SegWit must be stopped!

[achow101]

There is a change to the wallets, but not in the way that you are describing. The change is related to output and script creation, not to the ECDSA keypairs.

LOL i see your: offtopic ECDSA mention
and i hint you: ripemd160->SHA256

That change has nothing to do with what your original statement was:

where that one time boost is only possible if everyone drops their standard private-public keypairs and moves funds to segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs.

The ripemd160 to sha256 for p2wsh outputs has nothing to do with keypairs.

im guessing your forgetting all the 0.12's and the 0.13's

No 0.12.x release contains any segwit implementation. 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 contain nearly the same segwit implementation (the consensus implementation is not changed). So yes, perhaps you could call it two implementations, but that would be a stretch. Furthermore, you can't even use 0.13.0 with segwit on mainnet, so there is really only one segwit implementation in Core if you want to use segwit on mainnet after deployment.

[franky1]

There is a change to the wallets, but not in the way that you are describing. The change is related to output and script creation, not to the ECDSA keypairs.

LOL i see your: offtopic ECDSA mention
and i hint you: ripemd160->SHA256

That change has nothing to do with what your original statement was:

where that one time boost is only possible if everyone drops their standard private-public keypairs and moves funds to segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs.

The ripemd160 to sha256 for p2wsh outputs has nothing to do with keypairs.

you are pedantic,,

to use segwit keypairs.. you have to use different keypair creation mechanism,
then say the traditional (private key that begins with a 5 and then used ripemd160 in the middle which later results in an address ending 1)
(yes it also has other bits in the middle im just not trying to overcomplicate things by mentioning everything)

the bit inbetween changing the private to public is changing.. for segwit

segwits new high deterministic seeded keys will have the new key making mechanism where sha256 is used instead of ripemd160

in short. a segwit keypair is different to a traditional keypair.

people using traditional keypairs will need to change and fund segwit keypairs

im guessing your forgetting all the 0.12's and the 0.13's

No 0.12.x release contains any segwit implementation. 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 contain nearly the same segwit implementation (the consensus implementation is not changed). So yes, perhaps you could call it two implementations, but that would be a stretch. Furthermore, you can't even use 0.13.0 with segwit on mainnet, so there is really only one segwit implementation in Core if you want to use segwit on mainnet after deployment.

0.12.x has bips in it that are NEEDED to have even made segwit possible.
yes 0.12.x was not a final version of segwit ready code.. but it was a stepping stone to get segwit ready.

so include the 0.12.x's into the count.. and you get 4 downloads..
you are being pedantic, megatime

can i give you a hint...
you are being pedantic, at first i thought you were just a snob because i was not buzzwording everything to a satisfactory level of techno-jargon that makes no sense to common man.

i then thought you would realise i am trying to speak layman on purpose. not due to not knowing the techno buzzwords. but because common man prefers to read common words. and what i say is just as valuable to others as it is to just you. so its best to keep things laymen for the communities sake.

but now im thinking you are the one that doesnt understand the concepts, and are just trying to defend blockstream but tweaking things and make arguments.

goodluck in life..
separate subject
oh and ages back i seen you and lauda take a fee from a guy who had issues with bitcoin core. i see you didnt fix his issue and instead took his funds got him to reset his wallet and give him back the funds minus a fee you shared with lauda..

called a workaround. not a bug fix

did you do the right thing and report the bug to bitcoin-core. or did you just take the fee and walk away
i hope you reported it. otherwise that makes you useless aswell as pendantic

[gribble]

Support to Bitcoin Unlimited speeds up in China, where a meeting was held in Shenzhen, Beijing and Hong Kong.The meeting in Shenzhen brought together representatives from Bitbank, BW, Bitkan, ViaBTC and Sosobtc.the Beijing meeting brought together Bitmain representatives, Others, while the Hong Kong meeting was followed by ANX, an exchange and debit card provider Bitcoin Bitcoin.

The topic of discussion was particularly the technology related to a presentation on parallel validation by Peter Tschipper, an unlimited developer Bitcoin. Depending on the presentation slides rather than the split block perform validation in the main processing thread, we do the validation in a separate thread. The thread can continue processing incoming messages while allowing more than one block to confirm a time. "

He told those present that they could manage up to four blocks in parallel, which could resolve an attack vector where large blocks can be created that take five or ten minutes to confirm.
Andrea Suisani an unlimited developer Bitcoin, presented to the rapid spread block in Bitcoin unlimited xThin specific blocks, a mechanism to which the bandwidth of information according to the presentation, compression is visible in the compression area "between 95% and 97%." In other words, a block of 1MB is reduced to only a few KB.

Andrew Clifford made a general presentation on the fight against Bitcoin unlimited direction on the scaled string. He explained the consensus that emerged, stating:

"Consensus emerging on the best block boundary will occur for the Bitcoin network when the whole node software follow four simple rules." Always follow the string-tip with the most evidence of the work. Extract (MG) Use oversize block to delay acceptance (EB) Use acceptance depth for delay time (AD) ".

By following these four rules, Clifford argued, can not reach the network, "which can never the central planners.

Roger Ver, an early adopter Bitcoin and vocal supporter of digital currency strongly supported against censorship, including free and open discussion needs allowing individuals to express their views and opinions in a democratic manner.

He further stated that Bitcoin does not have an official version and other development teams, such as Bitcoin Unlimited, should be encouraged as it allows for the diversity of innovation, which is highly desirable for the Bitcoin of the " Industry.
The three meetings take place, while the Bitcoin ecosystem, and miners in particular, are invited to choose between two very different visions for Bitcoin's future. On the one hand stands segwit that capacity increases to 1.7MB, but requires the lightning network ecosystem, which is still in development and are not tested for use in a real environment. The main advantage is that the resources needed to fatten Bitcoin block chain slowly support, defenders, Bitcoin block chain can not scale.

At that time, a segwit attracted about 25 percent of the hash network rate, but some miners, including ViaBTC, are very high, they will not support segwit.

The other alternative is Bitcoin Unlimited, a local customer developed by many early adopters Bitcoin and fervent proponents of digital money. The first version was launched for classic Bitcoin in order to solve the problem of long-term maxblocksize is achieved by the same mechanism Bitcoin always used when increasing the soft limit before the 1Mo cap.

Bitcoin Unlimited attracted a lot of support this year donated half a million dollars by an unknown entity and a $ 1.2 million fund established this month to support the alternative development teams of Bitcoin with means By which many minor Bitcoin and businesses.

A third alternative is a combination of the two or raise a more centralized maxblocksize, perhaps, 2MB, plus segwit, in line with the Hong Kong-chord. However, some developers have said that a maxblocksize increase has no chance, some believing that maintaining the 1MB limit is fine if lightning can still be started without segwit.

As such, it is still difficult to know how this deadlock will be resolved as Bitcoin continues to operate under the most demanding conditions ever, but there appear to have been attempts for independent funded development teams by supporting the Bitcoin community, incentivizing directly to developers to work in the importance of the entire ecosystem.

[gadman2]

My favorite part about this is the people who start the fight usually have no better viable solution to a quite real problem.

[Holliday]

My favorite part about this is the people who start the fight usually have no better viable solution to a quite real problem.

But... they have a solution. Bloat the block chain with every transaction under the sun! Make sure everyone who wants the security of a full node has to deal with keeping track of all the precious spam until the end of time!

They literally don't see this as a real problem.

It's beyond time for them to simply craft a block bigger than 1MB and start using that chain. They need to put their money where their mouth is.

[franky1]

My favorite part about this is the people who start the fight usually have no better viable solution to a quite real problem.

LOL
nah what you see is most blockstream hero's try to poke the bear and start debates to side step the solution purely to make people forget there was one.

such as

heres another hint:

dynamic blocksize: default starting at 2mb base 4mb weight.

that way its both segwit and actual scaling.

[achow101]

you are pedantic,,

to use segwit keypairs.. you have to use different keypair creation mechanism,
then say the traditional (private key that begins with a 5 and then used ripemd160 in the middle which later results in an address ending 1)
(yes it also has other bits in the middle im just not trying to overcomplicate things by mentioning everything)

the bit inbetween changing the private to public is changing.. for segwit

segwits new high deterministic seeded keys will have the new key making mechanism where sha256 is used instead of ripemd160

in short. a segwit keypair is different to a traditional keypair.

people using traditional keypairs will need to change and fund segwit keypairs

What?! NO. YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY WRONG!! THERE IS NO SUCH CHANGE AS THIS IN SEGWIT!!!

There is no change between getting a public key from the private key. It is still using the standard ECDSA key derivation algorithm. No hashing algorithm is even used for deriving the public key from the private key.

Where are you getting this information? It is absolutely wrong! There is no such specification for such a thing in the BIPs. Do me a favor and reread the BIPs, they do not specify any such change to ECDSA.

What you are also referring to here is the Base58 Check Encoding procedure which does not use the Ripemd160 hash at all. Instead it is a Sha256d and only the first 4 bytes of that are used as a checksum.

The change only change from ripemd160 to sha256 is not really even a change at all. It is for Pay to Witness Script Hash Outputs (an output type that currently does not exist). This "change" is to use the Sha256d hash of the redeemscript instead of the hash160 (and it isn't really a change at all, just a departure from the hash160 we are all so used to).

P.S. I am not being pedantic here. There is absolutely no change to the keypairs. You can in fact create a valid witness address from any currently used public key.

0.12.x has bips in it that are NEEDED to have even made segwit possible.
yes 0.12.x was not a final version of segwit ready code.. but it was a stepping stone to get segwit ready.

The only additional BIPs that 0.12.x included are BIP 9 (which does not need the separate activation anyways), and the BIPs for CSV. CSV is not a prerequisite for segwit.

so include the 0.12.x's into the count.. and you get 4 downloads..
you are being pedantic, megatime

can i give you a hint...
you are being pedantic, at first i thought you were just a snob because i was not buzzwording everything to a satisfactory level of techno-jargon that makes no sense to common man.

i then thought you would realise i am trying to speak layman on purpose. not due to not knowing the techno buzzwords. but because common man prefers to read common words. and what i say is just as valuable to others as it is to just you. so its best to keep things laymen for the communities sake.

but now im thinking you are the one that doesnt understand the concepts, and are just trying to defend blockstream but tweaking things and make arguments.

I am not being pedantic. I am stating that you are incorrect. The two statements that you made in your post (keypairs and prereq bips) are completely incorrect. I completely understand the concepts and I have studied the source code and the BIPs.

separate subject
oh and ages back i seen you and lauda take a fee from a guy who had issues with bitcoin core. i see you didnt fix his issue and instead took his funds got him to reset his wallet and give him back the funds minus a fee you shared with lauda..

called a workaround. not a bug fix

did you do the right thing and report the bug to bitcoin-core. or did you just take the fee and walk away
i hope you reported it. otherwise that makes you useless aswell as pendantic

Care to point me to the thread about that? IIRC the problem was not a bug, but rather user error. He sent the wallet to me and I was able to recover his wallet without issue on my machine. I was going to send his funds directly to his new address from the wallet file he gave me but Lauda swept the funds into his own wallet then forwarded it to the user. Neither of us had any issues with opening the wallet so we left it at just user error rather than a bug in Core.

Now if you are talking about the issues people had with the "reset options" button and custom datadirs, I researched that bug and wrote a fix for it which has since been merged for a while.

[Kakmakr]

The average user of Bitcoin is not obsessed with either SegWit or BU or whatever the developers are doing, they just want faster confirmation on their transactions and a way to scale Bitcoin to allow for that. This fighting between the different groups are damaging Bitcoin and it is not beneficial.

Let's have one last showdown, where the two groups battle it out in public and get it over with. So that we can move forward. ^grrrrr^

[franky1]

pedantic comment

ok for everyone else

lets say for laymans quick understanding..

that for using bitcoin addresses there's technical steps involved like
A->B->C->D

a user puts in A, it goes through a few processes and get D
knowing achow is going to be pedantic i will inform him i know there are more than 2 processes in the middle.. i just dont mention them all as they have not changed.

for mr pedantics sake i will name ABCD
private->ecdsa->ripemd160->public

again its not the full list of the mechanism im just keeping it simple.

i was trying to concentrate on an easy ACD where me and him both know C has changed.. mr pedantic twists it to talk about B.. where the stuff im on about segwits new HD wallet seeds (before he got pedantic)
and how they are different than the older traditional stuff.

so lets get back to simple stuff
A-C-D
private->ripemd160->public
changes to
A-X-D
private->sha256->public

again for mr pedantics sake i know there are other bits between A and D but thats not the point and thats not related to whats changing in segwit.. so not worth mentioning and getting to complicated over.

if you want techno jargon and white papers, go to the development category.
this category is for general discussion that tries to avoid techno-jargon to help the community understand things in simple terms

edit to avoid new post and told hold for prosperity

Segwit does not change anything in address encoding

How about you link a source from which you are getting this information? How about you stop being a spoiled little brat who thinks that only he is right and everyone else is wrong?

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/release-0.13.1/
^ oh look its bitcoin cores own website ^

6. Increased security for multisig
Bitcoin addresses (both P2PKH addresses that start with a ‘1’ and P2SH addresses that start with a ‘3’) use a hash function known as RIPEMD-160. For P2PKH addresses, this provides about 160 bits of security—which is beyond what cryptographers believe can be broken today. But because P2SH is more flexible, only about 80 bits of security is provided per address.

Although 80 bits is very strong security, it is within the realm of possibility that it can be broken by a powerful adversary. Segwit allows advanced transactions to use the SHA256 hash function instead,

edit 2:
ohhh i see now.. he is thinking ECDSA keypairs.. and not the extended more secure BITCOIN KEYPAIRS that have extra things involved... no wonder!!

im ending mr pedantic's offtopic misdirecting charades .. before he makes everyone fall asleep and begin to Schnorr hint hint


back on topic.

user nodes cannot veto it out.
and now you see why blockstream went for a soft fork.

anyway blockstream have a year to coax pools. no need to rush.
but here is a hint listen to the community: dynamic blocksize+segwit
like promised last year
heres another hint:

dynamic blocksize: default starting at 2mb base 4mb weight.

that way its both segwit and actual scaling.
and yes 2mb base 4mb weight DOES actually mean 1mb base 4mb weight is acceptable

[achow101]

You are still wrong and this is not pedantry. I'll use layman's terms because that is all you can understand.

The public key never uses ripemd160.

The process for getting the public key is just private->public. The process for an address is (in your simplified terms) public->ripemd160->address.

Segwit does not use HD wallet seeds, I don't know where you are getting that from.

Segwit does not change the ripemd160 step to sha256, I don't know here you are getting that from.

Segwit does not change anything in address encoding.

Segwit address are created using the same process which multisig addresses ('3' addresses) are created. They are identical to those multisig addresses.

How about you link a source from which you are getting this information? How about you stop being a spoiled little brat who thinks that only he is right and everyone else is wrong?

[Lauda]

Lightening Network can't work without SegWit being activated.

There are alternatives to make it work.

while it is not an altcoin it is also not Bitcoin. An Alt Payment system might be more accurate.

No, that is false.

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

Anther useless question by a failed troll.

-snip-
The best solution is SegWit project be stoped.

The best solution is for toxic people like you and OP to stop using Bitcoin.

Yup i could understand the point of author if there was a point. But there is not. Segwit is now our only scaling solution out there.

Isn't it all ironic how they cry out for on-chain scaling and yet completely attempt to block such improvements to it? For those that are reading, increasing the block size limit is not a solution of any kind.

[kiklo]

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

Anther useless question by a failed troll.

LOL, you did not answer the question.  

-snip-
The best solution is SegWit project be stoped.

The best solution is for toxic people like you and OP to stop using Bitcoin.

Getting Grumpy , makes it sound like you are losing, maybe you need a nap.

Actually looking at the latest % you are losing, segwit has lost some % .  
https://coin.dance/blocks
Classic Support (1.3%)    Unlimited Support (8.1%)    8MB Support (11%)    SegWit Support (21.5%)

 

FYI:
95% sure seems a long way from happening.
SegWit is not an improvement but an inroad into making BTC like the Banking system.

[Lauda]

LOL, you did not answer the question. 

The answer is no. Your logical fallacies are not surprising considering the things that you're involved with.

Actually looking at the latest % you are losing, segwit has lost some % . 

No, that is called 'variance'. Observing over 24 hours is not exactly the *best* measurement, and even franky1 can tell you this.

[kiklo]

Actually looking at the latest % you are losing, segwit has lost some % .  

No, that is called 'variance'. Observing over 24 hours is not exactly the *best* measurement, and even franky1 can tell you this.

Segwit was 25% for quite a while and has been dropping, support is waning, maybe you will believe it when variance is below 15% in ~ 2 weeks.  

 

FYI:
Did you know your Boss Theymos was trying to get Proof of Stake added to BTC and make it a Hybrid?

[Lauda]

Segwit was 25% for quite a while and has been dropping, support is waning, maybe you will believe it when variance is below 15% in ~ 2 weeks.  

How many times do you have to be warned to stop trolling? You are breaking the forum rules. Anyhow, here is a chart showing Segwit adoption: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/



Blue line is primarily variance, while the red one shows adoption over a much bigger trend.

[kiklo]

Segwit was 25% for quite a while and has been dropping, support is waning, maybe you will believe it when variance is below 15% in ~ 2 weeks.  

How many times do you have to be warned to stop trolling? You are breaking the forum rules. Anyhow, here is a chart showing Segwit adoption: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

Blue line is primarily variance, while the red one shows adoption over a much bigger trend.

If you bother to look at your own chart you can see that blue line is headed down.
https://coin.dance/blocks  was Last updated 14 minutes ago. So forgive me if I trust it more.

Since when did disagreeing with Lauda become breaking a forum rule?

As a member of Staff, don't you think you are abusing your position by being so one sided?
(I mean even if you were paid, you at least need to make it not be so obvious.)
(A Pretense of Contemplation would make you seem more believable.)

 

[Lauda]

Since when did disagreeing with Lauda become breaking a forum rule?

You are not disagreeing with me (for that you'd need to have proper arguments, which you don't), you're trolling in several threads now while prior having very little activity in this section. Are you trying to subversively promote your shitcoin?

https://coin.dance/blocks  was Last updated 14 minutes ago. So forgive me if I trust it more.

There is nothing to trust here, it's simple graphical representation of mined blocks. That website is as biased as it gets. As I've already mentioned, that is called 'block variance' and thus 24 hour periods should not be observed. If the hashrate support for Segwit is dropping, then that should be observed soon in the chart that I've linked as well.

[kiklo]

Since when did disagreeing with Lauda become breaking a forum rule?

You are not disagreeing with me (for that you'd need to have proper arguments, which you don't), you're trolling in several threads now while prior having very little activity in this section. Are you trying to subversively promote your shitcoin?

https://coin.dance/blocks  was Last updated 14 minutes ago. So forgive me if I trust it more.

There is nothing to trust here, it's simple graphical representation of mined blocks. That website is as biased as it gets. As I've already mentioned, that is called 'block variance' and thus 24 hour periods should not be observed. If the hashrate support for Segwit is dropping, then that should be observed soon in the chart that I've linked as well.

I have only mention BTC in this conversation , you are the one trying to deflect and get me to talk about another coin.
Which I only do , if you spread a falsehood about it, then I will defend it, otherwise no need to mention it.

Which with that , I bid you farewell, and leave you to earn your pay by promoting SegWit & LN.
Odds are 95% that segwit will fail activation.

Good Day.   

 

[Denker]

The average user of Bitcoin is not obsessed with either SegWit or BU or whatever the developers are doing, they just want faster confirmation on their transactions and a way to scale Bitcoin to allow for that. This fighting between the different groups are damaging Bitcoin and it is not beneficial.

Let's have one last showdown, where the two groups battle it out in public and get it over with. So that we can move forward. ^grrrrr^

Just having a way to scale for a solution is the wrong approach.Scaling has to be done the right way!
And that is without losing decentralization! A simple 2MB block increase can't be the solution.Especially if you will have to increase sooner or later again if you follow that path.That's just a question of time.
Sure seem people in the space might not give a damn about Bitcoin ending like a Paypal 2.0. But I do!And many other here as well.
I'm in for SegWit as this lays the ground for second layer implementations!And then we can hardfork to other 2MB blocks.
This whole situation has become way too much political! This is very sad.

[RawDog]

Just having a way to scale for a solution is the wrong approach.Scaling has to be done the right way!

 This is very sad.

with just a few lines of code, you can change 1MB to 4MB and all will be happy for another 3 years until a real scaling system can be developed.