Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[HairyMaclairy]

If you mean Potts Point and Toorak then yes.  There’s still an ass load of koalas round my part of town.

[1601288189]

1601288189

[1601288189]

1601288189

[1601288189]

1601288189

[1601288189]

1601288189

[1601288189]

1601288189

[JayJuanGee]

Whats wrong with conspiracy?  Some things should absolutely be questioned until the truth is in a majority consensus.

I suppose.

Never say never, but does anyone really believe that segwit is going to get reversed due to lack of support?

I doubt it.

In the meantime, a variety of FUDsters will continue to denigrate segwit, and seem to cause even smart peeps to fail/refuse to use segwit features (and addresses) which will continue to carry out the intended behaviors preferred by the FUDsters - largely what seems to be a delay the inevitable, which is greater and greater segwit adoption.

Perhaps instead of having high levels (such as greater than 2/3) of segwit adoption in 2 years, it will take more than 4 or 5 years?  If they are successful in the FUD spreading, then I suppose it could take a while to get to majority and even convincingly majority status with segwit adoption, perhaps?

I've been thinking about that anunymint guys idea. Have we seen it play out before, on the etherium blockchain?

He reckons that miners at some point will mine segwit coins to themselves as a 'donation' because (AnyoneCanSpend) in the (original bitcoin) protocol allows it to happen. This will trigger a fork in which the core supported chain would roll back to reverse that theft by miners.

No, it won't roll back. Any block which includes any "steal" of Segwit "anyonecanspend" addresses would simply be rejected/orphaned by the nodes and miners supporting the consensus rules, that is what would automatically make the attackers be left in a new fork (no matter if they are 1% of hashrate or 99% at the moment of the attack).

Then, depending on how much hashrate they represent, would try to claim it is the legitimate chain and try to convince exchanges and other major players (currently running nodes with the consensus rules and with lots of money and credibility on stake) to switch to their chain by changing the software they are currently running to rollback and accept those invalid blocks or directly switch to the rogue chain.

P.S.: It should be noted that at the very moment those exchanges switch to the attackers fork they would be automatically bankrupt. So try to guess what is the probability of that to happen....

It sounds pretty drastic, and likely to happen.  new chain is going to be legacy only... fuck segwit!!!!!!!!!

Everyone abandon all segwit addresses, and revert to the safety of legacy.   Go legacy go.....  That way the trolls get their way while we extensively and completely prepare for an event that is about .00001% to happen.

[HairyMaclairy]

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

[JayJuanGee]

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

Also referred to as a snowball's chance in hell, no?



In theory, might sound plausible, but in practice, not so much.

[vapourminer]

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

the fork that results is basically nothing more than using only legacy address format coins (because they  have the on chain signatures that can prove ownership) on the current chain. you cant steal coins that follow the same rules that the fork have.

[HairyMaclairy]

It’s still a hard fork which would be opposed by the vast majority of economic weight and users.   Go ahead and make your Bitcoin Plus Plus or whatever you want to call it. No one cares.

That’s why Bitcoin relies on consensus.  USAF taught us that miners don’t mean shit in Bitcoin.

[mymenace]

hacker monks to save bitcoin from itself

Amir Taaki

Now he's back, with radical plans for bitcoin – and the states of Western Europe


seems like nearly everyone forgot what bitcoin was about

[vapourminer]

It’s still a hard fork which would be opposed by the vast majority of economic weight and users.   Go ahead and make your Bitcoin Plus Plus or whatever you want to call it. No one cares.

That’s why Bitcoin relies on consensus.  USAF taught us that miners don’t mean shit in Bitcoin.

i would rather rely on math that includes the signature information that proves the coins are mine on chain.

consensus can be a fickle beast, and what power wants and what the current consensus wants may differ in the future. there is a lot of money thats sitting in segwit. i do not want to underestimate the greed and power focused on that.

if/when this attack happens core will remain core with its segwit coins intact and the fork will be the fork, whatever name it chooses. my current legacy coins will remain safe on both. i dont care what the odds are of the fork becoming dominant are as its non zero, and i do not want my btc to be at non zero risk.

as always the choice is the users. this information exists, its up to the user to evaluate it for its risk to their wealth.

[HairyMaclairy]

Segwit signatures are still on chain they are just in a different spot.  Segwit moves the signature out of the input script and stores it in another part of the transaction on chain.

Speculating about future hard forks that might compromise Bitcoin security is pointless because any hard fork could compromise security in any number of ways.  And be rejected.  That’s what full nodes are for.  

[infofront]

OK GIVE ME SOME MERIT  

no one has any
maybe buy copper membership so we don't have to click newbie links

I mean, it's a sexually transmitted disease. Should be fine to eat.

I know a thing or two about eating STD riddled
ah nevermind

I saw a nature show with Koalas mating. The male Koala brutally raped the female. He bit her neck so hard she was bleeding. God save the queen.

[jojo69]

I saw a nature show with Koalas mating. The male Koala brutally raped the female. He bit her neck so hard she was bleeding. God save the queen.

pro tip

do NOT google duck sex

[infofront]

I saw a nature show with Koalas mating. The male Koala brutally raped the female. He bit her neck so hard she was bleeding. God save the queen.

pro tip

do NOT google duck sex

Eww 

[Searing]

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard-fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

yeah, and IF I was the bitcoin core devs and I decided to do a 'hard fork' for whatever legit reason...I'd also to a hard fork

to block size as long as I was at it. Thus, with that and seg wit and lighting, BCH would not have a leg to stand on...


(Bitcoin Core Devs: Hint, Hint: 'what the heck, folk have broken promises for less...go for it')

(again, snowball's chance in hell, but maybe they will bring an 'igloo cooler'?)

brad

[HairyMaclairy]

Blocksize is a security parameter.

Go look at the sharding clusterfuck at ETH if you want to see where decentralised block size increases leads you.  

[bones261]

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well. 

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

The chain committing the "theft" could not be considered a hard or a soft fork since it it would be implemented by a miner running a node with an older version of Bitcoin. The older software will simply be following the same old rules that it understands. In order to be considered a fork, rules need to be changed. In this case, if the chain were to truly split because all the nodes could not reach an agreement, the chain that would be considered "forking off" would be the chain following the Segwit chain. After all, Segwit is considered a "soft fork." Please note that I am not convinced that both these chains could survive for long, simutaneously. Either one or the other is going to be orphaned off.

[Rosewater Foundation]

And thus was sanity restored to the WO thread. But for how long?

[HairyMaclairy]

Incorrect.

Segwit was a soft fork.

Segwit transactions are valid under the old rules.

It would take a hard fork to make Segwit transactions invalid.  

That doesn’t stop a miner from blacklisting Segwit addresses.  But they can blacklist anything they like now, that’s got nothing to do with Segwit.  They  can also blacklist legacy addresses or can mine completely empty blocks should they choose.

[JayJuanGee]

The Segwit theft would require a hard fork.

And if you are going to have a successful theft by hard fork, you may as well steal from the legacy addresses as well.  

This is just more Bcash lol bullshit.

The chain committing the "theft" could not be considered a hard or a soft fork since it it would be implemented by a miner running a node with an older version of Bitcoin. The older software will simply be following the same old rules that it understands. In order to be considered a fork, rules need to be changed. In this case, if the chain were to truly split because all the nodes could not reach an agreement, the chain that would be considered "forking off" would be the chain following the Segwit chain. After all, Segwit is considered a "soft fork." Please note that I am not convinced that both these chains could survive for long, simutaneously. Either one or the other is going to be orphaned off.

I thought that we already did some variation of this in August 2017?    There were various decisions to move forward with segwit that involved threats to get left behind and required at least 95% to follow.. then the new rule set was locked in.  If there is a desire to go back to some old rules, then there is a need for more than 51%.. and more likely to be something like 95%, but of course the consensus rules could be changed.  Alternatively, if there is a suspected threat, then could there be rule sets that address the threat?  

I recall some kind of BIP that went into place that pretty much kicked some nodes off the network if they were running certain kinds of attack software.. wasn't it the nodes that signalling support for segwit2x or some other behavior that was no longer be allowed, and had like a 1 year period before it would become strictly implemented?

I think part of my point is that if there certain suspected security problems, such as deviant minority nodes (miners) then there could be ways for the network to discontinue to recognize them by rules that are agreed to by the vast majority. and even if that is not a hardfork, exactly, the effects are nearly the same as a hardfork.

[babanana]

Incorrect.

Segwit was a soft fork.

Segwit transactions are valid under the old rules.

It would take a hard fork to make Segwit transactions invalid.  

That doesn’t stop a miner from blacklisting Segwit addresses.  But they can blacklist anything they like now, that’s got nothing to do with Segwit.  They  can also blacklist legacy addresses or can mine completely empty blocks should they choose.

Empty blocks, blacklisting addresses. This looks utterly familiar.

[Elwar]

I can't stand it any more, living in secrecy.

I am Satoshi Nakamoto.

Here is proof. The alert key.

mainnet public key:
04fc9702847840aaf195de8442ebecedf5b095cdbb9bc716bda9110971b28a49e0ead8564ff0db2 2209e0374782c093bb899692d524e9d6a6956e7c5ecbcd68284

mainnet private key:
30820113020101042053cdc1e0cfac07f7e1c312768886f4635f6bceebec0887f63a9d37a26a92e 6b6a081a53081a2020101302c06072a8648ce3d0101022100ffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff fffffffffffffffffffffffffefffffc2f300604010004010704410479be667ef9dcbbac55a0629 5ce870b07029bfcdb2dce28d959f2815b16f81798483ada7726a3c4655da4fbfc0e1108a8fd17b4 48a68554199c47d08ffb10d4b8022100fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffebaaedce6af48a03 bbfd25e8cd0364141020101a14403420004fc9702847840aaf195de8442ebecedf5b095cdbb9bc7 16bda9110971b28a49e0ead8564ff0db22209e0374782c093bb899692d524e9d6a6956e7c5ecbcd 68284