Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 10:57:05 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
Author Topic: can we admit segwit SF is never going to get 95% approval?  (Read 4181 times)
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Activity: 574


View Profile
May 18, 2017, 02:49:16 AM

Do you deny that Segwit improves and makes Bitcoin more secure and robust?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more secure? If so, how?

Do you assert that SegWit makes Bitcoin more robust? If so, how?

Do you realize that after SegWit, miners may collude to roll back to non-SegWit? Do you realize that every previous SegWit then becomes a real 'anyone can spend' transaction? Do you realize that if this is done, the colluding miners may claim the value stored in these 'anyone can spend' transactions? Do you agree that this rollback/theft may be an incentive for miners to act counter to the intentions of the rest of the Bitcoin participants (whether or not sufficient to entice them to do so)? Are you at all concerned about this possibility?

I will message someone else to answer you to technically explain.

...but I was asking you.  You see, when you call in the reinforcements, instead of answering in your own words, it leaves the impression that you may have not actually thought through your position, but are merely repeating a position you have heard advocated by others.

You seem to be advocating that SegWit it would make bitcoin both more secure and more robust. Leaving the more complex questions aside for the moment, I would like you to explain to me first what these terms mean to you, and second how you believe SegWit accomplishes these goals.


That is fair, yes. But I humbly admit that I am not technically adept and I am not qualified to give you a good rebuttal. I have not mined Bitcoin and I am not a coder. But I am learning a lot and I will do my own due dilligence before I can reply which will take time.


▄▄███▀▀▀ ▄  ▄ ▀▀▀███▄▄
▄██▀▀ ▄▄████  ████▄▄ ▀▀██▄
▄██▀ ▄███████    ███████▄ ▀██▄
██▀ ▄████████▀    ▀████████▄ ▀██
██▀ ██████████      ██████████ ▀██
██▀ ██████████        ██████████ ▀██
▄██                                ██▄
██ ▄                              ▄ ██
██ ███▄                        ▄███ ██
██ ██████▄                  ▄██████ ██
██ ▀████████              ████████▀ ██
▀██ ███████                ███████ ██▀
██▄ █████▀                ▀█████ ▄██
██▄ ████        ▄▄        ████ ▄██
██▄ ▀█      ▄▄████▄▄      █▀ ▄██
██▄    ▄▄██████████▄▄    ▄██▀
▀██▄▄ ▀▀██████████▀▀ ▄▄██▀
▀▀███▄▄▄ ▀▀▀▀ ▄▄▄███▀▀

    [    ]
Hero Member
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513249025

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Reply with quote  #2

Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Offline Offline

Activity: 1862

lose: unfind ... loose: untight

View Profile
May 18, 2017, 05:09:41 AM

I am learning a lot and I will do my own due dilligence before I can reply which will take time.


Fair. I just ask you to consider each position on the strength of its arguments, and not on the passions of the crowd.

Anyone with a campaign ad in their signature -- for an organization with which they are not otherwise affiliated -- is automatically deducted credibility points.

I've been convicted of heresy. Convicted by a mere known extortionist. Read my Trust for details.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6]  All
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!