The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.
And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well.
This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.
The chain committing the "theft" could not be considered a hard or a soft fork since it it would be implemented by a miner running a node with an older version of Bitcoin. The older software will simply be following the same old rules that it understands. In order to be considered a fork, rules need to be changed. In this case, if the chain were to truly split because all the nodes could not reach an agreement, the chain that would be considered "forking off" would be the chain following the Segwit chain. After all, Segwit is considered a "soft fork." Please note that I am not convinced that both these chains could survive for long, simutaneously. Either one or the other is going to be orphaned off. |
|
|
|
I've been thinking about that anunymint guys idea. Have we seen it play out before, on the etherium blockchain?
He reckons that miners at some point will mine segwit coins to themselves as a 'donation' because (AnyoneCanSpend) in the (original bitcoin) protocol allows it to happen. This will trigger a fork in which the core supported chain would roll back to reverse that theft by miners.
No, it won't roll back. Any block which includes any "steal" of Segwit "anyonecanspend" addresses would simply be rejected/orphaned by the nodes and miners supporting the consensus rules, that is what would automatically make the attackers be left in a new fork (no matter if they are 1% of hashrate or 99% at the moment of the attack). Then, depending on how much hashrate they represent, would try to claim it is the legitimate chain and try to convince exchanges and other major players (currently running nodes with the consensus rules and with lots of money and credibility on stake) to switch to their chain by changing the software they are currently running to rollback and accept those invalid blocks or directly switch to the rogue chain. P.S.: It should be noted that at the very moment those exchanges switch to the attackers fork they would be automatically bankrupt. So try to guess what is the probability of that to happen.... Well, that is how it is supposed to work. I tried to sift through the bitcoin core github discussions, to see if this was ever tested on the testnet network and what the results were. Unfortunately, my navigation didn't yield anything; probably because I don't have a clue on where to look.  I also am coming up short on finding out exactly what a miner has to do to claim a anyonecanspend UTXO. That would be helpful to know since I could then start learning exactly what in the Segwit consensus rules would cause the network to orphan a block containing tx where miners attempt to claim a segwit UTXO for themselves. |
|
|
|
My senses of harbinger tell that this has a future but what would it be like? Theres no need to retain the habit of having a single harvesting node since reward increases proportionally to the number of nodes being span up while cost of the multiple nodes increases only linearly. I will however be biased in saying that despite of the soundness of the concept the whole move to convert bitcoin into this to buy more nodes to mint more of this coin would not seem reasonable and there be a dream of schizophrenic.
The BitGun mechanism that determines the total block reward only depends on the calculated hashrate of the POW on the network. The block reward does not increase if there are more Masternodes on the network. |
|
|
|
Whats wrong with conspiracy? Some things should absolutely be questioned until the truth is in a majority consensus.
I suppose. Never say never, but does anyone really believe that segwit is going to get reversed due to lack of support? I doubt it. In the meantime, a variety of FUDsters will continue to denigrate segwit, and seem to cause even smart peeps to fail/refuse to use segwit features (and addresses) which will continue to carry out the intended behaviors preferred by the FUDsters - largely what seems to be a delay the inevitable, which is greater and greater segwit adoption. Perhaps instead of having high levels (such as greater than 2/3) of segwit adoption in 2 years, it will take more than 4 or 5 years? If they are successful in the FUD spreading, then I suppose it could take a while to get to majority and even convincingly majority status with segwit adoption, perhaps? I've been thinking about that anunymint guys idea. Have we seen it play out before, on the etherium blockchain? He reckons that miners at some point will mine segwit coins to themselves as a 'donation' because (AnyoneCanSpend) in the (original bitcoin) protocol allows it to happen. This will trigger a fork in which the core supported chain would roll back to reverse that theft by miners. Would that be a bit like the the Etherium DAO hacker helping himself to funds via the bug ridden piece of shit that it was? In the etherium case, claim to immutability was lost because the transactions were rolled back, the chain forked and the immutable etherium classic was born. In the ether case the market didn't care about immutability and the value stayed with Etherium leaving classic as an alt. Would the same follow for bitcoin core ? edit 1: In this scenario (if I understood it correctly) it will be quite hard for the core chain to continue to claim being the one true bitcoin I would have thought. But then again I thought that about etherium too at the time. edit 2: I'm not trolling just trying to think through the possibilities. I also don't think anunymint is trying to troll either. Nearly all the replies I read to his posts didn't directly relate to what he was trying to say. The hardfork would involve more than restoring tokens stolen via a smart contract residing on one address. It would involve restoring 1000s of UTXO to 1000s of addresses. Plus, if such a vulnerability with Segwit was fully demonstrated, Core would have to work on a patch so that it won't keep happening. That might take many months if not years to accomplish. |
|
|
|
It would have only become possible to move to a segwit address in about late August 2017... so any coins that have not been moved before that would be in legacy addresses by default. There has been no automatic conversion to segwit addresses of legacy addresses (and I am not sure if such automatic conversion/movement would be possible).
No you cannot convert a legacy address to a segwit address. The addresses that start with a 1 can only be spent with the Pay to public key hash protocol. You also cannot covert a legacy multisig address to a segwit address, even though they both can use the pay to script hash protocol. The script hash used in legacy multisig is generated from a different redeem script than a segwit address. I am not quite sure how the new Bech addresses exactly work. But they use a totally different protocol as well and can only be used for segwit. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the response, and it seem that we agree about a lot of things, except perhaps regarding the contributions of the ideas of what I believe to be a disingenuine troll, anunymint. You seem to be giving way too much credit to his ideas and arguments, but whatever, we will see how long anunymint's troll life will last.
From my perspective, hopefully, he does not establish a long one (several years) like Roach... or even a medium long one like NOTlambchop (a bit over a year for himself/herself and seemingly over two years with what seemed to be his/her various sockpuppets).
Anonymint has been around for years, using various alt accounts. Many of his other accounts were banned. (Although I am not sure they were permabanned.) I believe he came on the scene in 2012, but could have been even earlier. He just hasn't frequented this thread. However, it appears that he doesn't tolerate being the lone wolf for long. This thread didn't appear to give him many allies to root for him. Therefore, he is moving on. Chances are his current account of anunymint will likely get banned too. He'll just show back up in a few months/years using a new account. |
|
|
|
a shitcoin with a value of $0.
That's what all digital craptocurrencies are. Spending money to mine silver or gold gives you a useful product. Spending money to mine shitcoins just gives you an empty husk of sunk cost fallacy. You already know the usefulness of something is not what makes something more suitable to be used as money.  Otherwise, foodstuff, land, oil, water, and the air, would be more suitable than gold or silver for money, which they are not. Your other arguments focusing on fungibility, durabilty, portability etc are much more sound. Come on now. |
|
|
|
Every single word to this supposed Segwit issue is FUD. There is no attack, even at 51%, if you don't have valid signature data for every transaction, mining nodes will invalidate your block/chain and all you have succeeded in doing is creating a fork of bitcoin with you as the only miner and a shitcoin with a value of $0.
We have how many forks, aka shitcoins, do we have now? Many of them have a value above zero ATM. What makes you think this hypothetical fork will have zero value? For the most part, someone can always find zealots and fools to follow any nonsense that someone can come up with. Also, if you are particularly crafty and or charismatic, you can sell your junk to even more fools; turn them into your minions; and they will happily proselytize for you. This is especially true if you can grease a few palms and make fools think a lambo is just around the corner. An appeal to greed is a wonderful persuader. |
|
|
|
look they used the same tactics as in america against bitcoin... split in factions, create fundamentalism on both side that make the original vision a long gone history, play dirty trick on each side, inflitrate and of course suppress all intelligent and rational arguments.
The cypherpunks are a crafty bunch. There is simply no way that any entity can erect a firewall that filters all electromagnetic signals. The reason why is because there are an infinite number of possible frequencies and amplitudes you can try to circumvent the wall. Furthermore, if any malevolent entity just tries to co-opt the current chain, the cypherpunks can just go fork off. You can't stop an infinite amount of possibilities. It would just be an endless game of whack-a-mole. It's the same reason that the war on drugs just doesn't work. Governments and other powers that be are not omniscient, omnipotent beings. There will always be activities that will just slip under their radar. |
|
|
|
Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian. Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.
So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic. Your segwit coins will be safe and sound on any fork that enforces the segwit rules. The only reason to be paranoid is if you believe a fork will be implemented that will not follow the segwit rules and instead treat the segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transaction, and you wish to have the option to participate in this hypothetical chain. You can also be extra paranoid, and make sure that you do not have any segwit tainted coins. But that new fork would have to basically force a reorg, to replay the old segwit transactions. The more & more blocks it would reorg would be more and more expensive to implement. This is the same principal that protects us from 51% attacks in the 1st place. If you want to HODL your coins in P2PKH (legacy) addresses and make sure you have no segwit tainted coins, you are free to do that. You just will not be able to participate in the lightning network and you will not enjoy the benefit of slightly cheaper fees that you enjoy with segwit. The luddites destroyed looms because they thought they would get them killed. Looms. Bitcoin is a new step in money, orders of magnitude more disruptive than weaving machines. It's not paranoia, it's just basic historical knowledge. The amount of resources needed to carry out large scale attacks on the network of the type we have been talking about recently seems like a lot of money to us, but that doesn't mean that there isn't someone out there with enough money and inventive to do so. And a serious attempt will not be telegraphed in advance, it will just strike out of the blue. Given that the cost of insuring against such an event is... fifteen cents on the transfer... there simply is no good argument against doing so. Are you really going to do a blockchain analysis to ensure that all of the UTXO in your wallet is not segwit tainted? Furthermore, in a reorganization attack, the old coinbase transactions as well as all of their child UTXO will be invalidated. If the fork doesn't do any reorganization, the only way it is going to be able to steal segwit coins is when they are actually spent. Otherwise, they will just sit in the segwit address, inert. If it appears this new chain is going to be the accepted chain with the longest work, only the uninformed are going to spend these coins and donate to the miners. To collect some kind of "bounty" from these stranded coins, they are going to have to offer some kind of deal to entice the holdouts to go along. Depending on how desperate people are, it may be satosis on the BTC. There could also be a savior miners that will do it for free or a nominal price. You just send the rawtx to the miner in an alternative way, not over the network, and they will include the tx in the next block and send the proceeds to you rather than themselves. |
|
|
|
Segwit has been activated and implemented into bitcoin by normal consensus... therefore, if you support bitcoin, then you should be attempting to utilize and support its current and newest features... eg.. segwit... Keep a decent percentage of your coins on segwit addresses and using segwit features,...Ibian. Get with the bitcoin program... modern bitcoin... not old bitcoin.
So "because you say so". That's not much of an argument. Besides being pretty pathetic. Your segwit coins will be safe and sound on any fork that enforces the segwit rules. The only reason to be paranoid is if you believe a fork will be implemented that will not follow the segwit rules and instead treat the segwit transactions as anyonecanspend transaction, and you wish to have the option to participate in this hypothetical chain. You can also be extra paranoid, and make sure that you do not have any segwit tainted coins. But that new fork would have to basically force a reorg, to replay the old segwit transactions. The more & more blocks it would reorg would be more and more expensive to implement. This is the same principal that protects us from 51% attacks in the 1st place. If you want to HODL your coins in P2PKH (legacy) addresses and make sure you have no segwit tainted coins, you are free to do that. You just will not be able to participate in the lightning network and you will not enjoy the benefit of slightly cheaper fees that you enjoy with segwit. |
|
|
|
Fucking dumb ass question but how do you know if your bitcoin’s are being held in a SegWit or Non SegWit address?
If the address begins with 1, they are definitely not Segwit coins. If the address begins with 3, they are held in a P2sH address. They could be segwit or could just be a multisign address. If the private keys are under your control, you should know. Likely they are a segwit address since you would definitely know if you set up a multisig address since it involves a very complicated process to set up. If the private keys are under someone else's control, like an exchange or online wallet, you will need to research or ask. If the address begins with bc1, it is definitely a segwit address.
So it’s a lot safer if my bitcoin’s are all held in addresses beginning with a 1
Only if you believe that a fork that will treat and spend segwit coins as anyonecanspend transactions will eventually become the chain with the most work. (And also the chain with the most economical support.) Your segwit coins will be basically unspendable on this chain. As soon as you attempt to spend them, you can only use the segwit redeem script which the miners will appropriate for themselves as an anyonecanspend. Your segwit coins are safe and sound on any fork that enforces segwit rules. |
|
|
|
Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion is not the true vision of infofront. infofront's true vision wouldn't let trolls to hijack this thread so easily. If this shit keeps happening, I'll have no choice but to fork this thread and start it again as it meant to be. The new W/O thread will be ripped off from any troll protocols (like anonymint, roach, jbeher and other retards) and only infofront's true protocol to be left. Raise hands now. P.S: I won't be reverting your past crap. Your past messages (troll or not) will be safe. I'll copy everything from this topic one by one but (tr00) moderation will be taking place by the page 20781. Infofront isn't the true originator of this thread. adamstgBit is. However, adamstgBit became inactive. Bitcointalk locked this thread because it was becoming too much of a chore moderating it. They appointed infofront as the new OP, to give this thread a little moderation. |
|
|
|
I will delete this post.
We've been waiting on you to delete all your posts. Followed by your account too. Delete your account anunymint. I dont want to see anymore any of your shilling on this thread. I bought $3M worth of bitcoin recently and I am waiting for the next bull run. If what you want is for us to lose our investment by scaremongering then we cant be on this same thread. What exactly is he shilling? This real Bitcoin he is talking about is simply a slightly altered version of Bitcoin Core 0.5.3. (They call their version 0.5.4) Those that are running that software as a node are still following the same chain as Bitcoin Core 16.0.1. |
|
|
|
|
I'm beginning to regret devoting a substantial portion of my bitcoin toward buying hash to mine this coin. Then going a step further and keeping the coins and setting up a masternode. This continued dumping is rather disconcerting. It's beginning to look like this coin's novel distribution method is not sound.
|
|
|
|
yes.
if segwit is doomed like anunymint is praising, people would lose trust in bitcoin and blockchain as a whole. that's why there is no advantage in storing coins on legacy addresses.
Praising? Who says he is happy about it? Something that might be interesting to consider is why some of you seem to be so invested in the idea of segwit being the ultimate good that you call anyone who question it, even on a technical security front, names. What's up with that? Because many BTC HODLers want to believe that the Bitcoin core team is headed in the right direction. They want to believe that BTC, in it's current state, is antifragile. It is not pure "belief". There is evidence to back up bitcoin being secure and ongoing attacks through physical attempts (such as spam), market manipulation and FUD spreading attempts. So, anyone supporting and investing into BTC rather than pumping a bunch of alt coin and ICO nonsense gotta take "concern spreading" about BTC with a BIG ASS grain of salt. Well, some people around here are treating this all like it's dogma. Reminds me of when I was in a class converting to Catholicism and I dare challenged the fact about Jesus actually being born on December 25th. The sister was aghast that I challenged this, and her reply was "because the church says so." Needless to say, I am no longer a practicing Catholic. |
|
|
|
A 51% attack will never happen. The miners would never do it because they know that would be the end of the crypto world, and all their investments would turn to dust overnight.
So.... checkmate FUD'ing concern trolls?
Unfortunately, there are margin short options which would allow the attacker to make a boatload of cash if the price falls. However, at the present time, there probably is really not enough liquidity in any of those markets to offset the huge cost. However, with the CME and CBOE on board, that could change in the future... |
|
|
|
I just want to be able to pay my pizza delivery guy in xmr. he can know where I live but not know who I am, right? is that too much to ask of earth?
What is the need to ensure privacy of your transaction to buy pizza? Are you on a spouse monitored diet? |
|
|
|
yes.
if segwit is doomed like anunymint is praising, people would lose trust in bitcoin and blockchain as a whole. that's why there is no advantage in storing coins on legacy addresses.
Praising? Who says he is happy about it? Something that might be interesting to consider is why some of you seem to be so invested in the idea of segwit being the ultimate good that you call anyone who question it, even on a technical security front, names. What's up with that? Because many BTC HODLers want to believe that the Bitcoin core team is headed in the right direction. They want to believe that BTC, in it's current state, is antifragile. |
|
|
|
Well, it appears that Peter Todd made a tweet that basically states Satoshi was fallible too, and now Craig Wright seems to be making some kind of veiled threat.My wager is that Craig Wright doesn't really have the cajones. HODL |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
