If people (and let's remember: everyone has access to the BTC market) buy Bitcoin up, and these official financial system futures markets got the market sentiment wrong, what are CME or CBOE gonna do, tell everyone they have to give the Bitcoin back to make it right again?

This also ignores the most crucial fact from the BTC futures contracts that exist on exchanges in the official markets: no BTC ever changes hands, they're not settling in BTC or directly participating in the Bitcoin market in any way (or at least not publicly). That means they must follow the real markets, they cannot lead the BTC market.

Again you're changing your argument

This means that (according to your logic) everyone must always check every output they receive for P2SH history, or the miners can steal from the outputs with such constituents whether it's in a "safe" P2PKH address or not. In fact, the same would be true of Segwit too.

And most importantly block rewards will all invariably be tainted with such outputs, the fees will very likely always have P2SH or Segwit history (and are an inextricable part of the block subsidy output). Remind us why miners are going to back this "attack" lol


Honestly, it's impossible you really believe this, and with your long long long history of trolling Bitcointalk... but of course I don't expect the effluent to stop flowing lol

Sorry about this, but I think it's still a bad idea to help people directly to use Lightning, there's still too much of a risk that money might get lost. Maybe you will find someone to help you, but I'm not gonna take that responsibility yet.



Yep. It may take a while, but these things will happen (although the micro transaction minimum will be pushed up alot by any future increases in the Bitcoin price, which will be inevitable if Bitcoin's potential transaction throughput using Lightning is made use of). Lightning must be easy and smooth to use, and there's alot more development before that's the case. Even now it's still at the stage where only technically adept and (most of all) brave people should be using Lightning.

I think this is something we will begin to see more and more: businesses rolling out Lightning to differentiate themselves from their competitors. Anyone that can't offer Lightning payments will eventually be considered outdated and lacking typical Bitcoin features (it will take a while to reach that point though)

I'm trying to slowly open up Lightning channels, not only to use now, but in anticipation of future spikes in on-chain transactions. Anything that can be done to keep the mainchain freed up (and save on fees) is better for individual Bitcoiners and for the Bitcoin network as a whole.

It's even more amazing that you keep dodging the key point under the weight of your ever bloviated responses


4.3 million BTC in P2SH addresses. Why aren't the miners forking and "donating" it to themselves in the fork? Answer the question

Priceless

How about this? Instead of giving us your warning over and over and over again, come back when anything you've ever said actually happens, you've been the same stuck record about the P2SH Jubilee since 2011, and reality proving you wrong every day for 6 years doesn't seem to dampen your enthusiasm.

Just like your super secret killer cryptocoin design: you're all talk, and nothing ever happens. Do. Something. Real.

Bitpay already lost both merchants and users after they stopped providing addresses directly. As soon as competitors start to accept Lightning too, Bitpay will have to respect the market or die completely.

I'd never checked that, but it's true, Litecoin does process more transactions than Bitcoin Cash does.

The bank can just have a webpage display a stableUSD address they own for every person wanting to exchange to regular USD

This is pretty simple stuff (maybe they might allow an API for doing this programmatically, but I'm afraid I might lose you if we get into that )

They've been waiting since 2011, that's kind of a long time. And Core did screw up since then; the accidental hard-fork in 2013 being the most prominent example I can think of. That was the biggest chance to discredit the devs, and it wasn't taken. Segwit's long road to activation was a major opportunity too, but there was barely a whisper from this "Satoshi immutabilist" camp

Don't you think that nigh on 8 years of failing to convince anyone of the reality of this attack (and let's not forget 8 years of network upgrades...) discredits this immutability argument? You're saying "the longer we wait, the more likely everyone is to want to return to the 2011 Bitcoin software, where the miners get awarded an extra 5 million Bitcoin", but maybe it's more like that the longer we wait, the more insignificant and bizarre the whole idea is.



If P2SH/bech32 are "exposed", then that's only happening on the hard-forked blockchain with different rules that permits it. Why would that concern anyone on the Bitcoin chain? Different chains, different rules

It's simpler just to interchange USD for stableUSD directly on a one-page website, without using any tech inbetween (coloured coins, whatever). The Federal Reserve accepting 1 stableUSD for 1 USD is the most guaranteed peg possible

As a phenomenon, it was always bound to happen.

Think about it from Bitmain's (or any big miner manufacturer's) perspective: you're a money printing business in essence. You mine BTC in all the most profitable ways possible; mining with customer equipment for 2 weeks before shipping, charging hundreds of percent markup prices for mining units, adding proprietary boosting tech not activated on customer equipment etc. But you still find yourself stuck with thousands upon thousands of last generation miners that are now unprofitable despite all the advantages you ensured yourself.

So, you create an altcoin with the same hashing algorithm, and as compelling a marketing story as you can fashion. If you can get enough market momentum, your old unproductive ASICs can eek out just that little bit more profit before they croak. Maintain that narrative as long as possible, and you've added extra profitability from what would have otherwise been wasted capital.

Right, it's the same model as Tether, but with either the issuing central bank or Wells Fargo etc doing the 1:1 redemption

The same logic applies to P2SH addresses (Popescu's "army" subscribes to this). BTC 4.3 million currently in P2SH addresses. No attack is forthcoming. BTC 4.3 million is not enough?

The same logic applies to P2PKH addresses (i.e. supposedly "safe" legacy addresses beginning with 1). There's around 11 million BTC in P2PKH addresses.


Miners could use this logic for re-appropriating (stealing, "donating to self", whatever) BTC 11 million in P2PKH addresses + BTC 4.3 million in P2SH addresses + BTC 150 thousand segwit addresses.

Can you explain why the attack isn't happening now? Why not, it's only 15 million BTC! They could take it all, couldn't they?

Direct convertibility

Either the coins are in the ACH legacy banking network, or they're in p2p stablecoin network. Neither permit double spends. It's simple.

You're simply believing any words written by questionable people on the internet if you think that small changes to the 0.5 codebase can actually perform the initial block download, someone with some kind of reputation to defend would have to corroborate that by compiling the code and trying. You said it yourself: one can compile any code for a Bitcoin node with any version string they want, and recent versions of Bitcoin allow the user to simply add a command line argument to edit the version string without recompiling.

How do you know that the supposed 10 nodes aren't simply regular version 14 nodes using the uacomment argument to falsely advertise some different version? Of course there are ways to test based on whether modern network messages generate expected responses, but that tells you only a limited amount about what code any given node is running, it wouldn't be a lot of work to selectively disable some message types to spoof a 0.5 era node.


And I prefer to think that this is rational behaviour, and that all of this is a highly orchestrated act. The only possible benefit for Popescu to behave like this is to spread FUD, and the present timing of the reappearance of his "supporters" (all 1 of them) is a curious correlation with the present market cycle stage & sentiment. Maybe he's got some big bids below $6000 he wants fulfilled? That sounds like a much more likely scenario than "rich intelligent eccentric believes he's The 2nd Coming of Alexander the Great" or whatever

Anonymint and Shelby Moore are the same ("he" also in the past was behind Bitcointalk usernames TPTB_need_war, iamnotback, dinofelis, trainscarwreck, + many many more)

But it's highly likely that the whole "Shelby" thing is simply a theatrical version of Mircea Popescu (this entire line of reasoning originated with him), a rich early adopter of Bitcoin who became crazed with trying to control the discourse on Bitcointalk about 5 years ago, and was subsequently banned. It would make alot of sense if so, as it would be unusual for someone like that to lose their motivation in a puff of smoke.

Creating dozens of alt accounts to push the conversation/positon in a direction for which the only public adherent is Mircea Popescu would be exactly the slightly deranged behaiour you would expect of someone who has been perma-banned like that.

---

achow101 doesn't mention in the above that there are over 4 million BTC in P2SH addresses, and probably were a year ago when he wrote that reply. If 4 million BTC isn't enough to trigger P2SH booty, I don't know what would be (and the irony is that the more BTC stolen in a hardfork, the more disgruntled opponents, and the less likely it is that anyone will follow the fork).

No the idea would be to use a p2p network protocol to allow permissionless transfer of the stablecoin, but use direct convertibility with the issuer to maintain the peg.

You can make a list of every unspent output as the blockchain progresses, this is new technology called "UTXO set" (fresh from 2011 )



Did they implement the anti-Satoshi UTXO set tech? How long does it take to sync now, less than a year maybe?

Well, if you want to continue along these lines, consider something else.

Bitcoin version 0.5 would take a very, very long time to download & verify the full Bitcoin blockchain in 2018, probably several months (0.5 didn't even use a UTXO set, every block would need to have every transaction validated by seeking back to the block that every output was spent from). Anyone trying to switch to 0.5.4 using their current blockdata would find it doesn't work, unless all the latest un-Satoshisms have been backported to it (which would make the whole concept that little bit more ridiculous), this vaunted hard fork attack couldn't take place using 0.5 era software even if someone wanted to do it (no takers so far on all the "vulnerable" P2SH addresses, which only contain BTC 4.3 MILLION at this point in time, but of course the Schelling point hasn't been reached yet, 4.3 million BTC isn't worth it, lol)  

If it's completely impractical to sync a "Satoshi immutable" node, how many people could really be a part of this regressionist hard fork movement that's the Bitcoin equivalent of a 19th century steam driven car? It's a very bad joke


So, I am "so sure about that part". What reason have you got to believe any of this nonsense?