Yet another reason to hate and reject SegWit altcoin

[DGulari]

Just before Hearn left he floated Bitcoin XT as a scaling solution.  While it got a significant showing of 'votes', it never really took off.  A major reason was due to all the DDOSing of XT nodes. 

This is pure and simple corruption.  If we are taking a vote, we have to let the vote be free and fair or we won't know the true result.  The Blockstream team is full of this kind of corruption and BS.

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit. 

Even if I loved SegWit technically, even if it did provide some good advantage, I wouldn't go that direction.  The people behind that side of the story have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy.  SegWit/Blockstream/Core/Lightning are corrupt.  They will lie, cheat and steal to take over the network.  I don't want them in charge. 

We need to get Blockstream out of the Core influence.

[1715192650]

1715192650

[1715192650]

1715192650

[RealBitcoin]

At the moment the nodes are in charge, thank god, we dont have to have a political debate, regardless of which side is correct.

Can you imagine a philosophical political debate here before every single patch?

Like communism vs capitalism debate? It has been going on for at least 2000 years, and still it wasnt resolved. There are still people supporting both sides.


So you cant really have a debate between 2MB VS Segwit, because it would be just as pointless as the capitalism vs communism one. Of course I am a capitalist, I just say this as an example.



So to avoid this long bickering, we just have a pretty simple node consensus mechanism. If the majority of nodes want X, then X shall it be. No political shenanigan, nor any kind of manipulation can't influence the outcome.

Of course the losing side will always complain , and invent conspiracy theories about the winning side, but that is pointless once the decision has been made.


Nodes should inform themselves, hear out both sides, and then make a rational decision.

• If they do that, then the winning side is by default the correct side, with the most rational arguments behind it
• If they don't and will just act irrationally, then the whole concept of Bitcoin decentralization is flawed and proven to be not working, and it will prove that direct democracy can't work, and only centralized money is good

Either way, we will see what will happen.

[calkob]

Even if I loved SegWit technically, even if it did provide some good advantage, I wouldn't go that direction.  The people behind that side of the story have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy. 

So what you are going to cut of your nose to spite your face, to me the the most damaging thing happening to bitcoin right now is the bitter in fighting over the blocksize debate.  Bitcoin is thriving in-spite of that. 

[Viscount]

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit.  

If that was true I wouldn't browse everyday multiple thread from Ver's stooges, telling us that SegWit's failed  
All of you would've been banned way back. So you are a liar, as every other, who pushes Unlimitedcoin  

[Viscount]

Why are you creating 3~5 threads per day dumb unlimited arses? Just to multiply and escalate the FUD to mislead people,
when you get fucked in one you create another ready at hand. 

[odolvlobo]

Tribalism, picking sides, starting wars are all paths to failure. Give up your pride and you precious ego, and do what is best for you and everyone else.

 If you aren't clear who this post is directed at, then it is directed at you.

[BitcoinBarrel]

Everybody acts like Bitcoin isn't working amazingly for 200,000+ transactions per day. My goodness... your coins took a few hours to be securely transferred to you, wow. If Satoshi wanted 1 minute blocks, he would have made it 1 minute instead of 10.... right?

And if Bitcoin is obsolete, then create a better Alt Coin and make billions.

[pooya87]

So to avoid this long bickering, we just have a pretty simple node consensus mechanism. If the majority of nodes want X, then X shall it be.

i like the idea of Nodes voting for consensus but i see some problems with this mechanism:
1) if there is 100 bitcoin users one out of them is running a full node which means the other 99 user aren't going to have a voice.
2) many who run a full node, just run it and possibly don't know much about consensus, they will upgrade to the latest version and unless it is explicitly asked, they are signalling what the latest version signals.
3) i believe it is not that hard to create fake nodes (a lot of them) and signal something. and i believe it happened with classic nodes.

[franky1]

3) i believe it is not that hard to create fake nodes (a lot of them) and signal something. and i believe it happened with classic nodes.

dont be biased.
remember 21.co said they (one entity) will launch 100+ core nodes
remember btcc said they (one entity) will launch 100 core nodes
Fibre having lots of nodes
Cornell having lots of nodes
and many other examples.

so yes there could be sybil attacks. but at the same argument... a sybil attack can be easy to spot.
EG strange jump in nodes for a short period.
we can ignore those that obviously launched temporarily.
especially if the new node count are using old code to hinder new features that the community actually want.

EG say core finally release a consensus utilising code that includes dynamic blocks.
and all other implementations had the same dynamic defaults

but then instead of seeing older versions drop and replaced with new nodes (same people simply upgrading naturally)
the node count of older nodes suddenly jumps, EG version core0.12 went from 300 to 1000. where 700 are running on amazon servers.. (but were not there last week)
obviously those 700 wont be counted

there are several ways to mitigate the risks.

we need to concentrate on nodes with user settings that can allow users to run as nodes. and not just use some stupid amazon free time trial temporary spike in node count. with silly settings set.

and we especially shouldnt leave it for devs to explicitly be the controller of the node settings. it needs to be a diverse open consensus based on realistic and acceptable levels, not some fake election double counting votes from same ip ranges

[Kakmakr]

Just before Hearn left he floated Bitcoin XT as a scaling solution.  While it got a significant showing of 'votes', it never really took off.  A major reason was due to all the DDOSing of XT nodes. 

This is pure and simple corruption.  If we are taking a vote, we have to let the vote be free and fair or we won't know the true result.  The Blockstream team is full of this kind of corruption and BS.

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit. 

Even if I loved SegWit technically, even if it did provide some good advantage, I wouldn't go that direction.  The people behind that side of the story have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy.  SegWit/Blockstream/Core/Lightning are corrupt.  They will lie, cheat and steal to take over the network.  I don't want them in charge. 

We need to get Blockstream out of the Core influence.

Politics 101 - Everything goes, just ask Trump. ^smile^

First, Mike Hearn was not a victim, he tried a hostile takeover and even tried to slip some "backdoor" malicious code into XT and it failed. They even faked some nodes, to inflate their node count, and that failed too.

The goal of this forum is to discuss Bitcoin, hence it's name : Bitcointalk, not to promote Alt coins or to tolerate discussions that would harm the experiment. < They leave room for constructive criticism, up to a point >

If you feel strongly about Blockstream, then rally support for BU somewhere else and let consensus make the final decision.

[RealBitcoin]

So to avoid this long bickering, we just have a pretty simple node consensus mechanism. If the majority of nodes want X, then X shall it be.

i like the idea of Nodes voting for consensus but i see some problems with this mechanism:
1) if there is 100 bitcoin users one out of them is running a full node which means the other 99 user aren't going to have a voice.
2) many who run a full node, just run it and possibly don't know much about consensus, they will upgrade to the latest version and unless it is explicitly asked, they are signalling what the latest version signals.
3) i believe it is not that hard to create fake nodes (a lot of them) and signal something. and i believe it happened with classic nodes.

Well it's tough shit, but this puts the decentralization promised to the test.

I am not comfortable with the ASIC nature of mining, it should be something more decentralized.

So that either 1 miner = 1 node, or non mining nodes get rewards too.


I think satoshi has fucked it up, he was too optimistic about CPU mining and forgot about ASICS.

Well we shall seee, this is the big test for Bitcoin. If it can pass it, then it will survive. If not, then it will become a bank coin.

[Lauda]

Tl;dr: OP is trying to sell a story about how they "supported" Segwit et. al, and how they suddenly changed their mind.

Just before Hearn left he floated Bitcoin XT as a scaling solution.  While it got a significant showing of 'votes', it never really took off.  A major reason was due to all the DDOSing of XT nodes. 

You have no proof that any Core contributor did anything of this type, ergo argument invalid.

The Blockstream team is full of this kind of corruption and BS.

Nonsense again.

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit. 

1) It's a private owned forum. If you don't like it -> leave.
2) Moderation =/= censorship.
3) Last sentence is false anyways.

Even if I loved SegWit technically, even if it did provide some good advantage, I wouldn't go that direction.  The people behind that side of the story have repeatedly proven themselves untrustworthy. 

Lies again.

[franky1]

Well we shall seee, this is the big test for Bitcoin. If it can pass it, then it will survive. If not, then it will become a bank coin.

every system has a loop hole.
imagine PoS
if address contains 10coin it is staked enough to sign a block
200 people pool their 0.5 coin into 10 addresses of 10coin and ensure the syndicate leader is ethical to act as the pool to pay out reward
because there are 10 addresses with stake ensures they get more chance more often then one person of 10btc.
and also leaving those others not syndicated/pools with 0.5coin not getting anything.

imagine PoN (proof of node)
someone runs 200 nodes ensuring they get the chance more often than someone with 1 node

[franky1]

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit.  

1) It's a private owned forum. If you don't like it -> leave.

lauda. take this as advice..

"If you don't like it -> leave." = silencing opinion

your correct moderator response should have been, something like
"you are entitled to your opinion, no one will delete your post or ask you to leave because of it"

but you instead. proved him right by telling him to leave. and also making it sound like he is trespassing. by saying
"its privately owned." rather than "its a public forum" or even "its a free speech forum"

you kind of insinuated that open opinion is not applauded but instead shown the direction to the exit

[Lauda]

"If you don't like it -> leave." = silencing opinion

False.

your correct moderator response should have been, something like
"you are entitled to your opinion, no one will delete your post or ask you to leave because of it"

What are you talking about? I'm not a moderator.

but you instead. proved him right by telling him to leave. and also making it sound like he is trespassing. by saying
"its privately owned." rather than "its a public forum" or even "its a free speech forum"

It is a privately owned forum. That's a fact. If you want a "public forum" then go invent a decentralized one.

you kind of insinuated that open opinion is not applauded but instead shown the direction to the exit

The general community would benefit a lot if a certain amount of these users actually 'exited'.

[franky1]

What are you talking about? I'm not a moderator.

you lost your status. hmm

everything else you said i just laughed at, as you are not seeing rational thought.
i hope you get some back, because although i dont keep upto date on your life to know or care about your status..
i did recognise a little bit of open minded thought last year. and i truly hope you gt back to that point. even though it was a little short window

[RealBitcoin]

Same goes for this forum.  The heavy censorship here is totally corrupt.  They were trying to silence any opinion against SegWit. 

1) It's a private owned forum. If you don't like it -> leave.

lauda. take this as advice..

"If you don't like it -> leave." = silencing opinion

your correct moderator response should have been, something like
"you are entitled to your opinion, no one will delete your post or ask you to leave because of it"

but you instead. proved him right by telling him to leave. and also making it sound like he is trespassing. by saying
"its privately owned." rather than "its a public forum" or even "its a free speech forum"

you kind of insinuated that open opinion is not applauded but instead shown the direction to the exit

There are 2 ways to defend against sybil attack:


-Discourage people from running nodes (at which case those that still run multiple nodes, have an easier path to control the network)
-Encourage people to run nodes (at which case people will run multiple nodes, but so until everyone does that, it would be like 1 person running 1 , as the ratio would be the same)


Bitcoin works on method 1, but as the node count drops, the sybil attack becomes easier.

I would suggest to moving to method 2 (aka paying nodes too, not just miners), because in that case, at least the incentive is there, and as long as people want to make money, they can also help defend the network.

[franky1]

Bitcoin works on method 1, but as the node count drops, the sybil attack becomes easier.

I would suggest to moving to method 2 (aka paying nodes too, not just miners), because in that case, at least the incentive is there, and as long as people want to make money, they can also help defend the network.

every mthod has a loophole.

again to pay a node (bitcoin theory this time not LN) requires a tx paying each relay..

blockstream already set up FIBRE as the hub... oops they hate it when i dont use gmaxwells buzzwords

blockstream already set up FIBRE as the upstream filter of the network topology

[Lauda]

everything else you said i just laughed at, as you are not seeing rational thought.

No. You are the one who is wrong in this situation. Privately owned environments can set any rules that they want. This is not the "official Bitcoin forum". If it were, then we may be talking about maximizing free speech.

i hope you get some back, because although i dont keep upto date on your life to know or care about your status..

Then don't drag it in to the thread as part of a weak argument.

i did recognise a little bit of open minded thought last year. and i truly hope you gt back to that point. even though it was a little short window

I'm very open minded about a lot of things. The same can not be said about you though. You're seem to be arguing that 'a flag' is black even if almost all of the people with actual knowledge are saying that it's white.

I would suggest to moving to method 2 (aka paying nodes too, not just miners), because in that case, at least the incentive is there, and as long as people want to make money, they can also help defend the network.

That's obviously not going to happen. This isn't Dash.

[jbreher]

So to avoid this long bickering, we just have a pretty simple node consensus mechanism. If the majority of nodes want X, then X shall it be.

i like the idea of Nodes voting for consensus but i see some problems with this mechanism:
1) if there is 100 bitcoin users one out of them is running a full node which means the other 99 user aren't going to have a voice.
2) many who run a full node, just run it and possibly don't know much about consensus, they will upgrade to the latest version and unless it is explicitly asked, they are signalling what the latest version signals.
3) i believe it is not that hard to create fake nodes (a lot of them) and signal something. and i believe it happened with classic nodes.

1) Well, that's bitcoin's design. Nodeless users have no direct representation on the network. Buck up, buttercup.
2) While true, likely insignificant. Those willing to bear the hassle of running a node are more likely to invest some thought into the issues.
3) Irrelevant. In the end, the only way nodes have any power anyhow, is as a proxy for economic power or for mining power. Back in the day, when essentially every node was a mining node, nodes held some power. Today, ..., err... not so much.

[franky1]

You're seem to be arguing that 'a flag' is black even if almost all of the people with actual knowledge are saying that it's white.

many will say your cat (avatar) is blue. some will say its black.

ill say its tabby and definetly not blue

they can argue all they like about how many pixels in the picture are in a shade of blue and black.

ill still state that its a tabby cat thats definitely not blue. which hopefully if rational you would agree on

[DooMAD]

I think satoshi has fucked it up, he was too optimistic about CPU mining and forgot about ASICS.

To be precise, Satoshi couldn't "forget" about ASICs because they weren't a thing yet when Satoshi was still around.  There's a distinct line between being visionary and having godlike powers to predict the future, heh.  People tried to make the same point about GPU mining and the propagation of mining pools, but again, these things weren't eventualities that could be easily predicted in advance.

The Blockstream team is full of this kind of corruption and BS.

People might be suspicious and have concerns over who funds what, but there's no evidence of wrongdoing or unethical practice on the part of Blockstream yet that I've seen.  Such a claim would need to be substantiated.  Literally all of the misdeeds I've witnessed have been ordinary members of the community:

• DDoS attacks against people running Bitcoin nodes that conflict with their personal visions of the future
• Ad hominem attacks on members of the community that hold different views
• Running a modified client to spoof the client version and manipulate the figures
• Impersonating satoshi to discredit a fork proposal
• Dismissing fork proposals as an altcoin

[RealBitcoin]

To be precise, Satoshi couldn't "forget" about ASICs because they weren't a thing yet when Satoshi was still around.  There's a distinct line between being visionary and having godlike powers to predict the future, heh.  People tried to make the same point about GPU mining and the propagation of mining pools, but again, these things weren't eventualities that could be easily predicted in advance.

Satoshi was pretty sloppy and made many mistakes not just 1:

• Satoshi coded the first softwares, and they were very buggy
• Satoshi chose hashcash instead of HMAC, so he was bad in cryptography too
• Satoshi should have known that SHA256 can be ASIC solved, so he could not plan the future
• Satoshi did predict the blocksize increase, but he suggested waiting until resource costs go down (bad thing, they should have increased the block size back in 2012, because now there is just too much drama)
• Satoshi did choose well the Elliptic Curve Secp256k1 , because the R curve was proven to be very weak
• However he choose too low security key gen algorithm, that is not quantum resistant

So yes, for every good point, he has 2 bad points, he made so many mistakes, I dont even see how can people like him.

Bitcoin is like a frankeinstein monster now, with full of bandages, hacks and patches on in.

Segwit is the latest one. Instead of writing a clean code with well thought out programming and cryptography, the devs just choose to "patch and hack" it further.

Very disappointing.

[franky1]

• Satoshi should have known that SHA256 can be ASIC solved, so he could not plan the future

if something needs a cpu. no matter what it is..
someone can make a chip thats only sole purpose is a single function. so that its more efficient.
and then make a mainboard of multiple chips to multiply that efficiency.

no matter what hash or method he could ever think off there will be many people finding ways to do it more efficiently and then find the loop hole
to increase their 'luck'

EG 1 node one signature... where 400 people are signing. each person has a 0.25% chance

loophole= run 200 nodes
600 signing.. but one person has 33% chance

[RawDog]

To be precise, Satoshi couldn't "forget" about ASICs because they weren't a thing yet when Satoshi was still around.  

ASICs were around long before Satoshi.  ASICs were here way before 1980.  Mining ASICs came after bitcoin launch, the the poster above was thinking Satoshi failed to image that ASICs would be configured to mine. 

Its a good point.  Centralization by just a handful of minors would never have materialized if we had 20,000 CPU miners running now.  But, the financial incentive got unexpectedly large and the mega-miner arose from that. 

It was an effect that Satoshi probably did not imagine.  To much incentive caused mining to get out of control and now the entire network turns on just about 8 - 10 people.

[franky1]

To be precise, Satoshi couldn't "forget" about ASICs because they weren't a thing yet when Satoshi was still around.  

ASICs were around long before Satoshi.  ASICs were here way before 1980.  

i think DooMAD meant BITCOIN asics didnt exist in 2008.
but im sure satoshi knew whatever he chose could be abused / done efficiently. so just chose the lessor of the 2 evils

PoS is just allowing the richer guy to sign. because they have above X stake. thus the whole rich vs poor paradigm would have played out far sooner than the asic one, which didnt really begin until 2013

[Carlton Banks]

Bitcoin is like a frankeinstein monster now, with full of bandages, hacks and patches on in.

Segwit is the latest one. Instead of writing a clean code with well thought out programming and cryptography, the devs just choose to "patch and hack" it further.

Evidence?

[RealBitcoin]

• Satoshi should have known that SHA256 can be ASIC solved, so he could not plan the future

if something needs a cpu. no matter what it is..
someone can make a chip thats only sole purpose is a single function. so that its more efficient.
and then make a mainboard of multiple chips to multiply that efficiency.

no matter what hash or method he could ever think off there will be many people finding ways to do it more efficiently and then find the loop hole
to increase their 'luck'

EG 1 node one signature... where 400 people are signing. each person has a 0.25% chance

loophole= run 200 nodes
600 signing.. but one person has 33% chance

That is why the mining system should be redesigned completely. Maybe some captcha system, requiring manual labor, or some capped mining system that lets 1 ip address get reward only once a week or something.

There can be a dozen of ways to prevent mining centralization, just do a brainstorm, and find out intelligent people comin up with good ideas.

Bitcoin is like a frankeinstein monster now, with full of bandages, hacks and patches on in.

Segwit is the latest one. Instead of writing a clean code with well thought out programming and cryptography, the devs just choose to "patch and hack" it further.

Evidence?

Didnt you read what I posted above:

Double Hash instead of HMAC.
Key generation not quantum resistant.
SHA2 should be replaced with SHA3
The mining algo is a mess, that centralizes mining power
Nodes are not incentivized
Block size only 1 MB
TX fees should be 0 until the minting process is on (why have 2 taxes, have inflation until 21m coins are mined, and demurrage by TX fees after that)
Nodes should individually censor people who are doing evil things (botnet, ddos, spam, etc)


In short, BTC is a mess, and none of the Segwit code addresses anything that I have wrote above, because these are the biggest issues.

[Carlton Banks]

Bitcoin is like a frankeinstein monster now, with full of bandages, hacks and patches on in.

Segwit is the latest one. Instead of writing a clean code with well thought out programming and cryptography, the devs just choose to "patch and hack" it further.

Evidence?

Didnt you read what I posted above:

Didn't you read what my reply the last time you came out with your design "critiques"?

No expert in the field sees what you're seeing. So you could be rich, don't you see? You've come up with all the correct design decisions, and this "Real" Bitcoin of yours will be top on coinmarketcap.com, right? Wrong.

In short, BTC is a mess, and none of the Segwit code addresses anything that I have wrote above, because these are the biggest issues.

Well address it with your own code then. If you can't, why do you expect anyone to listen to your armchair arguments?

[RealBitcoin]

Didn't you read what my reply the last time you came out with your design "critiques"?

No expert in the field sees what you're seeing. So you could be rich, don't you see? You've come up with all the correct design decisions, and this "Real" Bitcoin of yours will be top on coinmarketcap.com, right? Wrong.

Bullshit, these are cryptographic facts, look them up. I read up on double hashing ,and many people suggested that its inferior to HMAC.

Same with ECDSA a very depreciated public key system.

The solution is out there, it's just that the expert devs, don't have time for 5 minutes of Google search on basic cryptography to read up on vulnerabilities, that an amateur like me can find.

Well address it with your own code then. If you can't, why do you expect anyone to listen to your armchair arguments?

I am not a programmer, but it is disturbing that there is no programmer on earth that can fix these?

Maybe because programmers need money, nobody will write tens of thousands of lines of code for free, for hobby.

Maybe if some donation fund would be setup for developers, then the BTC development would be more frictionless.

[Lauda]

Bullshit, these are cryptographic facts, look them up. I read up on double hashing ,and many people suggested that its inferior to HMAC.

Argumentum ad populum.

Same with ECDSA a very depreciated public key system.

This is just outright false. Who sold you this story? ECDSA should be replaced by Schnorr post Segwit anyways.

I am not a programmer, but it is disturbing that there is no programmer on earth that can fix these?

I'm going to take a risk and say that your "fixes" or 'suggestions' would probably be the end of Bitcoin. Or they just aren't necessary, like this one:

SHA2 should be replaced with SHA3

[rizzlarolla]

Even if I loved SegWit technically...

That ain't gonna happen.

We need to get Blockstream out of the Core influence.

Neither is that. Core will be ousted by design.

[RealBitcoin]

Argumentum ad populum.

Well they are cryptographic experts, so maybe they know more about cryptography than average programmers

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/29951/salted-hashes-vs-hmac#29955

This is just outright false. Who sold you this story? ECDSA should be replaced by Schnorr post Segwit anyways.

If there are quantum computers out there, then it's very very bad.

I have heard that ECDSA will be replaced sometime ,but if the enthusiasm of the network is as good as it is now with segwit (23%), then I fear we have a much bigger consensus problem, not a cryptographic problem.

I'm going to take a risk and say that your "fixes" or 'suggestions' would probably be the end of Bitcoin. Or they just aren't necessary, like this one:

I think they will be a very good upgrade, but we also cannot keep weak algorithms around just because the majority of miners have invested a lot in equipment.

If SHA3 is better than SHA2, then the only reason we cant upgrade is because the miners would lose a lot of money.

But if that is the case, then we can never upgrade, because if SHA2 will become insecure 10 years from now, then we can't upgrade in 10 years because the miners would lose even more money by then.

So we are keeping the bandaged weak version of Bitcoin, just because it would upset the market.


But with this attitude, Bitcoin can never evolve, nor it can reach consensus in any important issue.


Maybe a lot of people would lose money with Segwit activated, so on the same logic Segwit won't be activated. And then Bitcoin will never have consensus on anything.

[hv_]

Even if I loved SegWit technically...

That ain't gonna happen.

We need to get Blockstream out of the Core influence.

Neither is that. Core will be ousted by design.

You mean they have overengineered a bit and lost some traction?

Skipped the marketing and some soft skills?

 

[Lauda]

Well they are cryptographic experts, so maybe they know more about cryptography than average programmers
https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/29951/salted-hashes-vs-hmac#29955

That link is less relevant. Saltes password hashes and double hashing of SHA256 are different concepts. Read:
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/779/hashing-or-encrypting-twice-to-increase-security

If there are quantum computers out there, then it's very very bad.

There are none, and feasible quantum computers are still a distant future despite what some "bitcointalk experts" claim.

I have heard that ECDSA will be replaced sometime ,but if the enthusiasm of the network is as good as it is now with segwit (23%), then I fear we have a much bigger consensus problem, not a cryptographic problem.

Irrelevant statement.

I think they will be a very good upgrade, but we also cannot keep weak algorithms around just because the majority of miners have invested a lot in equipment.

False again. SHA2 is not a weak algorithm.

If SHA3 is better than SHA2, then the only reason we cant upgrade is because the miners would lose a lot of money.

Wrong again. Nobody is going to upgrade because there is no need to upgrade.

But if that is the case, then we can never upgrade, because if SHA2 will become insecure 10 years from now, then we can't upgrade in 10 years because the miners would lose even more money by then.

Assuming that SHA3 PoW would be incompatible with SHA2 PoW, then you don't need miners. Therefore, this  argument is also invalid.

So we are keeping the bandaged weak version of Bitcoin, just because it would upset the market.

Wrong again.

[RealBitcoin]

That link is less relevant. Saltes password hashes and double hashing of SHA256 are different concepts. Read:
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/779/hashing-or-encrypting-twice-to-increase-security

Ok that link was indeed irrelevant, but I am going out of my way here to prove my point.

I have found this:

https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~dodis/ps/h-of-h.pdf

This paper proves that HMAC is superior to SHA256d.

Also here is a discussion about this issue:
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/7895/weaknesses-in-sha-256d

There are none, and feasible quantum computers are still a distant future despite what some "bitcointalk experts" claim.

How do you know there arent some in some secret underground bunker? Secret projects are always 10-20 years ahead in technology than things that are available publicly.

Irrelevant statement.

Not it's not irrelevant, if we cant achieve consensus on small issues, then how can we reach consensus on big issues that might come in the future?

False again. SHA2 is not a weak algorithm.

There were some collisions found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2#Cryptanalysis_and_validation

It might make bitcoin mining more unstable if more are found.

Wrong again. Nobody is going to upgrade because there is no need to upgrade.

But will they upgrade if there will be a need to upgrade. How do you know if there is or is not a need to upgrade.

Why not let the nodes decide it, and if a node thinks they need a better software that fixed certain bugs, then it should be ok for them to use that fixed version.

Assuming that SHA3 PoW would be incompatible with SHA2 PoW, then you don't need miners. Therefore, this  argument is also invalid.

Well upgraded miners. Yes it's a long stretched thought experiment, and I am not saying that it's practical to upgrade the network now.

But the problem is that when we will need to upgrade it, we will face this exact issue.

Asics will become worthless, and miners will lose either way. So the losses are not eliminated, they are just postponed into the future.

Maybe SHA2 will be broken in 10-15 years, and if miners by then had invested billions in ASICS, then that will be a big  fat loss.

[Lauda]

I have found this:

https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~dodis/ps/h-of-h.pdf
This paper proves that HMAC is superior to SHA256d.

A single paper "proves" nothing. Even if this was the case (I'm not going to read that whole paper right now), look at the date. Do you think that Satoshi is a time traveler or something?

How do you know there arent some in some secret underground bunker? Secret projects are always 10-20 years ahead in technology than things that are available publicly.

How do you know that there isn't a secret weapon of mass doom that is going to kill us all in 5 years? I don't wear tinfoil hats, those are irrational.

Not it's not irrelevant, if we cant achieve consensus on small issues, then how can we reach consensus on big issues that might come in the future?

The issues that Segwit aims to fix are far from "small", therefore making your whole statement worthless.

There were some collisions found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2#Cryptanalysis_and_validation
It might make bitcoin mining more unstable if more are found.

It's obvious that you either have very limited or very flawed understanding of cryptography.

Well upgraded miners. Yes it's a long stretched thought experiment, and I am not saying that it's practical to upgrade the network now.

But the problem is that when we will need to upgrade it, we will face this exact issue.

Asics will become worthless, and miners will lose either way. So the losses are not eliminated, they are just postponed into the future.

Maybe SHA2 will be broken in 10-15 years, and if miners by then had invested billions in ASICS, then that will be a big  fat loss.

Read my previous remark. The network per consensus won't give a damn about any miner that has invested a single $1 if there is an emergency requirement to move onto another algorithm.
Anyhow, you are just speculating on doomsday scenarios which are just a waste of time. There are other issues that require focus right now.

[Carlton Banks]

Well address it with your own code then. If you can't, why do you expect anyone to listen to your armchair arguments?

I am not a programmer, but it is disturbing that there is no programmer on earth that can fix these?

Maybe because programmers need money, nobody will write tens of thousands of lines of code for free, for hobby.

Maybe if some donation fund would be setup for developers, then the BTC development would be more frictionless.

Well, you're on fire today aren't you.


All you have to do is find a programmer to code up your killer cryptocoin design, and pay them. But, what's this, you won't put your money where your mouth is? Why not?

[RealBitcoin]

How do you know that there isn't a secret weapon of mass doom that is going to kill us all in 5 years? I don't wear tinfoil hats, those are irrational.

Because you cant do anything about an armageddon, but you can do something about flawed cryptography.

It's easier to patch a weak cryptographic algorithm, than to save the entire world.

The issues that Segwit aims to fix are far from "small", therefore making your whole statement worthless.

If they are so great then why are the nodes rejecting it (23% support)

• If the nodes are rational people, then they don't want segwit because segwit is flawed
• If the nodes are irrational people, then the whole concept of decentralization is flawed, and we are better off with banks

So the conclusion is that either segwit is bad, or banks are good.

It's obvious that you either have very limited or very flawed understanding of cryptography.

That is true, I admit to that. I am still learning.

Read my previous remark. The network per consensus won't give a damn about any miner that has invested a single $1 if there is an emergency requirement to move onto another algorithm.
Anyhow, you are just speculating on doomsday scenarios which are just a waste of time. There are other issues that require focus right now.

If that is true, then why care about the "economic majority"

Let's just ignore them and hardfork the network now, maybe the price will tank,but who cares right?

But then if people care about the price, and the merchants, and the miners, then we will also never upgrade.

It's like the IPV4 IPV6 argument, once you have big money invested in an infrastucture, you cant change it.

Well, you're on fire today aren't you.


All you have to do is find a programmer to code up your killer cryptocoin design, and pay them. But, what's this, you won't put your money where your mouth is? Why not?

It's not my job to save the world.

[Lauda]

Because you cant do anything about an armageddon, but you can do something about flawed cryptography. It's easier to patch a weak cryptographic algorithm, than to save the entire world.

This conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense.

If they are so great then why are the nodes rejecting it (23% support)

Facepalm. What you're referring to is mining support, not node support. Node support is around or above 50%: https://bitnodes.21.co/

So the conclusion is that either segwit is bad, or banks are good.

Also known as the false dilemma fallacy.

That is true, I admit to that. I am still learning.

Then why are you arguing your viewpoints in a subject in which you have very limited knowledge in? Are you trying to imply that you're smarter than the top cryptographers working or doing research on Bitcoin?

If that is true, then why care about the "economic majority"

Node majority =/= economic majority =/= mining majority.

Let's just ignore them and hardfork the network now, maybe the price will tank,but who cares right?

There isn't a valid reason to do so.

It's like the IPV4 IPV6 argument, once you have big money invested in an infrastucture, you cant change it.

Nonsense.

[Carlton Banks]

Well, you're on fire today aren't you.


All you have to do is find a programmer to code up your killer cryptocoin design, and pay them. But, what's this, you won't put your money where your mouth is? Why not?

It's not my job to save the world.

Why do you behave like you and your brilliant ideas are going to save Bitcoin then?

You've seemed really motivated by your ideas, right up to the point where someone asks you to do something to prove them. What's the problem?