So the Czech central bank?




Central banks would be unlikely to take that approach, but in principle there's no technical reason why not. The only reason I have for saying central bank cryptocurrency would solve the stablecoin issue is the simplicity, why use omni layer when they could just redeem TCP/IP routed USD 1:1 directly at federalreserve.com, or through whatever regular commercial bank? 

Completely arbitrary according to the "cannot decode" basis of this proposed attack


If cannot decode "breaks Satoshi immutability" (such is the claim), then P2PKH (Bitcoin addresses beginning with 1) is also in violation, and hence unsafe to store money as it's subject to hard fork confiscation. There is no reason why miners shouldn't extend this attack to take all the Bitcoins from P2PKH addresses according to the "logic" of this hard forking attack


Any claims that this "Satoshi's Pure Bitcoin" has a following is a complete joke, there are no 0.5 nodes at all on the Bitcoin network, that's zero precisely. I wonder why this Mircea Popescu troll account Anonymint is pushing this FUD now, it's not like we're in a bear market waiting to capitulate or anything

Which central bank?

Bitcoin version 0.1 cannot decode P2PKH (the type of address you claim is safe from the "booty" attack)

Explain why your theory means that miners won't steal every Bitcoin going back to the introduction of P2PKH scripts



(BIP 65 is a typo I meant BIP66, strict canonical DER signatures )

The problem with truly decentralised/market-based stable coins (assuming they're definitely possible) is acceptance: the only way to prove the peg is to have stableUSD trade directly against USD. That means a centralised exchange has to pick up stableUSD for trading, to prove the peg. This might be considered not to be in their interests, and consequently never happen. Although maybe it might work if a p2p stablecoin like Tether was used as a proxy to demonstrate the peg fidelity of a truly decentralised stablecoin... it's a tough challenge

Dare I say it, but the often derided central banking news pieces claiming an interest to create "national cryptocurrency" might be the genuine solution, depending on which central bank actually does this (and under what conditions). I'm not sure if it's more likely that Bitcoin simply gains more share of commercial transactions first instead, although that might be the catalyst that inspires a central bank to make the breakthrough.

That's what central banks do: they try to use monetary policy to influence the trading price of the currency they issue. It's the least capitalist way to handle a currency near enough, besides outright pegs. Central banks exist to intervene in currency markets, not to let them function. They also now intervene in basically every financial market, not just currencies.

There wasn't a line in "1984" that said "Communism is Capitalism!", but there should've been.

Right, so Satoshi specifically introduced ANYONECANPAY so that miners would steal funds from any scripts using softforked protocol rules ? That's actually what your argument is?

And you've changed your argument, you're now claiming all P2SH funds are vulnerable? Have you changed your argument because of it's inconsistency with the ways that ANYONECANPAY has been used before the Segwit soft fork to introduce new script types? What if you're ignorant about other script types that have been soft-forked using ANYONECANPAY backwards compatibility? Why wouldn't you be, after this concession? Do you know?

 
What about people who use P2SH as a way of using compressed keys? What next, are compressed keys anti-Satoshi too, whether P2SH wrapped or not? Have you thought any of this through? Will you change your argument again?



Please do, we're all really, really interested in the latest developments in your years of work on your coin. Or, any information at all would suffice, seeing as you've never produced even some beta testing code after 5 years of (alot of) talk

Replies are for meaningful conversations, you have to say at least something about what the person you're replying to said.


You've got no reason to believe Segwit addresses are a special case somehow, if a hard fork is to steal BTC, then everything is up for grabs. Provide reasoning.

Why do you continue to evade this point? Is it because your whole argument relies on evading reality? *




* Notice how this (at least broadly) addresses your non-reply

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 your alter ego friend from trilemma.com).

Are you replying in the wrong thread to make things confusing again? Seriously, grow up

So a hard fork is not needed if the protocol already permits to steal from Segwit addresses (which it doesn't). Get your argument together, you're floundering quite badly. Also, get a reputable IQ test.

Oh no! Large amounts of a tradable item can be used to influence the market! We can't have that, y'know, market prices being determined by trading!

Someone ought to ask these "experts": if regulated market prices aren't being governed by the outcome of trading, then what the fuck is setting the price?



Oh I see, so the most abused monetary policy instrument in the history of all centrally issued currencies (supply) is in fact NOT controlled by the largest Bitcoin holders, but instead by the (dare I say it) regulation of the protocol?

The only reason why these "experts" talk shit about Bitcoin is precisely because of Bitcoin's regulation: because it's fair regulation, that doesn't allow these manipulative parasites the ability to suck the whole market dry of everyday investors' capital

If your proposed fork can't even get a majority hashrate, then everyone currently using Bitcoin will experience it as just the latest minority fork. That's no different to any other Bitcoin hardfork, with the attractive property that the miners following it will be exclusively composed of thieves.

No-one will realistically trust those miners to not steal coins again in another hard fork. Hence your "Satoshi" fork will actually be ThiefCoin, that zero users or businesses will follow. Price crashes, not even worth trying to sell the ThiefCoin airdrop.

You have a genius' 165 IQ, yet this is the best scare story you can summon up? Whatever test you took, ask for your money back IMO

A denial of service attack apparently exists for the alert system (for which the private key is needed). So once the alert system key is released, anyone using Bitcoin version 12.1 or less should make sure they have the alert system manually switched off, or they'll be vulnerable to DoS attacks. This won't have much impact, as there are very few 12.1 or less nodes still running on the Bitcoin network (~3%)

There are newer models of fiat pegged crypto ("stablecoins") that try to decentralise issuance. There are various models for this, some more convincing than others. But I expect that either the designs will improve, or the quality assurance of the backing will (most probably both).

There was an MP PR (i.e. public relations for Mircea Popescu) account hanging around a long time after Popescu was banned from bitcointalk.org. Come on now.


And you change your account every month. And sometimes create other accounts that use the exact same posting style, argument style and opinions in general.



So you're both very stable geniuses? Interesting.

---

Some observations

There are a lot of parallels between Mircea Popescu and Anonymint. Both use alot of alt accounts. Both are full of talk and little action. Both obsessed with their intellect. Both troll as if it's an Olympic sport (it proves how smart they are, despite achieving very little of any substance).


If Mircea Popescu were to lose his life (presumably for annoying some Eastern European gangsters or something like that), I wonder what would happen to Anonymint (and his many alt accounts)?

That makes very little sense at all, especially not the part where the new fork continues to have market value.

The miners need "tons of gear" because they need to change Bitcoin's rules to perform the attack. That means they can change any rules they like, not just reverting Segwit. Any 51% attack is always game over, so this attack isn't somehow something new.

So Schnorr sigs are a compromise in those areas. Not familiar enough with the BLS scheme to compare them though (I think MAST improves the 3rd issue on that list when using Schnorr sigs, but doesn't nullify it)



Are you sure that all changes involving signatures lead to a change in the address format?



This is not a credible attack. Or at least no more credible than any other unilateral hard fork is. If a majority of hashpower imposes new rules on Bitcoin to steal Segwit addresses, why stop there?

FYI everyone (and OT..... or is this bang on-topic? )

Mircea Popescu has a confirmed penchant for swarming this board with bizarre alt accounts that he controls, and is noticeably eccentric even when performing in his own persona on his website. Very eccentric. And very, very self-absorbed, using multiple alt-accounts to control the narrative about himself seems very important to Popescu.

Anonymint is, curiously, the only person who's ever said anything positive about Mircea Popescu, except Popsecu's more obvious alt accounts. Interestingly enough.

I thought patent retrictions were the only issue with Schnorr sigs. What are these issues, and how are BLS sigs different that they are better?



Supposedly a soft fork can be done to allow Schnorr sigs. What's controversial about address formats? Or the Segwit address format? Never heard that said before.