Can you give is the TLDR of why you think Segwit is 'also an altcoin'?
The mods
already deleted it (you’re not allowed to read it). And I am not going to write it again. Try clicking the link in the prior post, but note that archive.is appears to not be functioning properly at the moment.
SegWit isn’t even an altcoin. It is a donation protocol that rides on top of BTC that enables fools to donate their BTC to the miners (in a future double-spend) when ever they use a SegWit transaction. It’s a clever scheme your masters have devised to separate you from your BTC. Yet some idiots support this as if it is some ideologically correct community consensus or some other rapefugee logic.
Core will not tell you this, but the reality will end up vindicating me as it usually does. Did you also disagree with me when I said buy LTC at $6? How about when I said nibble on Byteball when it was $1 million mcap? When I said buy ETH at $45?
Following quotes are paraphrased to hide identity.
Possibly BCH could go to ~$1500 after the coinbase dump which may drive it lower.
A contentious HF to steal SegWit txns would be rejected by our community thus is not in long-term interest of the miners. If 51% of the miners can implement any change they want then miners can do anything they want which means community is irrelevant and immutability is non-existent.
When the community decides to support a HF, that is also destroying immutability. But the 51% attack to take already confirmed SegWit donations is not even possible if users do not use a brain dead SegWit wallet which issues “pay to anyone” transactions. It is the creation of SegWit wallets which has enabled a booty to pile up which enables a 51% attack. That is why I said SegWit wallets are a security attack on Bitcoin. Yet you somehow think the drunk-on-koolaid community is important.
Your delusions about community are hilarious. You drink your slave masters’ koolaid.
There is no consensus until the whales have voted. The whales have not voted yet, they’re waiting for the SegWit booty to pile up.
There’s no damn way the whales are going to allow that SegWit crap. Absolutely zero. Blockstream is a gimmick to take BTC from fools who are fooled by the concept of democracy applied to cryptocurrency.
You claim you are for immutability but then you talk out two sides of your mouth in a duplicitous manner.
Are you for immutability or not?
The whales are. Go against them at your peril.
Do you really think those whiny faggots at Blockstream are relevant? The devil at Trilema who loves porn is in control (well he and other whales who hate democracy and love immutability). And you hate it don’t you because he is so immoral? Cryptocurrency is not about any one person’s morals. It is about protocol and game theory. Please. Understand. This.
No functional difference exists between a contentious hardfork to reverse and steal SegWit and one to just give the miners extra BTC by increasing the limit on the eventual money supply.
There is no hardfork required for miners to take the SegWit donations ongoing. The hardfork is only to collect and double-spend the SegWit that was already confirmed in blocks. But even this “51% attack” is entirely legal in the protocol. A 51% attack is not an illegal outcome. The protocol is a competitive game theory and there is nothing illegal when adhering to the protocol. Not even immoral. Perfectly just.
You do not seem to understand that what ever is legal in the protocol is just and right and good. The law is the protocol, not your wishy-washy ambiguous idea of what the community decided.
The SegWit that is being issued is “pay to anyone”. Miners taking that while conforming to Satoshi’s protocol is not equivalent to mutating the protocol (in Satoshi’s protocol the SegWit transactions are “pay to anyone”). It is entirely within the protocol. Whereas increasing the money supply limit would change the protocol. So you’re incorrect to equate the two as functionally equivalent. One is protocol legal, the other is protocol illegal.
You view these as functionally distinct presumably because (of an either correct or misplaced) preference for the original BTC implementation but that implementation is no more it was altered via a consensus decision so for better or for worse SegWit is bitcoin now as it was activated with broad if imperfect consensus.
Incorrect. You can’t equate any fork to Satoshi’s protocol because no fork is ever final. This is why only Satoshi’s protocol can ever be the winner. Nothing else has any certain lasting stability. If the community idiotically approves a new protocol which creates a booty to fund a 51% attack, why are they surprised when their consensus is not stable? Lol. Really you’re smarter than this aren’t you.
You fundamentally do not understand that proof-of-work is never final. It is probabilistic. There is never any final community consensus.
You have some basic holes in your understanding of Byzantine systems. There are systems such as Byzantine Agreement which do reach finality but they have a liveness threshold and can stall. Proof-of-work is probabilistic and can never stall
(unless there are no miners at all so we can say the liveness threshold is asymptotically ~0), but it is never final. My new decentralized ledger algorithm is also probabilistic but it is not proof-of-work and it is not proof-of-stake. It is something totally new which scales better, can’t be subverted by the whales, and which does not consume electricity.
If SegWit is critically flawed then BCH will win by simply out competing BTC and BTC will die a slow death gradually with time.
No you fail to understand. The SegWit is going to be removed from BTC by miners taking it as donations, because flies go to honey and miners go to profitability of booties.
BCH is only going to benefit in that while BTC is being attacked, it will be a safe haven. And also for big blockers who do not want to return to 1MB as the SegWit scaling lie is totally obliterated.
But I have not been convinced that that is going to happen the majority of the talent seems to be backing BTC but I will of course continue to follow this closely.
Lol. Look at the Rube Goldberg machine they’ve created which is all for making donations to the miners and they’ve sold you the users on the idea that it is technologically astute.
You have been more accurate then not with your predictions on price fluctuations so I have learned not to ignore them.
I also told everyone in my private group that BTC would go back up to $5100+ before the alts started moving back up. Which is precisely what happened.
Follow-up discussion excerpted only for the most important parts and also again paraphased to conceal writing style:
You imply that all non-initial conditions are invalid, despite protocol changes achieved via consensus HFs. What criteria do you apply which allows for past Bitcoin changes that were made and presumably accepted by all of us?
Well in the case of SegWit is very simple. The reality is that SegWit creates a booty that incentivizes (funds!) a 51% attack. The Bitcoin whitepaper states the security assumption that miners will not have the private keys to most transactions otherwise the security is destroyed. So SegWit is a direct attack on Bitcoin’s original security model.
Other bug fixes to Bitcoin which were apparently accepted by The Real Bitcoin, apparently improved security not weakened it.
My stance is that any other changes are altcoins and should not be marketed as Bitcoin. If we want to improve a cryptocurrency then airdrop it and fork it. But name it something else. Do not cheat like Blockstream did and force a contentious fight which to some extent arguably stalled the entire sector for 2 years.
Cryptocurrencies that have ongoing developers (and able to be exchanged for other currencies not just spent on goods & services so thus having an expectation of capital appreciation) are securities and have to be regulated. See the new SAFT whitepaper which I recently analysed for more on that.
A 51% attack on either the initial protocol or a subsequent protocol achieved by HF are functionally equivalent.
If the initial protocol has not been designed to be secure against 51% attacks, then its not viable. And this is why I explained recently at the inception of this discussion about SegWit, that long-term proof-of-work is not viable.
My point is that the ability of the community to HF is design flaw of proof-of-work. And it will get worse as transaction fees rise relative to block rewards, for the game theory research reasons I recently shared.
Your distinction seems to be an arbitrary value judgement.
SegWit was a HF. Any fork which continues where SegWit forked off, is Satoshi’s protocol. So the former is an altcoin and the latter is Bitcoin.
Actually afaik the “pay to anyone” aspect of SegWit is compatible with Satoshi’s protocol (and allows the miners to take them as donations) and thus really any fork containing SegWit transactions is not a HF, except that SegWit also included other changes which required a HF. In any case, a fork which accepts SegWit transactions as donations is not a fork of Satoshi. Thus no HF ever occurred. SegWit is the only HF here in this case.
Any HF which funds and basically forces economically returning to the former protocol is self-defeating and responsible for its own demise.
So the objectivity here is that the possibility of HFs remove all objectivity. Thus the ability of 51% attacks creates subjectivity and thus the only objective solution is that all HFs should be considered altcoins. No anointing by politics. All dispute is solved economically in free markets when all HFs compete against each other as altcoins.
Any one who wants to create new functionality can airdrop to an altcoin or create an altcoin with an entirely new distribution.
Otherwise all we have is discord. Creating altcoins enables the market to vote with its money. Nobody should be anointed except by the market. Blockstream employed deception and other tactics to try to subvert the free market process, but they are going to have their heads handed to them on a silver platter as they deserve for their inept and corrupt malfeasance.
The free market works.
Regarding immutability my current thinking is that the protocol will gradually move to immutability over time as consensus for change becomes harder to achieve.
True only because Rube Goldberg machines self-destruct.
In software adding complexity can never be slowed down (it is like a snowball that requires more and more fixes and changes) except by extricating the cancer. So your assumption was misplaced on the face of it, but you’re rescued by the fact that complexity bloat is complete failure in software engineering and will thus cause immutability by self-destruction.
Poll
