jbreher
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
 |
June 17, 2018, 01:40:08 AM |
|
A 51% attack allows the miners to change ANY consensus rule.
But this would be 'soft-forking' (ha!) to the old compatible rules. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The forum was founded in 2009 by Satoshi and Sirius. It replaced a
SourceForge forum.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3346
Merit: 3484
born once atheist
|
|
June 17, 2018, 01:40:56 AM |
|
So the local tree surgeon gave me an estimate of $650 for pruning a tree that is encroaching on my house.
So my new neighbor comes over today and does the neighborly thing and takes care of it with a
telescoping saw contraption thingy for free.
Turns out he's got the Coinbase app on his phone.
So of course I sent a healthy bitcoin tip to him and broke his Bitcoin tx virginity.
He was psyched to say the least.
I now have a tree surgeon neighbor who accepts Bitcoin...sweet!
|
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
June 17, 2018, 02:26:45 AM |
|
Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.
If the miners are as trustworthy as you big blockers think, then it shouldn't even be an issue. Mining is orthogonal. We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue. Might have some relevance. Were it not for DOGE's legacy as a joke coin, and its infinite emission schedule. I'm not a mathematician, but doesn't that make bcash at least 3X more of a joke coin? No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value. |
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3346
Merit: 3484
born once atheist
|
|
June 17, 2018, 02:51:48 AM |
|
No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.
that maybe so, but BCH transfers don't have MUCH WOW... |
|
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
|
|
June 17, 2018, 03:03:39 AM Merited by sirazimuth (5) |
|
No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.
that maybe so, but BCH transfers don't have MUCH WOW... Or SUCH or MOON... |
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3346
Merit: 3484
born once atheist
|
|
June 17, 2018, 03:08:59 AM |
|
No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.
that maybe so, but BCH transfers don't have MUCH WOW... Or SUCH or MOON... How did I know that was coming?   |
|
|
|
|
suchmoon
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3654
Merit: 8909
https://bpip.org
|
|
June 17, 2018, 03:36:42 AM |
|
How did I know that was coming? I'm trained to respond to a doge whistle  |
|
|
|
|
Wekkel
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3108
Merit: 1531
yes
|
|
June 17, 2018, 03:39:11 AM |
|
No. That's just a silly sensationalist tweet. While DOGE may have more transactions, BCH transfers far more value.
that maybe so, but BCH transfers don't have MUCH WOW... Or SUCH or MOON... Or VERY. |
|
|
|
|
Dabs
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3416
Merit: 1912
The Concierge of Crypto
|
|
June 17, 2018, 04:08:44 AM
Last edit: June 17, 2018, 04:18:47 AM by Dabs |
|
We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue.
I didn't know that. If you gave me a legacy BTC address (if we had some sort of deal or transaction), I'd send you some BTC that came from a native segwit address. You'd still get your BTC, and you'll likely get it confirmed in a block faster too. Why would you not accept that? Would you return it? |
|
|
|
|
sirazimuth
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3346
Merit: 3484
born once atheist
|
|
June 17, 2018, 04:24:03 AM |
|
How did I know that was coming? I'm trained to respond to a doge whistle doge whistle?? hey, you are off topic! shame!! |
|
|
|
|
BitcoinNewbie15
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 574
Merit: 296
Bitcoin isn't a bubble. It's the pin!
|
|
June 17, 2018, 05:34:29 AM |
|
We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue.
I didn't know that. If you gave me a legacy BTC address (if we had some sort of deal or transaction), I'd send you some BTC that came from a native segwit address. You'd still get your BTC, and you'll likely get it confirmed in a block faster too. Why would you not accept that? Would you return it? Its a crazy idea, but it is true. There are some Bitcoiners out there that will not accept a Bitcoin TX if there is any segwit TXs in its lineage. Take this with a grain of salt, as my understanding of this attack is very basic and I have no clue how viable it is. The idea behind not accepting Segwit TXs is because there could be a potential 51% collusion attack in the future, where the miners would roll back the Segwit fork and accept all the past Segwit txs as anyone can spend. They would then continue mining the original protocol satoshi designed. So theoretically, there would be two chains. The legacy BTC chain, and the rolled back Segwit chain with all the stolen coins. Any "Legacy" BTC that has no Segwit TXs in its lineage have no risk of being stolen in this attack. Again, like I said, I have a very rudimentary understanding of this attack. I don't really know the specifics or its viability. This is something that Anonymint has been talking about on this forum recently under his alt account "anunymint". |
|
|
|
|
jbreher
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
|
|
June 17, 2018, 06:13:43 AM |
|
We have evidence in this thread of users not wanting to accept Segwit transactions. That's users not miners, that's a lack of fungibility, and that's an issue.
I didn't know that. If you gave me a legacy BTC address (if we had some sort of deal or transaction), I'd send you some BTC that came from a native segwit address. You'd still get your BTC, and you'll likely get it confirmed in a block faster too. Why would you not accept that? Would you return it? I'm just saying that a couple of people upthread made that statement. That is -- by definition -- a lack of fungibility. As to why, there may be several reasons. For me, it is the additional attack vectors. |
|
|
|
|
Elwar
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2384
Viva Ut Vivas
|
|
June 17, 2018, 07:20:33 AM |
|
I never accept any dollars with the numbers 666 on it. Because satan.
Thus. The dollar is not fungible.
|
|
|
|
|
Globb0
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2053
Free spirit
|
|
June 17, 2018, 08:47:03 AM |
|
fungible?  Free flowing, identical, mutually interchangeable People from the Bath office cant work in the London office because they have different network adapters. Is bad for resource fungibility in the company. The cant easily move between offices and work. |
|
|
|
|
Majormax
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2534
Merit: 1129
|
|
June 17, 2018, 10:41:11 AM |
|
+ a few more months would fit a little better. If the chart is to be validated, taking this as a short wave, expect a resuming uptrend before the end of 2018. If the present trend is turning into a long bowl formation, then a low of =/- $3k, and a return to ath by 2021 still keeps the log trend intact.
You are catastrophe announcer. FFS! 3k! Omg I would have to buy more! No. Just a balanced view. In fact my post was bullish, as I was not mentioning the third case scenario. |
|
|
|
|
|
ccminer.net
|
|
June 17, 2018, 10:44:22 AM |
|
The trading volumes are very very low, once they will rise again soon a new dump will happen
|
|
|
|
|
Syke
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3878
Merit: 1193
|
|
June 17, 2018, 10:58:08 AM |
|
Come on, people, it's Father's Day. Daddy needs a new pair of Lambos. Sideways at 6500 just doesn't cut it.
|
|
|
|
|
realr0ach
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 924
Merit: 311
#TheGoyimKnow
|
|
June 17, 2018, 12:33:10 PM |
|
Come on, people, it's Father's Day. Daddy needs a new pair of Lambos. Sideways at 6500 just doesn't cut it.
r0ach security systems have been deployed to stop all bitcoin pump and dump scammers:  |
|
|
|
|
TERA2
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 266
Merit: 222
Deb Rah Von Doom
|
|
June 17, 2018, 12:35:45 PM |
|
A PAIR of lambos? I do not even want to buy one. Why does a lambo seem like a big waste of money no matter how much one has? My car can beat a lambo and it doesnt even cost half as much.
|
|
|
|
|
d_eddie
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2478
Merit: 2895
|
|
June 17, 2018, 12:50:45 PM |
|
So you cede that these issues exist. Great.
Did my reply imply as much? I don't think they are issues - that's why I was asking. After bitserve, fluidjax too pointed out the meaninglessness of focusing on 51% attacks as segwit-specific attack vectors. Fungibility isn't a real issue, either - still IMHO. As SW transactions become the majority, only old or newborn coins will be left in your Type 1 (coins that were never touched by a SW transaction). Besides, LN acts as a kind of giant mega-tumbler. If/when LN really gets into widespread use, it will only help fungibility rather than undermine it. Geeze, JJG - you need to look up the definition of 'fungible'. Within the three posts preceding yours, 2/3 of them stated that they were cautious of accepting Segwit transactions until they gained some confidence in it. That is definitively a lack of fungibility. A lack of fungibility is in no way limited to some sort of centralized blacklisting.
Those two posters stated that they were wary of SW transactions right after the soft fork. This hasn't much to do with fungibility in my understanding - more of a reasonable wait-and-see attitude motivated by sane skepticism about the technology itself - skepticism that might have been triggered by the FUD wave that some were spreading at the time. Peace out. I'm totally cool. |
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
