I fully agree with you.

I wait for update of the whitepaper...Maybe the validation of the Txs will not only rely on the Monte Carlo Random Walk...I hope so for them....

DAG with POW is the future i guess.

I guess you read SPECTRE DAGLabs white paper. (DAG with POW also - smart contracts are also possible...but they can't have clean txs ordering)

About IOTA  : The validation of Tx is performed in probabilistic manner. The protection against Sybil Attack is relying on the fact that many wallets are "half connected to the internet" (either periodically or continuously with low bandwidth : IOT). These half connected wallets are representing a throughput of tx/sec which is preventing from this attack (*). But this troughput of Tx/sec must represent a significant amount of all the Txs/sec ("significant" ? nobody did the maths behind but I think above 20% (50%?)). So let's wait for adoption in IOT world....but long will be the way.

(*) preventing from this attack because these txs from IOT are considered as honnest and so during attack time they are continuously not approving the attacker txs. So the attacker is alone to increase the cumulative weight of its own txs.

Do you plan to launch something ?

Do you think @come-from-beyond would be annoyed if someone regsiters here with the nickname "@come-from-behind" ?

Would they both fear the attack of the man in the middle ?

 

Hello,

I don't see on github (to download the IOTA WALLET) any SHA256 checksum ? Is there one ?  

It would be good if we can check the integrity of the IOTA wallet before installing.

Marcel

Hello,

Could it be possible to list all the nodes we can use in case we use the light wallet version ?

I know only the offical one

http://iotaserver.forobits.com:14265

Tell me if i'm wrong but the host is storing the tangle for lightwallet users ?

Marcel

Good idea amaclin 

Anyway, i'm looking forward to seeing if this BIP will overcome the difficulties.

Where can i see a charts with all miners and the version of the program they use ?

Marcel Beliveau

This pool would loose members for sure. And this pool would die.

I'm really thinking about a state or group of banks who wants to attack bitcoin. And who would be ready to invest money (100M€ is nothing for them and it allows them to represent a blocking minority) to prevent from SEGWIT adoption....because it would be a good way to start fighting bitcoin.

Up to now, the only counter argument i read is : would be a "miner collusion"....

If miners never get along (i fear they prefer money than ideology  )...SEGWIT would not become the new standard. And I try imagine the consequences....

So I'm imagining that a malicious entity (which represents let's say 10% of the total mining power) would refuse to implement the new SEGWIT change and would continue to mine blocks in the old way.

If it would happen other miners can get along to never continue the blockchain from a block which has been done from this malicious miner. A "miner collusion" as said achow101.

But if a miner (from the "miner collusion") who just wants to make money (with short term perspectives), can accept to build from the malicous blocks to be the first do discover the next block ?
This minor would be a "dissident" and would get bitcoins because he discovered a new block faster than other fair miners.

One fair miner (from the "miner collusion") could think "we did an alliance for the future of bitcoin...but some of us are cheating...I so also will accept all blocks and let's forget about SEGWIT... I want money now"

This "minor collusion" seems a bit fragile, no ?

Marcel

Code is law (this sentence is hard to understand but will rule the world): 95% of the new blocks must be mined with the new version of the software during 2 weeks

So to my opinion such an agreement can't happen.


If this malicious entity produce blocks which match with the mathematical rules. They will be accepted ?

To refuse these blocks of the "malicious entity", it would require a new BIP (protocol innovation). I don't think it's just a "matter of configuration"

Further in your post, i understand that you are imagining that this malicous entity would be isolated in the blockchain and an hard fork would happen.

To my opinion SEGWIT will not be accepted... And only a crypto currency as close as possible to the philosophy "1 computer = 1 vote" will be able in the future to carry such an evolution at such a stage of development.

It's hard to write it that but i can't think that 95% of the miners will let bitcoin reach the final stage of its development.

Any counter argument is welcome

Excuse my english

Hello,

1/

The total hashrate difficulty is 2*10^9 GH/s.

If i want to represent 10% (so 2*10^8 GHS), i need to buy less than 300 000 "ASIC Buterfly Monarch 700 GH/s".

Considering this ASIC is 200€ expensive, the initial investment would be 60 M€.

After that you have to pay for electricity. But the expenditure is balanced by the incomes of mining.

Anyway, i consider that it's not very expensive for a state to block SEGWIT for this coming year. Either by direct investment or corrupting an existing signficant miner.

It would have an impact on the "crypto world"

2/

I give up for the possibility of an hard fork and will investigate by myself so. But for point 1, i have the feeling i'm right.

Marcel

Hello All,

To my opinion, an innovation like SEGWIT a this step of developpement of Bitcoin is quite dangerous.

1/ Case of a state who wants to bother bitcoin

Do you agree that if i’m ready to invest 10 M$ in mining material + electricity, i can represent a blocking minority for 1 year and prevent from SEGWIT innovation ?

It would not be very expensive for a state to do so.

2/ In case of hard fork

Would it be possible to get an « hard fork » event ? I would like to imagine this scenario.

Old bitcoins (bitcoins which have not been sold for few years) would remain in the initial system (not in the forked one) ? The value of the old bitcoins would fall down quickly.

Thank you for your answers.

Marcel Béliveau