ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[thejaytiesto]

All those people treating Satoshi like Jesus Christ need to get a grip. Sure he solved some spectacular problems, but he doesn't put it in a position of super authority. The code initially had tons of bugs that others had to fix.
It doesn't take the second comming of Satoshi to know Core devs are doing the right thing.

[1715048839]

1715048839

[sickpig]

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit

Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question).

Despite, as you said, mine is an easy question, still the answer provided is, in my humble opinion, wrong.  

A 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block in terms of bandwidth consumption.

In fact at best of my knowledge full nodes could discard witness data only after having validated a block.

For normal txs relying/validation this is not even possible, txs in mempool will get both base data and wit data (for SPV client things are different, though).

To make a long story short if a full node operator decide to prune witness data after validation step we have a reduced storage consumption. while  bandwidth (BW) usage remain the same.

Isn't BW a more scarce / costly resource in respect to storage?

That said, I suppose my question remain unanswered, doesn't it?  

[JayJuanGee]

All those people treating Satoshi like Jesus Christ need to get a grip. Sure he solved some spectacular problems, but he doesn't put it in a position of super authority. The code initially had tons of bugs that others had to fix.
It doesn't take the second comming of Satoshi to know Core devs are doing the right thing.

You are exactly right, and that is a great way of describing the matter.


Further, when there is an appeal to such an authority, such as Satoshi, it seems to be a step towards futility.  They express a condition that cannot be met, and they say, "if only Satoshi would guide us, then we would know which way to go."  Makes a guy want to exclaim, in response:  "What bullshit.  Snap out of it!!!!"

[adamstgBit]

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit

Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question).

Despite, as you said, mine is an easy question, still the answer provided is, in my humble opinion, wrong.  

A 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block in terms of bandwidth consumption.

In fact at best of my knowledge full nodes could discard witness data only after having validated a block.

For normal txs relying/validation this is not even possible, txs in mempool will get both base data and wit data (for SPV client things are different, though).

To make a long story short if a full node operator decide to prune witness data after validation step we have a reduced storage consumption. while  bandwidth (BW) usage remain the same.

Isn't BW a more scarce / costly resource in respect to storage?

That said, I suppose my question remain unanswered, doesn't it?  

BW is more costly than storage but nothing compares to the cost of orphen risk
the miner can discount the TX @75% because he won't include the segwit when propagating the block

i guess...

[alani123]

All those people treating Satoshi like Jesus Christ need to get a grip. Sure he solved some spectacular problems, but he doesn't put it in a position of super authority. The code initially had tons of bugs that others had to fix.
It doesn't take the second comming of Satoshi to know Core devs are doing the right thing.

Even if Satoshi is deserves the praise, he's gone now and likely to never return. His words on the blocksize weren't detailed enough to give a clear path on what should be done and even if they were, thoughout the time that he was gone important things have happened. The use cases of bitcoin have changed, better ideas have come forth and more importantly more developers. Some people take couple of sentences that satoshi posted about the blocksize too seriously.

[sickpig]

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit

Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question).

Despite, as you said, mine is an easy question, still the answer provided is, in my humble opinion, wrong.  

A 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block in terms of bandwidth consumption.

In fact at best of my knowledge full nodes could discard witness data only after having validated a block.

For normal txs relying/validation this is not even possible, txs in mempool will get both base data and wit data (for SPV client things are different, though).

To make a long story short if a full node operator decide to prune witness data after validation step we have a reduced storage consumption. while  bandwidth (BW) usage remain the same.

Isn't BW a more scarce / costly resource in respect to storage?

That said, I suppose my question remain unanswered, doesn't it?  

BW is more costly than storage but nothing compares to the cost of orphen risk
the miner can discount the TX @75% because he won't include the segwit when propagating the block

i guess...

Maybe I'm wrong but from my understanding of SegWit's BIPs (*) blocks propagation will include also witness data. In fact it's impossible for a full node to validate a block without signatures data, only once validation is performed the full node operator could decide to drop (or keep) the witness data. Before that moment they seem mandatory to me.  

(*) segwit BIPs:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0142.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0143.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0145.mediawiki

[adamstgBit]

if you are among the group of people that completely understand SegWit

Not exactly. I do want to have a even better understanding, but the time is just not there. The question was answered by someone else (although you could find this information quickly yourself; i.e. easy question).

Despite, as you said, mine is an easy question, still the answer provided is, in my humble opinion, wrong.  

A 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block in terms of bandwidth consumption.

In fact at best of my knowledge full nodes could discard witness data only after having validated a block.

For normal txs relying/validation this is not even possible, txs in mempool will get both base data and wit data (for SPV client things are different, though).

To make a long story short if a full node operator decide to prune witness data after validation step we have a reduced storage consumption. while  bandwidth (BW) usage remain the same.

Isn't BW a more scarce / costly resource in respect to storage?

That said, I suppose my question remain unanswered, doesn't it?  

BW is more costly than storage but nothing compares to the cost of orphen risk
the miner can discount the TX @75% because he won't include the segwit when propagating the block

i guess...

Maybe I'm wrong but from my understanding of SegWit's BIPs (*) blocks propagation will include also witness data. In fact it's impossible for a full node to validate a block without signatures data, only once validation is performed the full node operator could decide to drop (or keep) the witness data. Before that moment they seem mandatory to me.  

(*) segwit BIPs:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0142.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0143.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0144.mediawiki
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0145.mediawiki

segwit is a pun?

[johnyj]

Similar to witness block, you can just add another extended block called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!

Valid outputs need to originate from valid coinbase transaction in valid block. Non-upgraded nodes will never confirm blocks containing tx that spend non-existent outputs ..... for the same reason they won't confirm blocks containing a 21million coin spend. Those transactions--and if mined, those blocks--are simply invalid, ignored, by old nodes. Miners don't even matter in this context. If they keep building on such a block, their chain will be forked off the network.

Unless, of course, node operators en masse uninstalled their node software and reinstalled software that recognized these outputs as valid. i.e. a hard fork.....

By saying valid outputs and valid block, you refer to original rules run by original nodes. Segwit already demonstrated that original nodes have no idea about the existence of witness data, they think the signature data is missing thus the transaction is "anyonecanspend", while in reality all the signature data is in another witness block that is invisible to original nodes

Similarly, by setting new rules in a new implementation and make it invisible to old nodes, you will have new outputs in new transaction packed in new blocks that old nodes can not see. They still think every block is normal, but they can't discover there is another block attached to each block and the relationship is described in coinbase transaction of each original block

In one word: In new implementation, there are two linked blocks every 10 minutes, but the old nodes see only the original block

This parasitic behavior originally come from mastercoin. They tried to encode message into bitcoin transactions but later found out it is too expensive to send information that way. But segwit soft fork opened a whole new world of parasitic design practice, thus anyone who understand how it works call it a hack

[johnyj]

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

Of course upgrading to anything is easy, you just need to download the software and run it, just like you download any virus or trojan, a couple of mouse click then you are set, isn't that simple enough?

That's exactly what blockstream devs are doing, since no one really understand how segwit works, they end up with propaganda and useless debate that does not make anyone more clever, finally: It is super simple, just download it and run it, everything will be fine...

[marcus_of_augustus]

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

Of course upgrading to anything is easy, you just need to download the software and run it, just like you download any virus or trojan, a couple of mouse click then you are set, isn't that simple enough?

That's exactly what blockstream devs are doing, since no one really understand how segwit works, they end up with propaganda and useless debate that does not make anyone more clever, finally: It is super simple, just download it and run it, everything will be fine...

... or you could go read the code instead of being an annoying doofus?

It's been running on sidechain elements alpha for over a year already, open source, ain't it great for educating idiots huh?

[adamstgBit]

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

Of course upgrading to anything is easy, you just need to download the software and run it, just like you download any virus or trojan, a couple of mouse click then you are set, isn't that simple enough?

That's exactly what blockstream devs are doing, since no one really understand how segwit works, they end up with propaganda and useless debate that does not make anyone more clever, finally: It is super simple, just download it and run it, everything will be fine...

most website which handle bitcoins have custom wallets.
they cannot simply install core.
they will need to update their custom wallets with segwit code.
some of the bigger ones ( poeple like bitfinex and MtGox ) have agreed to do these changes.
they will use core code as a reference and copy, paste intergate.

[johnyj]

https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness
This Dr. made some metaphor to explain segwit, but his example how transaction works is obviously wrong. So even a Dr. who is giving lecture about segwit does not understand how bitcoin transaction works (or intentionally give misleading information?), how could the rest of the people have any idea what it is?

I'm not clicking that link. I don't know who this "Dr." is or what relevance he has. But it seems like the burden is on you to explain exactly how he is wrong, rather than just stating it as truth.

I'm referring to this first slide:


If you don't understand where it is wrong, then you better spend some time to check how bitcoin transaction works. The description in the Satoshi white paper is also not the current design, but there are plenty of materials out there

[johnyj]

... or you could go read the code instead of being an annoying doofus?

It's been running on sidechain elements alpha for over a year already, open source, ain't it great for educating idiots huh?

Upside down, you don't need to read the code, every piece of code is just an implementation of an idea, you first check if the idea is valid. IMO, this design is not bitcoin, can be called Pieter coin or alpha coin or segwit coin etc... so the first question is: Why should we change existing bitcoin architecture to twin-block architecture, and what is the pros and cons of doing that?

There is a long discussion here
https://bitco.in/forum/threads/segregated-witness-sotf-fork-segwit-pros-and-cons.986/

In fact, this large scale of change is much larger than a hard fork, it totally changed bitcoin into something else, and raised level of complexity typically have many bad impact to the system's robustness and integrity

Of course, from a higher level of abstraction, software can implement ANY function if given enough time, anyway it is all data. But there are still many basic rules when it comes to system engineering. There are no good reasons that can explain why you should change the architecture to implement a useless function like fixing the transaction malleability (unconfirmed transactions are not safe, this is a limitation of POW, it has nothing to do with transaction malleability). Fixing transaction malleability is only to serve the LN, but to serve an outdated pre-paid card model (LN), which has already been abandoned by many telecom operators, you want to change the bitcoin architecture? This is like FED decided to adopt another Fedwire system to especially benefit Goldman Sachs, can you see the trend of centralization here?

[Carlton Banks]

Maybe I'm wrong but from my understanding of SegWit's BIPs (*) blocks propagation will include also witness data. In fact it's impossible for a full node to validate a block without signatures data, only once validation is performed the full node operator could decide to drop (or keep) the witness data. Before that moment they seem mandatory to me.  

Well, despite your belief that it's impossible, I don't think the full nodes do see the signature data... but they do receive a compacted proof that the tx's in a given block were signed.

So the miners will be, as you say, coping with <4MB data per block. But ordinary full nodes only see 1MB of that. Hence "segregated". And so ordinary full nodes will use the same BW and storage they do now.

[marcus_of_augustus]

... or you could go read the code instead of being an annoying doofus?

It's been running on sidechain elements alpha for over a year already, open source, ain't it great for educating idiots huh?

. so the first question is: Why should we change existing bitcoin architecture to twin-block architecture, and what is the pros and cons of doing that?

.... There are no good reasons that can explain why you should change the architecture to implement a useless function like fixing the transaction malleability (unconfirmed transactions are not safe, this is a limitation of POW, it has nothing to do with transaction malleability). ... (snipped all the trolltalk and misinformation)

... it is not a change in 'architecture' just some data structure. You're getting well outside your comfort level of expertise clearly.

[exstasie]

Similar to witness block, you can just add another extended block called 21 block to accommodate the added 21 million coins and corresponding new transactions, and that block is also invisible to old nodes, only if you upgraded to 21segwit nodes, you will have 50 coin per block to mine, and Chinese miners might like it!

Valid outputs need to originate from valid coinbase transaction in valid block. Non-upgraded nodes will never confirm blocks containing tx that spend non-existent outputs ..... for the same reason they won't confirm blocks containing a 21million coin spend. Those transactions--and if mined, those blocks--are simply invalid, ignored, by old nodes. Miners don't even matter in this context. If they keep building on such a block, their chain will be forked off the network.

Unless, of course, node operators en masse uninstalled their node software and reinstalled software that recognized these outputs as valid. i.e. a hard fork.....

By saying valid outputs and valid block, you refer to original rules run by original nodes. Segwit already demonstrated that original nodes have no idea about the existence of witness data, they think the signature data is missing thus the transaction is "anyonecanspend", while in reality all the signature data is in another witness block that is invisible to original nodes

For the second time, you're confusing transaction type (standard vs. non-standard) with validity. It's starting to become clear that you have no interest in honest discussion. Non-existent outputs do not all of a sudden become "anyonecanspend" transactions.

Similarly, by setting new rules in a new implementation and make it invisible to old nodes, you will have new outputs in new transaction packed in new blocks that old nodes can not see.

If nodes can't see the blocks, they have been forked off. The issue with non-updated nodes and Segwit is block validation, not transaction validation (i.e. blocks require that valid signatures conform to all transactions, but transactions themselves do not).

If you are suggesting that old nodes can't see the transactions, you are dead wrong. In order to validate the transactions, they need to be able to see the inputs/outputs, otherwise there is no "transaction" to validate. Doesn't matter if the "transaction" is standard or non-standard. So you are actually suggesting something more along the lines of "nodes that do not validate anything"--not "old nodes."

They still think every block is normal, but they can't discover there is another block attached to each block and the relationship is described in coinbase transaction of each original block

That certainly does not mean that old nodes will validate the transactions within those blocks. They will reject them for containing invalid outputs.

In one word: In new implementation, there are two linked blocks every 10 minutes, but the old nodes see only the original block

This parasitic behavior originally come from mastercoin. They tried to encode message into bitcoin transactions but later found out it is too expensive to send information that way. But segwit soft fork opened a whole new world of parasitic design practice, thus anyone who understand how it works call it a hack

On the contrary, people like you who "call it a hack" prove time and time again to the community that they don't understand the first thing about how bitcoin works.

[johnyj]

most website which handle bitcoins have custom wallets.
they cannot simply install core.
they will need to update their custom wallets with segwit code.
some of the bigger ones ( poeple like bitfinex and MtGox ) have agreed to do these changes.
they will use core code as a reference and copy, paste intergate.

Wallet operators like it since it gives 25% discount fee on the signature data, which is specially interesting for wallet operators when they clear thousands of micro UTXOs

But this is plainly bribery at system level, such kind of bribery should not appear in the protocol level at all. If this becomes a trend, then miners will adopt a new protocol that especially benefiting them, then it quickly becomes a war of bribery, going down that route you will see this ecosystem is totally corrupted in a couple of years

[exstasie]

And what do respected wallet developers/library maintainers have to say? Let's see:

Blocktrail CTO and BitcoinJS Co-Maintainer Ruben De Vries: Segregated Witness Not Very Complicated
Lawrence Nahum: Bitcoin Wallet GreenAddress Already Integrating Segregated Witness
Breadwallet CEO Aaron Voisine: SegWit Soft Fork First, Block Size Hard Fork Later
Mycelium's Leo Wandersleb: Segregated Witness a Technical Necessity
Electrum Developer Thomas Voegtlin: Segregated Witness Highly Supportable
Core Developer, libbtc Library Maintainer and digitalbitbox Developer Jonas Schnelli: Segregated Witness is Less Than a Week of Work to Test and Deploy

Ermagherd!!!! Segwit is just too complex!!!!

Of course upgrading to anything is easy, you just need to download the software and run it, just like you download any virus or trojan, a couple of mouse click then you are set, isn't that simple enough?

WTF is your point? That "upgrading" to Classic is a virus? You claimed Segwit was too complex to implement; wallet developers and library maintainers disagree. Very simple. Not sure why anyone would take you seriously.

That's exactly what blockstream devs are doing, since no one really understand how segwit works, they end up with propaganda and useless debate that does not make anyone more clever, finally: It is super simple, just download it and run it, everything will be fine...

You're the only one here repeating this nonsense. Many people have made painstaking effort to explain how it works to you, and you continue to fire off blatant misinformation in response. The fact that you are too dumb/biased to understand it has no bearing on the bitcoin development community and those developing projects that are affected by protocol changes. The consensus among developers shits on the suggestion that "no one understands how Segwit works."

[priestc]

Why is it that everyone who supports segwit has to be a condescending asshole all the time?

[exstasie]

https://www.bitcoinhk.org/bitcoin-lecture-series/episode-1-upgrading-bitcoin-segregated-witness
This Dr. made some metaphor to explain segwit, but his example how transaction works is obviously wrong. So even a Dr. who is giving lecture about segwit does not understand how bitcoin transaction works (or intentionally give misleading information?), how could the rest of the people have any idea what it is?

I'm not clicking that link. I don't know who this "Dr." is or what relevance he has. But it seems like the burden is on you to explain exactly how he is wrong, rather than just stating it as truth.

I'm referring to this first slide:


If you don't understand where it is wrong, then you better spend some time to check how bitcoin transaction works. The description in the Satoshi white paper is also not the current design, but there are plenty of materials out there

This is the third time I've seen you allude to this, but you seem incapable of explaining it. You brought it up, and you are the only person talking about it. You need to explain what is wrong if you are trying establish that it's wrong. Then you need to explain how this has any relevance to what you have said.