Segwit opens the door for mining cartels

[Blind Legs Parker]

The author is Craig Wright.  Wait a minute?!  Isn't that the guy who invented bitcoin?  Isn't that Satoshi?

lol

Maybe.  Afaik Satoshi was always in favor of scaling up the block size as the numbers of transactions increase.  Getting rid of the signature block via Segwit is just "proof by Authority" and doesn't really solve anything since you'll eventually need to scale up the block size anyway as Bitcoin becomes more and more popular.

The network as Satoshi knew it is very different from what it has become. I don't even think he took into account that nodes could be specialized and not do any mining? Otherwise he would have looked for a financial incentive for nodes, which is notably absent now. If nodes were paid for their job their would be no problem with increasing the block size, but because they aren't the security of the network would be greatly put at risk.

[The One]

Yes i am aware of that. However it doesn't mean the article is wrong. People are entitled to reform themselves and do good.

Actually, in this case it does. Why do we have to waste everyone's time on a known scammer who has zero credibility?

The point of the article is to be debate and Craig isn't the first person to mention the "anyone can spend" attack.

There is nothing to debate. It has been debunked months prior to the existence of this article. Read my previous posts.

Just because a person in the past had been a scammer.... it does not mean this time round a person could be right. Ignoring a person 100% because of one's past is plainly stupid.

Let's suppose Craig told you your house is on fire... you ignore him... arrive home and whoops, house burnt down.

Anyway, you claim to have debunked it ages ago, but i was more concerned about the "This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open."

[minime]

Yes i am aware of that. However it doesn't mean the article is wrong. People are entitled to reform themselves and do good.

Actually, in this case it does. Why do we have to waste everyone's time on a known scammer who has zero credibility?

The point of the article is to be debate and Craig isn't the first person to mention the "anyone can spend" attack.

There is nothing to debate. It has been debunked months prior to the existence of this article. Read my previous posts.

Just because a person in the past had been a scammer.... it does not mean this time round a person could be right. Ignoring a person 100% because of one's past is plainly stupid.

Let's suppose Craig told you your house is on fire... you ignore him... arrive home and whoops, house burnt down.

Anyway, you claim to have debunked it ages ago, but i was more concerned about the "This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open."

ya well he just proved his total incompetence on the topic bitcoin
he discribes a problem which exsits since bitcoin was introduced and than offers a solution to a non exsitent problem....i mean WTF??

edit: and doesnt he work for a companie which focuses on the blockchain??? he should have known better... just another fagott whos whats to profit

[Lauda]

Just because a person in the past had been a scammer.... it does not mean this time round a person could be right. Ignoring a person 100% because of one's past is plainly stupid.

Whilst doing this would be somewhat fallacious, not doing it with certain individuals such as C.W. is unreasonable.

Let's suppose Craig told you your house is on fire... you ignore him... arrive home and whoops, house burnt down.

I'm absolutely sure that my house would not be in flames if C.W. told me that.

Anyway, you claim to have debunked it ages ago, but i was more concerned about the "This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open."

Would you "be concerned" about a high school kid telling you that there are "several hundred attack scenarios" in something that has been peer reviewed by dozens of engineers? This is pretty much it. C.W. is not competent enough to find a single attack scenario that someone else may have missed. https://twitter.com/i/moments/877046701474721793

[classicsucks]

Debunked scam attempt.

Someone even put out a Litecoin $1MM bounty at the time to prove this wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/6azeu1/1mm_segwit_bounty/

irony, from the thread:

Code:

–]BowlofFrostedFlakes [score hidden] 25 days ago 

There are 3 transactions associated with this address. 2 small transactions and 1 large one for 40,000 LTC.

The large one does NOT appear to be an actual segwit transaction. Only the small one does (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ltc/tx.dws?e85fab6667028a8902904f4cbd3b0e129d526ceafbf150193109661adc898645.htm)

If you look at the raw transaction data for the 40,000 LTC transaction, there is no parameter named "txinwitness". So the bounty is only 0.99 LTC, not 40,000 LTC.

So the wager is only $20 LOL. Furthermore, Litecoin didn't have much trouble adopting Segwit (even though Segwit was useless for LTC!), Bitcoin has many opponents to Segwit and a much higher incentive for people to hack around with it.

[countryfree]

After the risk of 51% attack, I've been reading for months that China was taking over BTC with its huge mining farms. Mining cartels, now. I think Craig Wright lacked imagination when he wrote this.