Segwit is a 51% attack on Bitcoin

[ir.hn]

No, you have it backwards:  It would be just as if the miners who are mining invalid blocks did not exist.

Any miner building further upon an invalid block would mining on invalid chain, and thus similarly would be ignored.

Bitcoin is decentralized.  This means that no one has the authority to declare a block invalid.  The only person who has this authority is drawn at random according to their demonstration of Proof of Work.

Make sense now?

[1714748932]

1714748932

[1714748932]

1714748932

[1714748932]

1714748932

[nullius]

No, you have it backwards:  It would be just as if the miners who are mining invalid blocks did not exist.

Any miner building further upon an invalid block would mining on invalid chain, and thus similarly would be ignored.

Bitcoin is decentralized.  This means that no one has the authority to declare a block invalid.  The only person who has this authority is drawn at random according to their demonstration of Proof of Work.

Make sense now?

Bitcoin is decentralized.  This means that no one has the authority to force full nodes to accept invalid blocks.  Miners have no such authority, “drawn at random” or otherwise.

Make sense now?

[Matias]

Miners don't have blockchain. They only process individual blocks. As full nodes maintain blockchain invalid blocks would eventually disappear, as they would never be put to blockchain. When those invalid blocks would not be in blockchain, miners reward would not be in blockchain so miner would not get paid. Does this sound like incentive?

[Taras]

No, you have it backwards:  It would be just as if the miners who are mining invalid blocks did not exist.

Any miner building further upon an invalid block would mining on invalid chain, and thus similarly would be ignored.

Bitcoin is decentralized.  This means that no one has the authority to declare a block invalid.  The only person who has this authority is drawn at random according to their demonstration of Proof of Work.

Make sense now?

If nobody can declare a block invalid, then why can't I mine a block that pays myself 1,000,000 bitcoins?

[JavaLove]

The risk of 51% is always on the line, but it's less possible and almost irrelevant for small holders like me with just few btc.

I'm much more worried about the Ver-BCH attack at the moment. They are doing bad to the whole community.

[nullius]

If nobody can declare a block invalid, then why can't I mine a block that pays myself 1,000,000 bitcoins?

Because Segwit removes signatures from the blockchain!!  Bitcoin Jesus told me so, in a vision.

(There is a problem with ir.hn having spread this garbage across multiple threads, then pretty much completely ignored the substance of all intelligent responses.  P.S., thanks for your intelligent response.)

A question you should ponder:  Why don’t miners skip verifying all signatures, altogether?  That could be really profitable.  That way, they could seize and spend Satoshi’s coins!

Oh, wait:  They couldn’t do that, because the resulting blocks would be rejected by nodes as invalid.

But according to you, nothing whatsoever could stop them.  A miner could simply seize Satoshi’s coins with a consensus-invalid transaction, and other miners could build on that chain, and full nodes would be forced to follow along because they have no hashpower—right?

Segwit makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, in this regard.  The signatures are still there; they just got moved around a little bit.  Verification of the signatures is still required by consensus rules.  No substantive change has been made as to the security properties of Bitcoin’s signature verification.

The risk of 51% is always on the line, but it's less possible and almost irrelevant for small holders like me with just few btc.

I'm much more worried about the Ver-BCH attack at the moment. They are doing bad to the whole community.

Segwit sinner, dare ye blaspheme Bitcoin Jesus?  If you squint at it hard enough, you can see a 666 in the Segwit logo.  It is hidden and double-crossed inside itself within an ancient Satanic symbol called the Iron Knot of Thermopylae:

And if you play the Segwit jingle backwards, you can hear it say, “Hail Satan!”

The number 51 is also clearly a reference to Area 51.  If Segwit is a 51% attack against Bitcoin, as OP so cogently explained, then how could the grey aliens not be involved!?  Try explaining that away, Segwit shill.

I know this is all true, because I read it on /r/btc.

But that’s not the worst.  There is a frightening secret to Segwit; but I can’t tell you about it, because theymos would ban me.

[pebwindkraft]

ugh, my soul has been stolen.

probably the best post to terminate this unbelievable dumb thread here 

[realr0ach]

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

[Taras]

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

[nullius]

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

BIP 16 was an evil attempt to subvert the blockchain.  All versions of Core have been corrupted since version 0.6.  Now, I made my own fork of the Bitcoin with Satoshi’s original vision.  No P2SH!  To disinfect the chain, I helpfully added a transaction which spends to me all “anyone-can-spend” P2SH outputs since P2SH activation on 2012-02-15, Block #105571.

Also, to scale up and stop ripping off users with fees, I increased the blocksize to 32MB and decreased the block generation target to 30 seconds.  That scales up to 640x the tps of Blockstream bitcoin.  To avoid exploding UTXO growth and solve the problem of lost/burned coins, I added a consensus rule of coin aging; it consolidates all outputs more than 1 year old, and sends them to me for safekeeping.  This will be the fastest, cheapest Bitcoin ever.

Anybody want to join my chain?  Soon, I will post my fork code (it is taking awhile to make this, since I fired Core).  Download that, and connect to 198.51.100.127:8333 or dw7xvnkm4qsv5ikz.onion:8333.  Soon, we will kill off the legacy chain of P2SH-infected Blockstream bitcoin which is non-fungible and has cooties.  All will be flippening over to this chain.  I call my fork.lol Bitcoin Pyrite.

P.S., thanks, pebwindkraft.  I didn’t reply to you before, because I thought you’re probably right.  Sorry to seem rude.  Too bad SMF has no “like” button.

[realr0ach]

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

[Taras]

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

How isn't bitcoin fungible? 1 BTC is 1 BTC, whether it's in p2pkh, p2sh or segwit. Bitcoins sent to segwit addresses can be sent to legacy addresses and vice versa.

[nullius]

[...]

Username checks out.

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

How isn't bitcoin fungible? 1 BTC is 1 BTC, whether it's in p2pkh, p2sh or segwit. Bitcoins sent to segwit addresses can be sent to legacy addresses and vice versa.

I quoted at length, to illustrate a point:  The truthfully named “realr0ach” is using textbook smear tactics, combining imaginary problems with real-but-irrelevant problems in an ever-shifting argument.  You properly answered the nonsense about “anyone-can-spend”; so realr0ach ignored what you said, and moved the goalposts (plus made a bizarre, groundless accusation about “your stance”).  As such, trying to squash realr0ach’s arguments will be like trying to exterminate real roaches by squishing them one at a time.

Of course, Bitcoin fungibility is a problem (with various ad hoc, but sometimes fun and creative fixes).  And of course, Bitcoin fungibility is not decreased in any way whatsoever by Segwit.  Actually, by introducing the script version system, Segwit opens the way for new features (such as Schnorr signatures) which will assist or enhance fungibility solutions.

Meanwhile, you’re arguing with a self-identified disgusting insect.  Squish.

[Crypto Capital]

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

If you would just create a new address for each transaction as was the original intention it would be fungible would it not?

[nullius]

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

If you would just create a new address for each transaction as was the original intention it would be fungible would it not?

As illustrated above, you are replying to somebody who misapplied the fungibility issue to FUD Segwit.  That’s a totally nonsensical non sequitur, like saying that gold will crash because I have a headache.  (It is true that I currently have a headache, brought on by too much FUD.)  Segwit transactions are equally secure as to old-style transactions—actually, before confirmation, more secure due to Segwit’s tx malleability bugfix.  The only people ascribing “taint” to Segwit transactions are BCH shills, most of whom don’t own any Bitcoin anyway.

To describe the fungibility issue in itself, and answer your question:  You can create a new address for each transaction—you should do that; and it helps with, but does not solve the problem.  What is really needed is strong transaction unlinkability, so that nobody can consider a coin to have “taint” based on its prior history.  By analogy, consider a $100 bill being passed hand to hand:  Your bank can’t close your account and blacklist you if you deposit a $20 bill which, unbeknownst to you, passed through the hands of a drug dealer, who gambled it with a bookie, who used it to hire a plumber, who bought a widget from you.  Whereas some services such as Coinbase will do exactly that.  (Quick solution:  Don’t use Coinbase.)

Things like CoinJoin reduce the problem, by introducing confusion about which coins passed through whose hands.  Confidential Transactions will really help.  A sidechain with zerocoins would be great for fungibility.  I also expect Lightning Network to substantially increase fungibility:  On Lightning, coins will rapidly pass through many different hands without ever leaving a mark on the blockchain; on a mass scale, this will break up the transactional links which some people use to “taint” coins.  N.b. that Lightning is enabled by Segwit, depends on Segwit, and cannot be implemented by any forkcoin which lacks Segwit.  CoinJoin will also get a big boost from Schnorr signatures, an upcoming technology which will be implemented via—you guessed it, Segwit!

Thus as you can see, the lying little insect self-identified as “realr0ach” was building a pernicious half-truth out of a problem which is real, but here irrelevant.  Nobody is tainting Segwit coins.  Nobody has any reason to, except for Roger, Jihan, and their idiotic sycophants.

Disclosure of interests:  I am a privacy activist, and I lost a painful amount of money on a perfectly unlinkable, thus fungible altcoin; I can’t very well be accused of not caring about fungibility.

[carlisle1]

That was 2 1/2 years ago. Have you looked at the stats today?

What makes you think that pools would tell you if they are working together, or even if they are run by the same person?

How do you know that life isn't just a dream and one day you will wake up? Conspiracy theories are good for nothing. Once they are confirmed it is too late. Prep now and sell your bitcoin.  

I'm prepping by buying bitcoin.  Currently we are inside a pump and dump by china.  Know the indicators to when china will dump and you will be safe to ride the wave.  In terms of the 51% attack, they will only target zombie bitcoins in order to protect their investment.  But in the long term, bitcoin is in shambles.

Pray tell the indicators.

China unviels the CryptoYuan.  China says that they will give citizens CY in exchange for their bitcoins.

who is china after all?you speaks as if the chinese governments speaking
for this issues.and if chine really want to do those hearsays they will do it without
 this long notice because power is in their hands.so better not to engaged with
those nonsense issues.

[hv_]

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

Yep. Your best post ever.