Sidechains in theory are great, but there is an unsolved problem of getting value out of them and back into BTC.
So at the moment they are almost useless.
Utterly preposterous. I can't even begin to rationalize that train of thought. You get your value out of it by opening / closing channels, acquiring something you desire via micropayment, or becoming an efficient router. I mean, am I surrounded by fucking BCash morons today ? Lol, I'm a Lightning fan.... I'm talking about SIDECHAINS you fucking moron  |
|
|
|
See if there is a debate within the lightning network developers and community
1) Distributed or Indirect is the new word for centralization (Illumination Society, Bankers, Deep State)
2) If there is heated debate step 1 is true
I'm active in the lightning network developer community and this is the first of this "heated debate" nonsense I have heard. The real LN community and developers are too busy working on improving the protocol, usability, and robustness - don't give a single flying fuck about these issues you speak of. Stop making shit up, guy. I agree there is no "heated debate" misconception on my part, why so critical? (happy to correct any inconsistencies) sidechains are preferable to lightning anyways if you cannot trust the blockchain there is no hope for bitcoin (Why does bitcoin keep getting attacked? - because it truly is decentralized and tested) Sidechains in theory are great, but there is an unsolved problem of getting value out of them and back into BTC. So at the moment they are almost useless. |
|
|
|
Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.
Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.
For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.
You are scared of a 51% attack? It is needlessly complicated. Increasing the blocksize to 2 mb would have worked exactly as well and been standard for everyone. Deliberately complicating things when simple solutions will do is never a good sign. Segwit is fairly well proven, the only demonstrated weakness comes from a 51% attack. A 2mb block size increase at face value is simple, but, it required a hard fork, the effects of which would have many consequences. Therefore it was not a simple solution, the only non hard forking solution was to use segwit. |
|
|
|
Yogi is right this time you guys. When you are prompted to make a choice between two things, then that is two things. In this case a legacy wallet or a segwit wallet.
Segwit was a mistake. Just the fact that it is opt-in instead of being standard for the entire network is a problem.
For the record, my wallets are and will remain legacy types. I just don't trust it.
You are scared of a 51% attack? |
|
|
|
In fact, talking about bitcoin fungibility and taint and worrying about segwit is silly. Bitcoin is already not very fungible. The fact the ledger is public, transparant and you can view the history of each satoshi brings fungibility down quite a bit. Businesses have blacklisted coins or customers based onthe history of coin transactions.
This. Blacklisting stuff I might buy then find I cant spent unless I trick the next person. Interchangeability is fungibilty, serial numbers don't stop 10$ notes being interchangeable. But if a set of serial numbers were invalidated somehow then it could be an argument. The British Bankers’ Association Money Laundering Advisory Panel (the “BBA Panel”) raised with the Home Office their view that the requirements of the consent regime in this context cannot easily be reconciled with POCA’s wide definition of criminal property and the principle of fungibility. The BBA Panel explained their view that money in a bank account is fungible
and that as a matter of property law a bank account is a single “indistinguishable mixed fund”. Consequently, once a payment has been made into a mixed bank account, that payment cannot be distinguished from the other funds in the account and, accordingly, if the payment was a suspicious transaction the payment funds could have effectively tainted the rest of the account and, possibly, any other account held by the same individual. This would result in all subsequent transactions on the suspect accounts becoming acts of money laundering under POCA. Looking at how the lawyers treat bank accounts with tainted money, we may have a fight ahead of us, they may treat any BTC balances tainted with 'bad' bitcoins, as all bad. |
|
|
|
Can you give me a scenario where a Segwit 51% attack actually allows the attacker to profit.
Yes. I already did upthread. Segwit was activated by redefining what was initially an anyonecanspend transaction into a Segwit transaction. A 51% attacker can revert to the old rules. This would make Segwit outputs anyonecanspend outputs. To the extent that a 51(plus)% miner can roll back the chain, the Segwit transactions formerly included in the now-orphaned blocks are now free transactions. Those free transactions that were Segwit are now (again, assuming a reversion to the previous consensus rules) anyonecanspend transactions. The value in the outputs of these anyonecanspend transactions are free to be gobbled up by the 51% miner by including them in a block, and claiming them to themselves. This ability for a 51% miner to siphon up value is unique to Segwit. It is a novel attack enabled only by the security-impairing so-called 'soft fork' activation method that was employed by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset. But this is all elementary. We've been over this dozens of times, since the so-called 'soft fork' activation methodology was first proposed. If this is new news, then you have not been participating in the widely-held discussions. (Indeed, if this be new news, you may have isolated yourself within a core-dominated echo chamber) A 51% attack allows the miners to change ANY consensus rule. They could simply increase the block reward if they wanted to get BTC rich. 51% is God Mode ON, worrying about a novel and clever Segwit attack is meaningless in this scenario. |
|
|
|
This branch of the thread started with someone asking me to name some specific attack vectors which led to me being a Segwit skeptic. You don't seem to think they are significant. I think they may very well be fatal at some future date. Now we understand each other.
Peace out.
I can't think of 51% where an attacker can to extract a large amount of real value. All they end up doing is destroying/severely damaging Bitcoin. Now you could profit by shorting BTC, but there is no difference, whether its Segwit or Non-Segwit the outcome is the same. Can you give me a scenario where a Segwit 51% attack actually allows the attacker to profit. A 51% attack will require a >=6 block re-org, and if there is ever an unexpected >=5 block re-org, BTC (& fiat on exchanges) will basically freeze until an agreement on how to handle the attack. |
|
|
|
I think that largely he is criticizing the bcasher nutjobs in their assertions that bitcoin has to "get back to it's original vision," and a lot of the bullshit originalism that bcashers spout out in order to criticize various bitcoin evolutions, including segwit and including lightning, etc.
Get real. We don't dislike Segwit because it is not part of satoshi's original design; we dislike Segwit because it is at best a distracting irrelevant rearranging of the titanic's deck chairs, and at worst a fatal security virus that cannot be rolled back. So, it’s “we” is it, who else are you speaking for? |
|
|
|
|
As a Bitcoin maximalist who couldn't give a crap about ICO's and men in suits from the Fed/Large Traditional Corps, does anyone have any recomendations for sessions at Consensus 2018, I can't seem to find anything worth watching yet?
|
|
|
|
Willing or unwittingly makes no difference.
You think it is possible for someone to unwittingly scam someone? So like if I accidentally sell someone a counterfeit good that I had no idea was counterfeit that makes me a scammer? Was the person who received the good "scammed"? The answer is yes. For that person to have received the binary status of not-scammed (0) or scammed (1), there had to be an inintiator of said transaction, and that initiator was you. So yes, willing or unwittingly makes no difference for that particular state change. Well ok. You are free to define words how ever you like. Just be aware that you are defining this word very idiosyncratically. Here is a quick ddg.gg search definition. This is what most normal people interpret this word to mean. scam n. A fraudulent business scheme; a swindle. v. To defraud; swindle. defraud v. To take something from by fraud; swindle: defrauded the immigrants by selling them worthless land deeds. fraud n. A deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain. n. A piece of trickery; a trick. n. One that defrauds; a cheat. For 'scamming' (defrauding) , the mens rea (intent) of dishonesty is required. Clearly you can't be dishonest if you don't believe you are being dishonest. |
|
|
|
What's the metric then? Price, average number of transactions, all of them can be faked and manipulated (BCash is a good example), consensus is not obvious, and miners (Bcash - jihan) do not always follow the money, they play a longer game.
It's become common to use the word "consensus" like we all know what it means, but I don't think its easy to define and its definately not easy to measure.
Seriously? With Bitcoin I can buy things from tens of thousands of merchants across the world. With BCash I can't buy anything from any merchant. Save maybe Ver's one favorite coffee shop in Timbuktu. Merchants follow the consensus of end user usage. You really want to tell me that the "metric" between these two is somehow nebulous or not easy to measure? I think most merchants don't really know much about Bitcoin, and when someone comes along and offers them some sort of POS crypto system, that allows them to 'ride the wave' they simply take it. If Roger & Co. pushes his BCash terminals into lots of shops and the numbers surpass the number of shops that accept Bitcoin, it means nothing, it's easy to measure sure, but its not an indication of consensus. Consensus is easy to judge when its like BCH/BTC, 10% to 90%, but if there was something that was closer it would be almost impossible, and everyone would use different metrics to prove their own version of the consensus. |
|
|
|
Consensus is a very nebulous concept, miners, users, merchants, full nodes, loud twitter trolls, who determines what constitues it, and what/who determines the result.
I'm not quite sure why you say this about consensus being nebulous. Like at all. It is crystal clear. The real Bitcoin is the coin/fork that the most end users are buying and using because they all agree on its value (consensus) relative to and above all the others. Miners simply follow the money, and mine what is selling the most and best to make profit (the incentive). Brokers and merchants also follow what is most popular in usage. Why are people trying to make this harder than it is? What's the metric then? Price, average number of transactions, all of them can be faked and manipulated (BCash is a good example), consensus is not obvious, and miners (Bcash - jihan) do not always follow the money, they play a longer game. It's become common to use the word "consensus" like we all know what it means, but I don't think its easy to define and its definately not easy to measure. |
|
|
|
Consensus decides what Bitcoin is. If, sometime in the future, consensus dictates that Bcash is the real Bitcoin, I would acknowledge that. However, I'd also acknowledge that Bitcoin has failed, and I would disengage from the space altogether, and focus on Monero or something.
Exactly this. +1000. Consensus is a very nebulous concept, miners, users, merchants, full nodes, loud twitter trolls, who determines what constitues it, and what/who determines the result. Consensus treats Bitcoin like a crown, where it is effectively awarded to the most popular chain whilst it has consensus. Outside of these times, it is not Bitcoin. So a chain could alternate between Bitcoin and Non-Bitcoin status as opinions change. I'd rather think of Bitcoin as something that is passed down unbroken from the genesis block, when a fork occurs the Bitcoin title can be passed to the forked code. But, as in the base of BCash, the forked code can't claim the name Bitcoin once it failed to get consensus at the time of the fork, it's too late, it must use a different name. |
|
|
|
This is the test to determine the real Bitcoin, it's really very simple:
I run old original Bitcoin software that was released before the 2017 forks, both hard and soft.
I use that software to make a transaction.
The chain upon which that transaction is accepted is the real Bitcoin.
So... they're both the real Bitcoin!? Explain pls. |
|
|
|
This is the test to determine the real Bitcoin, it's really very simple:
I run old original Bitcoin software that was released before the 2017 forks, both hard and soft.
I use that software to make a transaction.
The chain upon which that transaction is accepted is the real Bitcoin.
(A watertight definition would need to include version numbers and reference to non-contenious early hard forks)
Would old software know how to cope with segwit? I think it would consider newer blocks invalid on both forks and stop downloading them but it could probably still connect to peers on either network fork so I think you should be able to publish a transaction on either.
Also, why is your definition dependent upon which chain a transaction could be published on instead of which software could allow one to author a valid block? That seems like and equally valid way to think about it as in terms of transactions.
You can ignore segwit it is irrelevant for the purpose of this test. The old software doesnt generate segwit TX's Old software (pre soft fork) still works on the Bitcoin chain, but not on the BCH chain. The Bitcoin chain is backwards compatible with older Bitcoin sotfware. The Bitcoin Cash chain is not backwards compatible. Common sense tells you which is the real Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
"the real bitcoin" will, unfortunately, always be a matter of opinion not fact.
Someone give this man a deMerit^ I am not defending Ver and his trash coin. I am as adamantly opposed to BCash as anyone here. All I'm saying is that any argument that you make that one bitcoin is objectively "the real bitcoin" breaks down. You sir, need to lay off the crack pipe Well then make an argument for why your preferred fork is "the real bitcoin" that is not based in opinion or some sort of logical fallacy. This is the test to determine the real Bitcoin, it's really very simple: I run old original Bitcoin software that was released before the 2017 forks, both hard and soft. I use that software to make a transaction. The chain upon which that transaction is accepted is the real Bitcoin. (A watertight definition would need to include version numbers and reference to non-contenious early hard forks) |
|
|
|
There is really no arguing this point. They worked. To the point that freeking _payment_processors_ accepted zero conf txs.
0-Conf requires trust. Trust that the miners will behave, and not replace a higher fee TX into the pool. Trust in TX's without any POW Trust that your node has connected to other REAL nodes. Trust that your DNS server hasn't been posioned etc.etc. The white paper states.... 12. Conclusion
We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust. In terms of the white paper, 0-Conf is clearly a fail. No L2, and a requirement for fast confirmations forces you down the 0-Conf route, everyone knows it sucks, but you have to fight the corner because you have no alternative. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
