Why can't the NITWITS understand that SEGWIT IS DEADWIT

[kiklo]

For the NITWITS that failed 1st grade math. (You  know who you are. )  

BTU holds 30%

Segwit requires 95%,

Now follow me here, Absolutely NO MATTER WHAT
100-30= 70

So there is no way on God's Green Earth segwit could ever attain 95% ,
(FYI: Deadwit can't even get 35%)  
So all together Let's make it Official

DEADWIT is Done!

So that leaves Bitcoin Unlimited or a yet to be name lower blockspeed solution. =>https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1827943.msg18206691#msg18206691


So for Pete Sake , Core / Blockstream get off your ass and fix the transactions issue by increasing blocksize or lowering blockspeed.
Either would work, or be prepared for BTU to take over development of Bitcoin.

And for any of you whinners that want to claim core makes no errors.
I give you https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures   (A list of BTC Core's Fuck Ups.)

Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures
CVE    Announced    Affects    Severity    Attack is...    Flaw    Net
CVE-2010-5137    2010-07-28    wxBitcoin and bitcoind    DoS[1]    Easy    OP_LSHIFT crash    100%
CVE-2010-5141    2010-07-28    wxBitcoin and bitcoind    Theft[2]    Easy    OP_RETURN could be used to spend any output.    100%
CVE-2010-5138    2010-07-29    wxBitcoin and bitcoind    DoS[1]    Easy    Unlimited SigOp DoS    100%
CVE-2010-5139    2010-08-15    wxBitcoin and bitcoind    Inflation[3]    Easy    Combined output overflow    100%
CVE-2010-5140    2010-09-29    wxBitcoin and bitcoind    DoS[1]    Easy    Never confirming transactions    100%
CVE-2011-4447    2011-11-11    wxBitcoin and bitcoind    Exposure[4]    Hard    Wallet non-encryption    100%
CVE-2012-1909    2012-03-07    Bitcoin protocol and all clients    Netsplit[5]    Very hard    Transaction overwriting    99%
CVE-2012-1910    2012-03-17    bitcoind & Bitcoin-Qt for Windows    Unknown[6]    Hard    MingW non-multithreading    100%
BIP 0016    2012-04-01    All Bitcoin clients    Fake Conf[7]    Miners[8]    Mandatory P2SH protocol update    99%
CVE-2012-2459    2012-05-14    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    Netsplit[5]    Easy    Block hash collision (via merkle root)    99%
CVE-2012-3789    2012-06-20    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    DoS[1]    Easy    (Lack of) orphan txn resource limits    99%
CVE-2012-4682       bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    DoS[1]          98%
CVE-2012-4683    2012-08-23    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    DoS[1]    Easy    Targeted DoS by CPU exhaustion using alerts    98%
CVE-2012-4684    2012-08-24    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    DoS[1]    Easy    Network-wide DoS using malleable signatures in alerts    98%
CVE-2013-2272    2013-01-11    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    Exposure[4]    Easy    Remote discovery of node's wallet addresses    97%
CVE-2013-2273    2013-01-30    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    Exposure[4]    Easy    Predictable change output    97%
CVE-2013-2292    2013-01-30    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    DoS[1]    Hard    A transaction that takes at least 3 minutes to verify    0%
CVE-2013-2293    2013-02-14    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    DoS[1]    Easy    Continuous hard disk seek    97%
CVE-2013-3219    2013-03-11    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.0    Fake Conf[7]    Miners[8]    Unenforced block protocol rule    100%
CVE-2013-3220    2013-03-11    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    Netsplit[5]    Hard    Inconsistent BDB lock limit interactions    97%
BIP 0034    2013-03-25    All Bitcoin clients    Fake Conf[7]    Miners[8]    Mandatory block protocol update    99%
BIP 0050    2013-05-15    All Bitcoin clients    Netsplit[5]    Implicit[9]    Hard fork to remove txid limit protocol rule    97%
CVE-2013-4627    2013-06-??    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    DoS[1]    Easy    Memory exhaustion with excess tx message data    57%
CVE-2013-4165    2013-07-20    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt    Theft[10]    Local    Timing leak in RPC authentication    57%
CVE-2013-5700    2013-09-04    bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.x    DoS[1]    Easy    Remote p2p crash via bloom filters    61%
CVE-2014-0160    2014-04-07    Anything using OpenSSL for TLS    Unknown[6]    Easy    Remote memory leak via payment protocol    Unknown
CVE-2015-3641    2014-07-07    Bitcoind and QT prior to 0.10.2    DoS[1]    Easy    (Yet) Unspecified DoS    

Attacker can disable some functionality, for example by crashing clients
Attacker can take coins outside known network rules
Attacker can create coins outside known network rules
Attacker can access user data outside known acceptable methods
Attacker can create multiple views of the network, enabling double-spending with over 1 confirmation
Extent of possible abuse is unknown
Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation
Attacking requires mining block(s)
This is a protocol "hard-fork" that old clients will reject as invalid and must therefore not be used.
Local attacker could potentially determine the RPC passphrase via a timing sidechannel.

So for all that claim BTC Core never makes mistakes, History Proves you Wrong!


 

[1714277442]

1714277442

[1714277442]

1714277442

[gmaxwell]

The things you are calling out explicitly there, the taking coins and creating coins-- those were flaws in the very first release of Bitcoin-- many of them design flaws in the algorithms, not just software bugs.  (and several of those items aren't bugs at all-- but just updates for past softforks.)

And they were issues in the whole large program, not just a "few" changes recently made.

The resource exhaustion attacks are things that BU even refuses to fix, e.g. BU has a trivial dos of xthin via collision attack and they just won't fix it. ::shrugs:: In fact, one of the items there "A transaction that takes at least 3 minutes to verify" BU reintroduces but zillions of times worse.

BTU is the third of these absurd amateur hour clones of Bitcoin Core.  All the other ones have fizzled when the people realized that they are a lot of hard work when you can't just count on copying from Bitcoin Core.

There were larger miners than now actively opposing P2SH, not just not using it yet.  Have patience.  Bitcoin is forever, not just for next week.

[Senor.Bla]

BU has 30% now but they can still decide to switch to SegWit (for example if more problems occur), so it's still possible to reach 95%.
And yes And yes Core has had its problems as BU had recently one, but the important question is who do you think will have fewer and less crucial ones in the future.

[Slark]

BTU holds 30%

Segwit requires 95%,

Now follow me here, Absolutely NO MATTER WHAT
100-30= 70

While you are right here with your numbers, you also don't account for people switching sides.
It is not like we can't change our mind and switch from Bitcoin Unlimited ans start supporting SegWit instead.
Bitcoin Unlimited still feel more amateurish for me than Core, after more and more bugs are discovered it may lose supporters.

[kiklo]

The things you are calling out explicitly there, the taking coins and creating coins-- those were flaws in the very first release of Bitcoin-- many of them design flaws in the algorithms, not just software bugs.  (and several of those items aren't bugs at all-- but just updates for past softforks.)

And they were issues in the whole large program, not just a "few" changes recently made.

The resource exhaustion attacks are things that BU even refuses to fix, e.g. BU has a trivial dos of xthin via collision attack and they just won't fix it. ::shrugs:: In fact, one of the items there "A transaction that takes at least 3 minutes to verify" BU reintroduces but zillions of times worse.

BTU is the third of these absurd amateur hour clones of Bitcoin Core.  All the other ones have fizzled when the people realized that they are a lot of hard work when you can't just count on copying from Bitcoin Core.

There were larger miners than now actively opposing P2SH, not just not using it yet.  Have patience.  Bitcoin is forever, not just for next week.

It shows You make mistakes.

Or are you claiming to be the 2nd Coming?




 

FYI:
You could have just lowered the block speed instead of being part of blockstream's coup trying to seize control of BTC with deadwit & LN.
IE: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1827943.msg18206691#msg18206691

[kiklo]

BTU holds 30%

Segwit requires 95%,

Now follow me here, Absolutely NO MATTER WHAT
100-30= 70

While you are right here with your numbers, you also don't account for people switching sides.
It is not like we can't change our mind and switch from Bitcoin Unlimited ans start supporting SegWit instead.
Bitcoin Unlimited still feel more amateurish for me than Core, after more and more bugs are discovered it may lose supporters.

Deadwit have never gotten even 40%, their will be no groundswell movement for deadwit, the miners are not so stupid as to give away their transaction fee income.
If you think they are, then send me your paycheck as proof and keep working the same job.
(See when put that way , you can see why deadwit has failed.)

 

[dinofelis]

The only reason BU exists, it to block off Segwit and its LN banking layer that would kill the lucrative miner fee market, on which the future crazy security of bitcoin's PoW has to rely.  BU proponents (miners) don't want it activated either ; they only use it to block off segwit.

The only remaining option is to keep things as they are, which is called "consensus immutability".