true in 2013 like it is true in 2017 and like it will stay true in 2019.
http://trilema.com/2018/the-republic-without-mp/
Quote
-Snip
They'll want to have a Republic without MP, a WoT without the WoT, a Pizarro without the Pizarro, a this without the that. Absolutely typical pantsuitism,
-Snip
Bitcoin is feudal, you understand. Do you understand ?
Do you ?
The time while the lords are still even looking for more knights is drawing to a close, like all windows of opportunity ever
They'll want to have a Republic without MP, a WoT without the WoT, a Pizarro without the Pizarro, a this without the that. Absolutely typical pantsuitism,
-Snip
Bitcoin is feudal, you understand. Do you understand ?
Do you ?
The time while the lords are still even looking for more knights is drawing to a close, like all windows of opportunity ever
