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

[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.

[1713909332]

1713909332

[1713909332]

1713909332

[1713909332]

1713909332

[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

[mymenace]

The blockchain is to be hidden, plain and simple

Too many secrets

https://twitter.com/joonian/status/1013337871791673344

These digital bank robbers stole $1.2 billion from 2013-2018 and laundered a lot of it through bitcoin. How much impact did this have on the bitcoin price?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-06-25/the-biggest-digital-heist-in-history-isn-t-over-yet

[HairyMaclairy]

An address from 2012 ?

[jojo69]

well, I'm glad that's settled

[Paashaas]

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.

Anyone can spend Segwit coins argument originated from the BU era. Bcash'ers are former BU supporters.

Just rehashed old FUD. Unfortunately some people falling straight into that trap.

[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.

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.

In this hypothetical case, the "attack" nodes would be previous versions of core software. If this attack is indeed viable, and Bitcoin Core wanted to protect the Segwit consensus chain, they would need to implement a hard fork. It would be considered a hard fork because the new rules could not be made to be compatible with previous versions of Bitcoin Core. Now we all know that Bitcoin Core's philosophy is to not implement a hard fork unless it is the most dire of emergencies. My guess in such a situation, Bitcoin Core is just going to let the best chain win. Honey badger don't give a shit.  
Edit: Actually, Bitcoin had a problem with the chain reaching consensus for months after implementing BIP 16. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Pay_to_script_hash They just waited until all of the miners finally got on the same page, by all of them updating to the correct software.