Segwit is a 51% attack on Bitcoin

[ir.hn]

So who cares if a non-mining node rejects a block?

[1713873229]

1713873229

[1713873229]

1713873229

[1713873229]

1713873229

[Taras]

So who cares if a non-mining node rejects a block?

If a miner is mining blocks that the thousands of non-mining nodes are going to reject, then they simply aren't mining, they're just wasting millions of dollars of energy and hardware for the privilege of making blocks that nobody recognizes. Basically, they're mining fool's gold, except they don't even get to keep it.

[cr1776]

So who cares if a non-mining node rejects a block?

Because no other node (including other miners) on the network will then accept any other blocks built upon that bad block and consequently no other transactions built on that block will be accepted.  So no miner will be able to spend the coinbase transactions - which means no reward for the miner.  Which means they aren't gaining anything, but are losing the entire block reward spending their electricity for nothing.  And wasting the capital invested in mining hardware.

[ir.hn]

So who cares if a non-mining node rejects a block?

Because no other node (including other miners) on the network will then accept any other blocks built upon that bad block and consequently no other transactions built on that block will be accepted.  So no miner will be able to spend the coinbase transactions - which means no reward for the miner.  Which means they aren't gaining anything, but are losing the entire block reward spending their electricity for nothing.  And wasting the capital invested in mining hardware.

Are we on the same page that the only node's vote that matters is miners?  Because the only vote you have is whether to mine on a block or not.  This act of mining on a block signifies you accept it.  So what do non-mining nodes have to do with this process?

[ir.hn]

So who cares if a non-mining node rejects a block?

If a miner is mining blocks that the thousands of non-mining nodes are going to reject, then they simply aren't mining, they're just wasting millions of dollars of energy and hardware for the privilege of making blocks that nobody recognizes. Basically, they're mining fool's gold, except they don't even get to keep it.

What does it mean for a non-mining node to reject a block?  Does it mean they refuse to mine on it?  Because it's not like they were going to mine on it anyway.

[Taras]

So who cares if a non-mining node rejects a block?

Because no other node (including other miners) on the network will then accept any other blocks built upon that bad block and consequently no other transactions built on that block will be accepted.  So no miner will be able to spend the coinbase transactions - which means no reward for the miner.  Which means they aren't gaining anything, but are losing the entire block reward spending their electricity for nothing.  And wasting the capital invested in mining hardware.

Are we on the same page that the only node's vote that matters is miners?  Because the only vote you have is whether to mine on a block or not.  This act of mining on a block signifies you accept it.  So what do non-mining nodes have to do with this process?

Have you ever heard of a UASF? BIP 148 was a softfork that the nodes, not the miners, voted on. It said: after a certain time, make it illegal for miners to create blocks that don't vote for segwit. Since a lot of nodes adopted BIP 148, if miners didn't vote for segwit after that certain time, they would be mining "fool's gold" that they couldn't keep (as described in my post above). What happened when the nodes voted for BIP 148? The miners got scared and segwit was activated almost immediately. (First they voted for BIP 91, which also made it illegal to not vote for segwit, but from the miner's perspective too, not just the nodes.)

That bunch of dominos started falling because the nodes voted for BIP 148 by incorporating it in their software. It's why we have segwit today.

So who cares if a non-mining node rejects a block?

If a miner is mining blocks that the thousands of non-mining nodes are going to reject, then they simply aren't mining, they're just wasting millions of dollars of energy and hardware for the privilege of making blocks that nobody recognizes. Basically, they're mining fool's gold, except they don't even get to keep it.

What does it mean for a non-mining node to reject a block?  Does it mean they refuse to mine on it?  Because it's not like they were going to mine on it anyway.

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

[ir.hn]

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

The network worked before there were ever non-mining nodes having a copy.  So if only the miners have a copy of the transactions then it is more than good enough.

Your example is like a straw poll.  The non-mining nodes had no real authority to actually enforce their conclusion.

Like I said the only vote that holds authority is if you win a block, then your vote on the previous block validity counts as a confirmation.

[Taras]

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

The network worked before there were ever non-mining nodes having a copy.  So if only the miners have a copy of the transactions then it is more than good enough.

Your example is like a straw poll.  The non-mining nodes had no real authority to actually enforce their conclusion.

Like I said the only vote that holds authority is if you win a block, then your vote on the previous block validity counts as a confirmation.

Sure the nodes have authority, as a group. If a miner violated BIP 148, they would have been forked off of the network, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. If some miners want to make their own chain that breaks the rules of all the rest of the nodes, they can do that. But it will result in a currency split, creating two currencies, one where the miners are playing pretend and the other which was and still is the real bitcoin, where all the rest of the miners are still making money. That's if the dissenting miners aren't driven into bankruptcy before they can even confirm their own blocks, in which case it doesn't affect anyone else and there is no currency split.

[ir.hn]

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

The network worked before there were ever non-mining nodes having a copy.  So if only the miners have a copy of the transactions then it is more than good enough.

Your example is like a straw poll.  The non-mining nodes had no real authority to actually enforce their conclusion.

Like I said the only vote that holds authority is if you win a block, then your vote on the previous block validity counts as a confirmation.

Sure the nodes have authority, as a group. If a miner violated BIP 148, they would have been forked off of the network, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. If some miners want to make their own chain that breaks the rules of all the rest of the nodes, they can do that. But it will result in a currency split, creating two currencies, one where the miners are playing pretend and the other which was and still is the real bitcoin, where all the rest of the miners are still making money. That's if the dissenting miners aren't driven into bankruptcy before they can even confirm their own blocks, in which case it doesn't affect anyone else and there is no currency split.

How do you fork someone off the blockchain if you yourself do not create the blockchain?  The only way you can fork someone off is by mining faster then them on a different chain.  Yet non-mining nodes cannot do that.

[Taras]

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

The network worked before there were ever non-mining nodes having a copy.  So if only the miners have a copy of the transactions then it is more than good enough.

Your example is like a straw poll.  The non-mining nodes had no real authority to actually enforce their conclusion.

Like I said the only vote that holds authority is if you win a block, then your vote on the previous block validity counts as a confirmation.

Sure the nodes have authority, as a group. If a miner violated BIP 148, they would have been forked off of the network, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. If some miners want to make their own chain that breaks the rules of all the rest of the nodes, they can do that. But it will result in a currency split, creating two currencies, one where the miners are playing pretend and the other which was and still is the real bitcoin, where all the rest of the miners are still making money. That's if the dissenting miners aren't driven into bankruptcy before they can even confirm their own blocks, in which case it doesn't affect anyone else and there is no currency split.

How do you fork someone off the blockchain if you yourself do not create the blockchain?  The only way you can fork someone off is by mining faster then them on a different chain.  Yet non-mining nodes cannot do that.

If you mine an invalid block, you'll be forked off the chain. That's just how it works, you don't need to mine faster than someone for their invalid blocks to not be accepted.

[ir.hn]

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

The network worked before there were ever non-mining nodes having a copy.  So if only the miners have a copy of the transactions then it is more than good enough.

Your example is like a straw poll.  The non-mining nodes had no real authority to actually enforce their conclusion.

Like I said the only vote that holds authority is if you win a block, then your vote on the previous block validity counts as a confirmation.

Sure the nodes have authority, as a group. If a miner violated BIP 148, they would have been forked off of the network, losing hundreds of thousands of dollars. If some miners want to make their own chain that breaks the rules of all the rest of the nodes, they can do that. But it will result in a currency split, creating two currencies, one where the miners are playing pretend and the other which was and still is the real bitcoin, where all the rest of the miners are still making money. That's if the dissenting miners aren't driven into bankruptcy before they can even confirm their own blocks, in which case it doesn't affect anyone else and there is no currency split.

How do you fork someone off the blockchain if you yourself do not create the blockchain?  The only way you can fork someone off is by mining faster then them on a different chain.  Yet non-mining nodes cannot do that.

If you mine an invalid block, you'll be forked off the chain. That's just how it works, you don't need to mine faster than someone for their invalid blocks to not be accepted.

Who enforces the invalidity of the block?  Is it not the fact that no miners will mine on top of your block if they determine it is not valid?  Therefore that would mean that the miners determine the validity of a block.

[cr1776]

So who cares if a non-mining node rejects a block?

Because no other node (including other miners) on the network will then accept any other blocks built upon that bad block and consequently no other transactions built on that block will be accepted.  So no miner will be able to spend the coinbase transactions - which means no reward for the miner.  Which means they aren't gaining anything, but are losing the entire block reward spending their electricity for nothing.  And wasting the capital invested in mining hardware.

Are we on the same page that the only node's vote that matters is miners?  Because the only vote you have is whether to mine on a block or not.  This act of mining on a block signifies you accept it.  So what do non-mining nodes have to do with this process?

Definitely not.  All nodes matter and, as above, they aren’t votes. All nodes enforce the protocol.  Any node that enforces different rules is a fork of bitcoin.  

Just put it to the reality test (as Carlton suggested): contact the mining pools and farms and see if they’ll use this idea. The answer has been explained above is that they won’t, but it seems like you don’t understand how bitcoin works well enough to see the problems with the suggestion and so for you, perhaps asking the current miners why they haven’t already been doing this will help you to understand.

This summer's BIP 148 was a great example of it.

[cr1776]

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

The network worked before there were ever non-mining nodes having a copy.  So if only the miners have a copy of the transactions then it is more than good enough.

Your example is like a straw poll.  The non-mining nodes had no real authority to actually enforce their conclusion.

Like I said the only vote that holds authority is if you win a block, then your vote on the previous block validity counts as a confirmation.

If you mine an invalid block your “vote” isn’t counted by anyone except you...everyone else ignores you, and probably blocks your node if you do it enough. And it still isn’t a vote.

[cr1776]

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

The network worked before there were ever non-mining nodes having a copy.  So if only the miners have a copy of the transactions then it is more than good enough.

Your example is like a straw poll.  The non-mining nodes had no real authority to actually enforce their conclusion.

Like I said the only vote that holds authority is if you win a block, then your vote on the previous block validity counts as a confirmation.

If you want to be PayPal, it is good enough for only miners to have a copy.  All nodes enforce the protocol regardless of your insistence that they do not.  Look at the code.

[ir.hn]

If all the non-mining nodes reject the block, then the vast majority of the network doesn't have a copy of it. It basically isn't a real block.

The network worked before there were ever non-mining nodes having a copy.  So if only the miners have a copy of the transactions then it is more than good enough.

Your example is like a straw poll.  The non-mining nodes had no real authority to actually enforce their conclusion.

Like I said the only vote that holds authority is if you win a block, then your vote on the previous block validity counts as a confirmation.

If you want to be PayPal, it is good enough for only miners to have a copy.  All nodes enforce the protocol regardless of your insistence that they do not.  Look at the code.

How exactly do non-mining nodes enforce the protocol?  They can say it is invalid, but what can they do about it?

[nullius]

How exactly do non-mining nodes enforce the protocol?  They can say it is invalid, but what can they do about it?

Duh, they can ignore invalid blocks and ban the IP addresses of anybody who sends one.  To the Bitcoin protocol, invalid blocks simply do not exist.  To full nodes, invalid blocks simply do not exist.

ir.hn, stop spewing the same gibberish simultaneously over multiple different threads whilst ignoring, twisting, or dissimulating around all the thoughtful explanations given to you by smart people.  (Smart people, please stop wasting your time trying to explain to someone self-evidently ineducable; IMO the only task is to provide sufficient answer that newbies who happen across these threads won’t be misled by ir.hn’s disinformation campaign.)

Please stop spreading misinformation. This "attack" is not just limited to segwit; miners could have chosen to not verify signatures anyways before segwit activated. Regardless of whether segwit is activated, if a miner produces an invalid block because it contains a transaction that does not have a valid signature (again, regardless of segwit or not), other non-mining full nodes on the network will reject that block and the miner will be wasting his time and electricity.

Lets say all the non-mining full nodes reject the block.  Why would the miners care?  the miners are the one creating the blockchain.  You can cry foul all day long but unless you can vote with your hashpower on which chain is correct, you are yelling to the wind.

ir.hn:  You have no idea how Bitcoin works.  You have no idea how Segwit works.  Or at least, you are feigning gross ignorance.  In this thread and others, intelligent and well-informed people have attempted to educate you.  You shoot back with bare assertions and blatant misinformation.  Enough.

General point:  There is a common misconception about the role of miners.  Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job:  To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends).  That’s what miners do.  That is all miners do.  Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; that’s why miners get paid for it.  But that is the one and only security function of miners.

Of course, miners must validate each block they produce; if they didn’t, they would be unable to reliably produce valid blocks.  But miners are not the parties responsible for enforcing validation on the network.  Full nodes do that.  Each individual full node does that, so as to provide better security for its owner; and all full nodes collectively do that, thus providing validation security for the whole network.  Observe how here as everywhere, Bitcoin precisely aligns the individual’s selfish interest with the common good.

Full nodes do not blindly “follow the longest chain”.  They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW.  A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address.  It doesn’t matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random.  An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodes—period.

ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners.  After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation.  I write this post for the benefit of others.  I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead.

[pekobites]

Charlie lee has been warning against this for sometime already

I trust him

[ir.hn]

How exactly do non-mining nodes enforce the protocol?  They can say it is invalid, but what can they do about it?

Duh, they can ignore invalid blocks and ban the IP addresses of anybody who sends one.  To the Bitcoin protocol, invalid blocks simply do not exist.  To full nodes, invalid blocks simply do not exist.

ir.hn, stop spewing the same gibberish simultaneously over multiple different threads whilst ignoring, twisting, or dissimulating around all the thoughtful explanations given to you by smart people.  (Smart people, please stop wasting your time trying to explain to someone self-evidently ineducable; IMO the only task is to provide sufficient answer that newbies who happen across these threads won’t be misled by ir.hn’s disinformation campaign.)

So what is the net effect if all non-mining full nodes ignore a block they think is invalid and no longer acknowledge blocks from that IP address?  It would just be as if those nodes no longer exist, and as I've said before, bitcoin worked before anyone ever invented the "non-mining full node".  Unless you can stop other miners mining on the block you think is invalid, you have no power.  Or you actually mine and win the next block, then what you say matters.

[De Suga09]

That sound like cryptoconspiracy. Conspiracy evolved. It would be nice to see some proofs and probable attack algorithms.

To combat the destructive potential of a 51% attack, bitcoin's design and its system of economic incentives has been set up specifically. It has worked and 51% attack has remained hypothetical bogeyman until now.

[nullius]

Charlie lee has been warning against this for sometime already

I trust him

What the hell are you talking about?  Due to all the idiots trying to stop Segwit in Bitcoin, Litecoin activated Segwit before Bitcoin did.

Litecoin’s Charlie Lee is strongly pro-Segwit; so if you trust him, trust him on this:

You’ve probably seen that I recently started advocating for SegWit to activate on Litecoin and Bitcoin. [...]

So you may wonder why I’m pushing for SegWit. Litecoin does not have a block size problem. That’s right, and SegWit is not just a block scaling solution. I would even say block scaling is just a side benefit of SegWit. The main fix is transaction malleability, which would allow Lightning Networks (LN) to be built on top of Litecoin. And there are a bunch more nice features of SegWit.

So what is the net effect if all non-mining full nodes ignore a block they think is invalid and no longer acknowledge blocks from that IP address?  It would just be as if those nodes no longer exist, and as I've said before, bitcoin worked before anyone ever invented the "non-mining full node".  Unless you can stop other miners mining on the block you think is invalid, you have no power.  Or you actually mine and win the next block, then what you say matters.

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.

When you say nonsensical gibberish such as “bitcoin worked before anyone ever invented the ‘non-mining full node’”, you clearly demonstrate that you have not even the slightest inkling of how Bitcoin ever worked.  Nodes run the network, and always have.  Miners are employees paid handsomely to provide Byzantine fault-tolerant transaction ordering.  Do you even care what that means?  I ask rhetorically.