Bitcoin Forum
May 22, 2024, 03:18:40 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: NOT Upgrading to SegWit who's with me?!  (Read 7148 times)
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074



View Profile
December 31, 2016, 12:53:51 PM
 #121

I'm not going to waste my time explaining what the actual purpose of Segwit is with someone who isn't interested in the facts

Vires in numeris
Lauda
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965


Terminated.


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2016, 01:33:36 PM
 #122

You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?

Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"
1) It is broken. TX malleability is a existing vulnerability. I don't expect you to be aware of this though.
2) If we follow that 'phrase', the same can be said for increasing the block size limit.
2.1) The same can be said for anything proposed by Classic (FlexTrans) & BU (random 'improvements').

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks"
😼 Bitcoin Core (onion)
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4228
Merit: 4490



View Profile
December 31, 2016, 02:27:51 PM
 #123

You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?

Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"
1) It is broken. TX malleability is a existing vulnerability. I don't expect you to be aware of this though.
2) If we follow that 'phrase', the same can be said for increasing the block size limit.
2.1) The same can be said for anything proposed by Classic (FlexTrans) & BU (random 'improvements').

lauda.. do you even understand malleability.
and how it is not a problem in multisig, and how RFB CPFP are the replacements for double spends. meaning malleability is not a big deal, because solving malleability solves nothing.

its been an 'issue' but not a big deal problem... after all ~2000-2500tx every ten minutes for the last 2 years have had no massive complaints/problems. the only time it was of any drama was a couple years ago when kerpeles used it as a fake reason to embezzle funds and blame bitcoin.

even the latest exchange embezzlings, which fake cried hacks didnt use the malleability screams of lost funds, because they know people would laugh at them because of the obvious fake excuses if they did blame malleability

wake up and research. learn that people have found work arounds and ways to double check and reduce risk

its time you spend less time being spoin fed on IRC and instead do your own independant research

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
TooDumbForBitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001



View Profile
December 31, 2016, 06:27:46 PM
 #124

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB. 

What  a revelation.




▄▄                                  ▄▄
 ███▄                            ▄███
  ██████                      ██████
   ███████                  ███████
    ███████                ███████
     ███████              ███████
      ███████            ███████
       ███████▄▄      ▄▄███████
        ██████████████████████
         ████████████████████
          ██████████████████
           ████████████████
            ██████████████
             ███████████
              █████████
               ███████
                █████
                 ██
                  █
veil|     PRIVACY    
     WITHOUT COMPROMISE.      
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
|   NO ICO. NO PREMINE. 
   X16RT GPU Mining. Fair distribution.  
|      The first Zerocoin-based Cryptocurrency      
   WITH ALWAYS-ON PRIVACY.  
|



                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌




   ▄███████
   ████████
   ███▀
   ███
██████████
██████████
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███




     ▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄
   ▐██▄▄██████████████▄▄██▌
   ████████████████████████
  ▐████████████████████████▌
  ███████▀▀▀██████▀▀▀███████
 ▐██████     ████     ██████▌
 ███████     ████     ███████
▐████████▄▄▄██████▄▄▄████████▌
▐████████████████████████████▌
 █████▄▄▀▀▀▀██████▀▀▀▀▄▄█████
  ▀▀██████          ██████▀▀
      ▀▀▀            ▀▀▀
moonpie45
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 01, 2017, 12:21:32 AM
 #125

You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?

Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"
1) It is broken. TX malleability is a existing vulnerability. I don't expect you to be aware of this though.
2) If we follow that 'phrase', the same can be said for increasing the block size limit.
2.1) The same can be said for anything proposed by Classic (FlexTrans) & BU (random 'improvements').
1 - TX malleability is only a vulnerability for those that take actions on transactions that have not yet confirmed. The simple fix to this is to not rely upon unconfirmed transactions unless the person you are accepting the transaction from can be trusted with at least the amount of the value of the transaction.

To my knowledge, the biggest problem with TX malleability is that it can be annoying when transaction IDs get changed. Can you point to any financial losses that resulted from TX malleability?

2 - Blocks frequently are effectively 1 MB in size, sometimes for days at a time. Even if this was because of "fake" transactions, the attack was possible because of the low block size, and would have been less effective had the maximum allowable block size been greater.

2a - One selling point of segwit is that it is effectively increasing the block size. If this is not 'something that needs to be fixed', then why is segwit being sold this way?
kiklo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 01, 2017, 04:43:51 AM
 #126

2a - One selling point of segwit is that it is effectively increasing the block size. If this is not 'something that needs to be fixed', then why is segwit being sold this way?


Segwit only real purpose is to enable the way for Lightening Network (Offchain Transactions),
even thru it is possible to implement a version of LN without segwit.
Using LN with Segwit , will move the power from the Miners to the ones controlling LN.
Without segwit, miners will still be the stronger force.
Power Grab by BTC core , pure & simple.

Chinese mining pools agreed to accept up to an 8MB blocksize,
BTC core could have hard forked it and been done for years, because the mining pools would have updated almost overnight.

Instead the shenanigans with pushing segit as a solution was just a trick, to try and get people to activate it so BTC core could assume power with LN.
Chinese Mining Pools did not fall for the trick , which is why segwit will never have more than ~30% ,
last count Chinese Mining Pools totaled were ~67%, which means they are in charge of BTC.
BTC=Better Trust China


 Cool
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
January 01, 2017, 04:46:16 AM
 #127

BTC core could have ...

The Bitcoin Foundation at one time seemed to have a certain existence with wide ranging influence as well.

#justsayin'

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
Amph
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069



View Profile
January 01, 2017, 07:49:22 AM
 #128

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB. 

What  a revelation.



they will be forced at some point to go with the 2MB hard fork, we can't remain forever at 1MB this is a 100% sure thing

i want to ask what is the exact reason why miners are aginst segwit now?
kiklo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 02, 2017, 12:23:13 AM
 #129

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB.  

What  a revelation.



they will be forced at some point to go with the 2MB hard fork, we can't remain forever at 1MB this is a 100% sure thing

i want to ask what is the exact reason why miners are aginst segwit now?

Hard fork with larger blocksize can be done without segwit, segwit is not needed at all to go to a larger blocksize.
(That is the myth spread by BTC core.)

Segwit will allow LN, to run Offchain Transactions, with more control over onchain transactions placement.
Miners will not receive any transaction fees for Offchain Transactions.

LN with Segwit, will probably give LN the ability to actually choose which block their very few onchain transactions is included in,
meaning they would be able to cut the Chinese miners completely out of all fees from LN.
(LN onchain Transactions will be only included in one of their 30% controlled BTC miner's Blocks.)

LN without segwit will not have that capability, which leaves the Chinese Miners in control of which block includes a transaction.
Segwit is a Power Grab by BTC core to control the transaction fees, nothing more nothing less.

 Cool
hv_
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2506
Merit: 1055

Clean Code and Scale


View Profile WWW
January 02, 2017, 03:56:27 PM
 #130

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB.  

What  a revelation.



they will be forced at some point to go with the 2MB hard fork, we can't remain forever at 1MB this is a 100% sure thing

i want to ask what is the exact reason why miners are aginst segwit now?

Hard fork with larger blocksize can be done without segwit, segwit is not needed at all to go to a larger blocksize.
(That is the myth spread by BTC core.)

Segwit will allow LN, to run Offchain Transactions, with more control over onchain transactions placement.
Miners will not receive any transaction fees for Offchain Transactions.

LN with Segwit, will probably give LN the ability to actually choose which block their very few onchain transactions is included in,
meaning they would be able to cut the Chinese miners completely out of all fees from LN.
(LN onchain Transactions will be only included in one of their 30% controlled BTC miner's Blocks.)

LN without segwit will not have that capability, which leaves the Chinese Miners in control of which block includes a transaction.
Segwit is a Power Grab by BTC core to control the transaction fees, nothing more nothing less.

 Cool

BTC core is in the driver seat and have done lots of good things and now they look failing to provide such a nobrainer solution everybody must accept.

This might be the issue of a king loosing the ground after winning endless battles.

They are on own logics now and spread fear for the hardfork of the blockchain, code and bitcoin but this has lead to the even worse hardfork in the community.

Who can fix that and how?

Carpe diem  -  understand the White Paper and mine honest.
Fix real world issues: Check out b-vote.com
The simple way is the genius way - Satoshi's Rules: humana veris _
cellard
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1252


View Profile
January 02, 2017, 05:10:55 PM
 #131

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB. 

What  a revelation.



they will be forced at some point to go with the 2MB hard fork, we can't remain forever at 1MB this is a 100% sure thing

i want to ask what is the exact reason why miners are aginst segwit now?
Everyone in Core team wants to go 2mb eventually, except 1 developer which i cant remember right now, so im pretty sure we will eventually go to 2mb, but not before we see segwit, since segwit is a fundamental requirement to see a blocksize increase, even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake. No one that knows how bitcoin works is against segwit.
jbreher
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660


lose: unfind ... loose: untight


View Profile
January 02, 2017, 06:26:53 PM
 #132

even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake

Got a link to AA actually saying that? Thanks.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
franky1
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4228
Merit: 4490



View Profile
January 02, 2017, 08:40:36 PM
 #133

you can always spot the blockstream sheep

they want to avoid onchain scaling.
they think offchain is the only way.
they love the idea of a fee war onchain
they love bloating onchain transactions by kilobytes via confidential payment commitments

I DO NOT TRADE OR ACT AS ESCROW ON THIS FORUM EVER.
Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at
moonpie45
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 02, 2017, 08:46:43 PM
 #134

2a - One selling point of segwit is that it is effectively increasing the block size. If this is not 'something that needs to be fixed', then why is segwit being sold this way?


Segwit only real purpose is to enable the way for Lightening Network (Offchain Transactions),
even thru it is possible to implement a version of LN without segwit.
Using LN with Segwit , will move the power from the Miners to the ones controlling LN.
Without segwit, miners will still be the stronger force.
Power Grab by BTC core , pure & simple.
Yes, I was pointing out the hypocrisy behind how SegWit is being sold.

I know it is claimed by BTC Core that LN is possible without SegWit, but I am not so sure, especially not with the features that LN has in it's current planned form. I simply do not see how two parties could generate chained dependent unconfirmed transactions that are both guaranteed to contain valid signatures without malleability being addressed.  

you can always spot the blockstream sheep

they want to avoid onchain scaling.
they think offchain is the only way.
they love the idea of a fee war onchain
they love bloating onchain transactions by kilobytes via confidential payment commitments
I have noticed that many of the blockstream fanboys like to echo eachother, almost uniformly
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1063
Merit: 1048



View Profile
January 02, 2017, 08:55:08 PM
 #135

even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake

Got a link to AA actually saying that? Thanks.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/792436751901921280

Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074



View Profile
January 02, 2017, 08:56:31 PM
 #136

I know it is claimed by BTC Core that LN is possible without SegWit, but I am not so sure

There's a simple cure for that. Find out how it works. Simply asserting "I don't get it" doesn't magically make something impossible, it just means you don't get it

Vires in numeris
moonpie45
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 02, 2017, 09:00:34 PM
 #137

I know it is claimed by BTC Core that LN is possible without SegWit, but I am not so sure

There's a simple cure for that. Find out how it works. Simply asserting "I don't get it" doesn't magically make something impossible, it just means you don't get it
Why don't you explain it if it is in fact possible?

It should be very easy to explain that something is possible, but it is very difficult to prove something is impossible Smiley
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074



View Profile
January 02, 2017, 09:03:12 PM
 #138

Ok, here's bitcointalk's TierNolan explaining it for you:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1711460.msg17148441#msg17148441




Original text from TierNolan:

This is a protocol for opening a permanent lightning channel even if malleability is not fixed.  It only requires check locktime and check sequence verify.

Both sides put down a deposit to eliminate the hold-out risk.  If either of the parties refuses to proceed either the other party is compensated or both get a full refund.

Step 1

Alice picks A1 and sends HA1, Hash(A1), to Bob.
Bob picks B1 and sends HB1, Hash(B1), to Alice.

They can both create this transaction.

Code:
TX1:
0) Pays 3x: (Alice + HA1 after T1) or (Bob after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
1) Pays x: (HB1 + Alice) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
2) Pays x: (HA1 + Bob) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
3) Pays 3x: (Bob + HB1 after T1) or (Alice after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
4) Pays Alice's change: (Alice)
5) Pays Bob's change: (Bob)

Alice and Bob create the transaction and sign and broadcast it.

Abort during step 1

If one party signs the transaction and then the other refuses, then the signer should send at least one of the inputs to another address.  This invalidates the transaction.

Abort after step 1

Alice can wait T1 and then reclaim output 0.  This automatically gives Bob HA1, which allows him claim output 2.

Likewise, Bob can wait T1 and then reclaim output 3.  This automatically gives Alice HB1, which allows her claim output 1.

This is a full refund all parties.

If Alice refuses to claim output 0, then Bob can claim it after [T1 + T2] (and output 3), which gives him 6x and Alice nothing.  

Likewise, if Bob refuses to claim output 3, then Alice gets 6x and Bob nothing.

Both parties are incentivized to comply with the abort at this stage.

Step 2

Alice and Bob create the initial channel state transaction.  This supports a channel close that gives x to Alice and x to Bob and spends outputs 1 and 2.

The initial state transaction is different for Bob and Alice due to the way Lightning works.  Only Alice has both signatures for her version and only Bob has both signatures for his version.

Step 2a

Alice signs Bob's version of the transaction and sends the signature to Bob.

Abort after step 2a

If Bob broadcasts his initial state transaction, then that counts as him closing the channel.  Alice gets her x refund and then can reclaim output 0 (after T1).

If he doesn't broadcast it, then she can just follow the same abort procedure from step 1.

Bob can abort using the procedure from step 1 or broadcasting the initial state transaction.

In all cases, Alice and Bob get their money back.

Step 2b

Bob signs Alice's version of the transaction and sends the signature to Alice.

Abort after step 2b

Alice (or Bob) can simply close the channel so that both get x each from outputs 1 and 2.

Once the channel is closed, she can then claim output 0 safely (after 1 week).

Likewise, Bob gets x when the channel is closed (he can close it himself too) and then claims output 3 safely.

This gives both parties a full refund.

Step 3

Alice and Bob create a transaction which sends outputs 0 and 3 back to them.  This requires both outputs to be 2 of 2 signed (so 2 signatures each).

This transaction is broadcast.  If either party refuses to sign, then it counts as an abort after step 2b.

Once step 3 is finished, they now have established an initial lightning channel state with unlimited duration.

It is important that neither reveal their hash lock as that allows the other to spend the funding output.

Vires in numeris
moonpie45
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 55
Merit: 0


View Profile
January 02, 2017, 09:15:59 PM
 #139

Ok, here's bitcointalk's TierNolan explaining it for you:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1711460.msg17148441#msg17148441




Original text from TierNolan:

This is a protocol for opening a permanent lightning channel even if malleability is not fixed.  It only requires check locktime and check sequence verify.

Both sides put down a deposit to eliminate the hold-out risk.  If either of the parties refuses to proceed either the other party is compensated or both get a full refund.

Step 1

Alice picks A1 and sends HA1, Hash(A1), to Bob.
Bob picks B1 and sends HB1, Hash(B1), to Alice.

They can both create this transaction.

Code:
TX1:
0) Pays 3x: (Alice + HA1 after T1) or (Bob after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
1) Pays x: (HB1 + Alice) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
2) Pays x: (HA1 + Bob) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
3) Pays 3x: (Bob + HB1 after T1) or (Alice after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
4) Pays Alice's change: (Alice)
5) Pays Bob's change: (Bob)

Alice and Bob create the transaction and sign and broadcast it.

Abort during step 1

If one party signs the transaction and then the other refuses, then the signer should send at least one of the inputs to another address.  This invalidates the transaction.

Abort after step 1

Alice can wait T1 and then reclaim output 0.  This automatically gives Bob HA1, which allows him claim output 2.

Likewise, Bob can wait T1 and then reclaim output 3.  This automatically gives Alice HB1, which allows her claim output 1.


This is a full refund all parties.
I stopped reading once malleability becomes a problem. (see the underlined portion).  
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074



View Profile
January 02, 2017, 09:23:34 PM
 #140

I stopped reading once malleability becomes a problem. (see the underlined portion). 

Neither of those steps depend on the transaction hash. I think you may be confused about the notation, but I don't have time to convince you.

Vires in numeris
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!