Is POW systematically doomed to get a huge monster in its midst?

[goddog]

Cryptocurrency is a movement and has an agenda decentralization being in its core, it is ok to question the technology's approach to decentralization but being a nah sayer who has an ideological prejudgment regarding decentralization as an absolutely impossible idea (and worse, a useless one), well, it puts one out of the crypto sphere and renders any discussion with him a useless time wasting practice.

point was decentralization is bad, because of this: http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

[1714006471]

1714006471

[1714006471]

1714006471

[Wind_FURY]

If there was an attack to reverse Segwit, the network will hard fork and the chain will split into two. The mainCore chain will behave like nothing has happened while the forked real Bitcoin chain will reverse Segwit.

I made a slight correction to your summary. Core will actually fork off from the original Satoshi version 0.5.4 protocol at that juncture. As a matter of correct definitions and semantics, the Satoshi protocol cannot fork off from itself. It was first, so all hard forks are the later thing forking off from the original thing.

Otherwise the quoted is now correct. And that is what I have been explaining.

Haha, I respect your opinion, and I believe you also respect mine. Plus all I can say to that is "OK" and leave it.

But you forgot a very important point I made several times already and you continue to forget. That is those who hodl legacy addresses that begin with 1 will receive both real Bitcoin tokens and Core tokens. Whereas those who hodl in addresses that begin with 3 will receive only Core tokens. Even if you support Core, you would want the real Bitcoin tokens so you could sell them and contribute to fighting against it and use the proceeds to buy Core tokens. But to do that, you must forsake SegWit in the interim time. This proves that SegWit has no Schelling point.

That is reminding of "Pascal's Wager". I believe it applies to that as well. It might be advisable to transfer cold storage coins to a legacy address but continue to use Segwit for active hot wallets. But that's where it ends because it does not automatically mean the non-Segwit chain will be followed by the economic majority and most the the miners. There are 80% of Segwit compatible nodes in total that are enforcing the rules, remember that.

Read how others reasoned about and explained that last point:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg41252415#msg41252415

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg41211650#msg41211650

Whether you want Core or real Bitcoin tokens is your own prerogative. But the wise men understand that democracy is a clusterfuck. I re-explained that point yet again:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=178336.msg41253256#msg41253256

Ok.

@anunymint, @Wind_FURY you guys better take care of your anti-segwit fork issue in a dedicated topic, imo.

Sorry. This will be the last one before I make a new thread.

[aliashraf]

Cryptocurrency is a movement and has an agenda decentralization being in its core, it is ok to question the technology's approach to decentralization but being a nah sayer who has an ideological prejudgment regarding decentralization as an absolutely impossible idea (and worse, a useless one), well, it puts one out of the crypto sphere and renders any discussion with him a useless time wasting practice.

point was decentralization is bad, because of this: http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

The reference you've provided, On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward, has nothing against decentralization as a design principle, and yet if it was the case, we wouldn't discuss it in this forum.

My point is, decentralization as an ultimate agenda, is the only thing we have in common in the crypto ecosystem, it is the cause. Without decentralization we have nothing to share and to make a dialog about.

Questioning decentralization's relevance or importance for an alternative monetary system, announcing it an absurd impossible design target, is kinda cheating and turning the table on other players, what losers usually do.

It is fair to ask questions about how and in what degree bitcoin has achieved decentralization and how it can be improved/evolved to reach to a better (more decentralized) state but ideologically challenging the core concept and saying that we are safer in the hands of few elites in the top of the food chain? No! It is not fair. It is cheating in the most ridiculous way a bitcointalk member could ever do it  

[DooMAD]

You can keep calling 0.5.4 "Satoshi's protocol" all you like, but that doesn't give it any sort of special status or privilege.

Incorrect:

I changed my mind.  0.5.1 is the one true Bitcoin.  All transactions and transfers after 0.5.1 are invalid.

Nonsense trolling. Bitcoin version history indicates:

v0.6.0 = beginning of egregious Core centralization cruft hijacking including the autoupdate so they can sneak their scamware onto n00bs’ nodes. I’m not sure if

You have convinced me.  I need to run the version from November 2010 when Satoshi was still involved. What version was that?  Because that’s obviously the one true Bitcoin.

Sorry guys any transactions after 2010 are invalid. Anyone that says otherwise is just a Core shill.

You fail to comprehend my prior post. Those later versions of Satoshi’s protocol do not add any ANYONECANSPEND transactions, and thus even if you run an earlier version, your node will NOT accept as donations any transactions created with a later version of Satoshi’s client.

You’re trolling because you lack technological understanding of the issue at hand.

You're actually shitting up the Wall Observer thread with this nonsense too?  You've got some brass, I'll give you that.  No clue, mind, but definitely some brass.

And thank you for linking in HairyMaclairy's more compelling argument.  Troll or not, it demonstrates how far gone you really are.  Ultimately, whatever FUD you might spread about ANYONECANSPEND, none of it applies in the real world unless you completely disregard the alignment of incentives (or come up with your own warped interpretation of it).

My assumptions were correct.

Let’s review each transaction type.

Yeah, great, "miners can take these".  We get it.  Now pay attention for once.  I could theoretically fork tomorrow with a version of "Bitcoin" that lets me steal any and all transaction types.  According to you, the Schelling Point would be overwhelming (I'd start calling it the "Shelby Point", because it clearly isn't a Shelling Point, but I suspect your colossal ego would enjoy that).  Look at all that booty.  All ~17 million coins in circulation and they're all mine.  I can take these.  That means I'm the new wealthy elite now.  I've made sure it's "immutable" now that I've stolen it, too.  No more SegWit.  So... what's the reason you're going to provide me with that you or anyone else should follow my chain, where I've stolen all the money?  Who's going to legitimise this chain by running this code?  Who's going to mine this coin?    

Since I know you won't be able to provide an answer for that, let's make it clear that absolutely no one would follow that obscenity of a chain.  Not a single sane and rational person would recognise that as Bitcoin.  I'd be the only one using it.  The only person running the code.  No one apart from me would be mining it.  Which suddenly makes my ~17 million tokens completely worthless.  Equally as worthless as your 0.5.4 tokens would be if anyone was stupid enough to steal SegWit coins.  Which is why it's not going to be worth their time or effort.  You don't actually end up holding tokens that have value or utility.  Which is why it's never going to happen.

A chain is only as "immutable" as consensus permits it to be.  If you break consensus, you also break immutability.  It's just code, after all.  What matters is the people who freely choose to run the code.  If enough of them agree that SegWit coins are immutable, then they're immutable.  They can only be stolen if people run the code that allows them to be stolen.  People would ignore the worthless 0.5.4 chain no matter how many times you call Core the fork and insist your outdated software is the real one.  0.5.4 would be seen as an obscure novelty at best.  Barely even a footnote for the history books.  All the non-crazy people will still have a chain where SegWit coins can't get stolen.

If it's inevitable, please sell all your BTC, assuming you even have any and aren't just here as a pathetic no-coiner troll (which seems far more likely than any Bitcoin doomsday scenario you've ever come up with), for 0.5.4 when it happens.

[DooMAD]

I try to be cordial, civil, and patient but when I need to repeat the same point 16 times that I already stated 16 times, I have to wonder about the IQ of the reader. Here was the most recent instance where I explained that the economic majority will use the real Bitcoin reserve currency, not the 80% of the population masses who will as usual be debt slaves:

And then all the wealthy 1% who decide which chain will be the winner will of course sell their free air drop of Core altcoin fork tokens and use the proceeds to buy Satoshi Bitcoin unforked protocol tokens. Because the wealthy want security as the highest priority.

because Bitcoin is a reserve currency and the power-law distribution of wealth means the top 1% control 34+% of the economic pie and the top 20% control 80+% of the economic pie. So the 1% ($billionaires) lead the 20% ($millionaires) who follow because they don’t want to lose their wealth.

If the top 20% think it's in their best interests to leave the actual economy and have 100% of nothing, best of luck to 'em.  Again, a small number of wealthy elites does not constitute a functional economy.  If they want to live in an isolated, incompatible bubble with no one else in it, their system won't work, simply because it's built on the backs of the less wealthy.  The reason they became millionaires and billionaires in the first place is because money flows to the top of the pyramid.  It can't do that if the masses are using different money.  The wealthy need the proles to feed off.  They always have and always will.  That's how social class structure works.  There is no denying this fact.

The middle class will love you for it, though.  They'll be the new top of the food chain if you want to Darwin-award yourself onto the endangered species list through sheer abject stupidity.  Be my guest and do it now.  Sooner the better.

Let's make it clear that you’re an idiot who will lose all his real Bitcoin

Nope, I'll just lose some of my 0.5.4 worthless Thiefcoins.  Just like I'd lose some of my coins on that proposed fork where they decided that coins that haven't moved in 3+ years go back into circulation.  It's not Bitcoin, so IDGAF.  Again, it's not an economic majority if you can't actually maintain an economy.  Enjoy your 100% of zero.



//EDIT:  Also, you better tell the 0.5.4 maintainers they've probably got some work to do.  Guess it'll be 0.5.5 now?

[goddog]

You have the causality transposed. The wealthy decide which money the masses use, not vice versa. When the masses forkoff, they eat mud and hyperinflate their currency. Study the history of socialism such as the Wiemar Republic.

market decide. not wealthy, no governaments. Glod is actually useless it have no value as you can not use it to buy stuff. Glold have value only because the alternative is fiat(worst).
When wealthy will dump all their segwit coin they will lose them, I will buy all for cheap and I will be the new wealthy imperor :-P
Show me a way to implement a trustless 2nd layer using trb and I will give it a chance. But no second layer means gold or segwit coins are better currencies and store of value so market will go that way.
 

[Carlton Banks]

Remember (unlike the SegWit) the P2SH can only be taken as donations when they are spent.

Also presumably the miners would want to maximize their donations per block and would wait for the level of transactions being spent per block to reach some peak. Why start now when the SegWit crapola is just starting to get momentum. Much better to let all the bunny rabbits become comfortable, overly confident, and feel safe inside the designated killing corral.

Again you're changing your argument

This means that (according to your logic) everyone must always check every output they receive for P2SH history, or the miners can steal from the outputs with such constituents whether it's in a "safe" P2PKH address or not. In fact, the same would be true of Segwit too.

And most importantly block rewards will all invariably be tainted with such outputs, the fees will very likely always have P2SH or Segwit history (and are an inextricable part of the block subsidy output). Remind us why miners are going to back this "attack" lol


Honestly, it's impossible you really believe this, and with your long long long history of trolling Bitcointalk... but of course I don't expect the effluent to stop flowing lol

[Wind_FURY]

Remember (unlike the SegWit) the P2SH can only be taken as donations when they are spent.

Also presumably the miners would want to maximize their donations per block and would wait for the level of transactions being spent per block to reach some peak. Why start now when the SegWit crapola is just starting to get momentum. Much better to let all the bunny rabbits become comfortable, overly confident, and feel safe inside the designated killing corral.

Again you're changing your argument

Nope. It’s only your technological ignorance that continues to twist your misunderstandings into knots.

And frankly it’s becoming redundant for me to continue to refute all the various misunderstandings of n00bs, especially when it basically involves repeating what I had already written in my archive of posts.

This means that (according to your logic) everyone must always check every output they receive for P2SH history, or the miners can steal from the outputs with such constituents whether it's in a "safe" P2PKH address or not.

This was refuted many times already. The Satoshi miners will not (at least not significantly) rewind the chain when they start taking the donations (because of the game theory they would be fighting against wherein another set of Satoshi miners could mine later in the chain and have a proof-of-work lead). Thusly, if current UTXO is in a legacy address (i.e. that begins with a 1 not a 3) before the hardfork begins, then the hodler of (the private key for) those legacy addresses will receive tokens on both chains (Satoshi and Core). Whereas, the hodler of Core addresses (i.e. that begins with a 3 not a 1) will only receive Core chain tokens and lose their Satoshi chain tokens.

Yes yes Segwit can be reversed but only for the TRB fork, chain split, that does not follow the rules enforced by 80% of total nodes in the network that are Segwit compatible.TRB will be in its own blockchain where miners can steal coins in Segwit addresses and wipe out the Lightning channels. We already get it. Good luck to that fork. I hope that the market and the users will value it more than Bitcoin so you can leave in peace.

[DooMAD]

The Satoshi protocol can’t fork off. It is the extant protocol, so it can’t fork itself. The Core protocol is soft-to-be-hard-forking. This has been exhaustively explained to you.

And you can keep exhaustively explaining it wrong all you like, but no one is going to agree with you.

The market decides what the extant protocol is.  Not you, not the 0.5.4 users.

It doesn't matter if a fork is hard, soft or goddamn sunny-side-up.  If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork.  No amount of egotistical belligerence is going to change that.  No amount of calling it "Satoshi’s client" is going to change that.  If pigs fly and this attack happens, I fully welcome your "I-told-you-so".  Until then, give it a rest already.

I hope we are done with this discussion. Please stop pestering me. You are free to lose all your Bitcoins and hodl Bitcons instead. Just leave me out of your stupid nonsense.

You started this Thiefcoin discussion, you can stop any time you wish.  If you keep posting lunacy then you prompt us to reply and tell you why what you're saying is lunacy.  Ball's in your court, feel free to leave any time.

[Carlton Banks]

It doesn't matter if a fork is hard, soft or goddamn sunny-side-up.  If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork.  

In a way he's right (a soft fork is still a fork), but that's not what matters. People don't care about the purity of technical details, they care about the utility of the coin (and thence the capabilities that the technical details give them when using the coin). It doesn't matter if Bitcoin is a fork of it's former self, forks that are considered to improve the coin can expect to be welcomed, whereas forks that make the coin worse (such as Anonymint is suggesting) are not. The alternative is to cancel a currency's development every time a fork is required to make progress or fix a bug, and start a new coin from scratch including the new idea. That's obviously untenable.

anyway, you're making him angry now (and there's no progress, there was never any chance of a productive dialogue anyway). It should be pretty clear by now that Anonymint is simply exploiting the mechanics of the soft fork concept for the sake of a FUD based argument, and you can't do much better than demonstrating just that alone in these circumstances

[aliashraf]

@anunimint
Hodling one Million bitcoins  does not make you wealthy. You can not buy a tower from Trump using your coins and it is not because of SEC or IRS (Trump would figure it out), because Trump won't accept btc and you can not dump your coins in Coinbase crashing the market and your assets.

This "market cap" index is just an index, we are fooling people with it to sell our coins, not to fool ourselves  

So, your assumption about power law distribution of coins and its resembling of the distribution of wealth in the society is false.

If such an anti-segwit fork or back trace might happen, it won't be the coin owners' choice to appreciate which chain more, it would be Trump's (and his billionaire paws') choice.

Bitcoin is not an established currency (or global reserve) it is just bitcoin, it needs appreciation by people who mostly are out of the ecosystem and are freshly joining.

Even for an established currency, one can not deduct distribution curve of wealth from distribution curve of money. Money is a device for mechanization of wealth and not the wealth itself.

I think your suggestion about BIG coin hodlers being able to dictate their conspiracy to the society is terribly wrong and you should reconsider.

[aliashraf]

Hodling one Million bitcoins  does not make you wealthy. You can not buy a tower from Trump using your coins and it is not because of SEC or IRS (Trump would figure it out), because Trump won't accept btc and you can not dump your coins in Coinbase crashing the market and your assets.

The liquidity and float issue applies to Trump also. He can’t sell all his properties instantly either.

Nop, Trump can sell his tower overnight with just 10-20 percent discount, his properties won't shift the real state market a bit, there are tens of thousands of towers in the US alone.

On the contrary, Mt Gox trustee ruined the market by rumors about dumping  50K bitcoin or so, total "market cap" (joke) of bitcoin dropped almost 100 billions because a stupid bureaucrat decided to move 50K bitcoins from a cold wallet! Understand? Not selling, just moving coins and spreading rumors about the possibility of a sell off.

And you wanna convince us that there are big whales on the top of the pyramid that can decide about everything!
They can't decide about their coins to be moved around yet, who GAS to what they say about the legit bitcoin?

If such an anti-segwit fork or back trace might happen, it won't be the coin owners' choice to appreciate which chain more, it would be Trump's (and his billionaire paws') choice.

I have no fucking idea why you think the wealthy from outside crypto, if they decided to get involved with crypto, would not consult with other expert whales in crypto, so they don’t make the dumb mistake of buying the Core altcoin and losing 4/5ths of the investment. Some more of that hair-brained illogical brain of yours.

The wealth, real wealth is now outside of crypto and will remain there forever. It is what you don't understand and is your Shelby point (kidding). Money gets its value from outside wealth, without properties, cars, food, ... money is nothing and yet bitcoin is not money, it is just a project, a money under development.

So, your assumption about power law distribution of coins and its resembling of the distribution of wealth in the society is false.

Stop slobbering all over yourself:

No worries, I'm decoding your language, we are cool 

[aliashraf]

@anunymint

Yet I do agree with you that SegWit is a disaster and we have to do something about it, not by committing robbery tho.

Firstly I don't believe in SegWit because it is obfuscating and complicating the code. For a sensitive, mission critical  software like bitcoin, it is a huge drawback.
I've been always against such programming tricks no matter how "brilliant" they may look like.
As a programmer I don't GAS when a junior hacker comes with such a "soft" hack idea to add a feature or fix a vulnerability for a system and when it is about something like bitcoin, well, I just become frustrated.
I mean it is so stupid, isn't it? instead of a decent improvement based on known software engineering principles including readability and maintainability, complicating and ruining the code.

Core guys are not stupid, they are playing their own game with their own incentives, they are monopolizing development process by obfuscating the code and complicating the protocol.

Lightning Network is much worse, it is a second layer protocol and second layer protocols are the worst thing can ever happen to a public domain software. They are responsible for alienation of people from the system.

LN puts bitcoin in danger not because of bugs or its ridiculous choice of recurring transactions for its service, no, it is dangerous for being an exemplary instance of upcoming second layer protocols which will put people in the same misery they have with the Internet already, being alienated of it, having no clue about its decentralized nature and trapped in stupid services that threaten their privacy and security and every single precious thing they got.

[ehiozuwa]

Gone are the days when individuals actually have a say in the way things are done,now so much power is being concentrated in hands of just a few who have the means.POW inevitably led to centralization and thus manipulation

[Cybrtoken]

WOW look at that ..

Satoshi's protocol can’t fork off from itself. It is actively running now on the current BTC block chain. When the booty piles up, the Satoshi miners will take the donations and then Core will fork off. And then all the wealthy 1% who decide which chain will be the winner will of course sell their free air drop of Core altcoin fork tokens and use the proceeds to buy Satoshi Bitcoin unforked protocol tokens. Because the wealthy want security as the highest priority. And because the miners will be sharing the proceeds of the donations with the wealthy. As you point out, without immutability there is no security as even Peter Todd recently mused about if had his choice he would want to a perpetual inflation instead of 21 million coins. Core is mutability. Satoshi protocol is immutability.

[DooMAD]

I’m just exhausted of repeating the same points over and over again when someone fails to assimilate and disingenuously twists the debate.

Your idea of a "debate" is that everyone has to accept your insane doomsday theories as fact.  The onus is on you to provide a compelling argument.  You have failed.  Maybe stop repeating the same drivel if it's clearly proving ineffective.  We assimilate what you're saying just fine.  You don't assimilate that we still think you're unhinged and your words carry all the weight of someone who wriggled out of their straightjacket and scrawled some nonsense on the wall in their own excrement.  Maybe I need to point out again the sheer volume of 'The end is nigh', 'The sky is falling', 'The anonymint who cried wolf' FUD BS you've spouted in the past that turned out to be nothing other than a fevered dream on your part.  You have ZERO credibility.  You are synonymous with FUD at its most ludicrous peaks.  If I don't believe what you're telling me, you only have yourself to blame for that.

Gresham’s law assures us that the reserve currency will be driven out-of-circulation. TPS scalable stuff should be in altcoins, fiats, and what not. The reserve currency doesn’t need that crap. It needs security, immutability, and to not lose 4/5ths of its value as will happen to the Core altcoin because it is bad money which drives good money out-of-circulation.

People have also used Gresham's law to "assure us" that all of Bitcoin will die, not just the particular "brand" of code you've taken a personal disliking to.  I don't give their argument any greater credence than yours.  Again, debate does not mean we have to automatically believe your far-fetched premise as fact.  Your argument is in no way, shape or form convincing.  Troll harder.

It doesn't matter if a fork is hard, soft or goddamn sunny-side-up.

Actually it matters because Core and its shills such as yourself [snip]

Also Anonymint:

Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation Real Bitcoin Foundation
Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema Trilema

<cough>hypocrite</cough>

Also, I don't know what forums you've been reading, but many of the most vociferous supporters of Core hate my guts and think I'm some sort of Communist.  I don't think they'd appreciate me being lumped in with them, heh.

If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork.

Liar. It has been exhaustively explained that the number non-mining full nodes being online is basically irrelevant.

I'm sure from the perspective of a crazy person, you might genuinely believe I'm lying.  Just like I'd be lying if I said "the sky is blue", when you clearly perceive it to be on fire and hurtling towards us at an alarming rate because your mind is unwell.  Nodes will only become irrelevant when we stop running them, which incidentally, isn't happening.  So best of luck with your continued tirade, because it isn't having the desired effect.  

You would certainly like nodes to be irrelevant because that would suit your narrative.  

Which, for the briefest moments of considering the possibility you aren't insane, could ultimately be the basis of your FUD.  You don't like SegWit, so you tell people there's a vulnerability with it.  You try to convince them it's not safe to use in an attempt to diminish it.  You don't like the fact that full nodes clearly do enforce the will of a supermajority of network users, so you claim nodes are irrelevant.  So if your arguments aren't insane, then they're deliberately intended to weaken the aspects of Bitcoin that you don't personally agree with.  I'll leave it to the other readers of the thread to decide if you're crazy or simply malicious.  I think most of them should have a pretty solid opinion by now.

anyway, you're making him angry now

Apparently it's what I'm good at.    

(and there's no progress, there was never any chance of a productive dialogue anyway). It should be pretty clear by now that Anonymint is simply exploiting the mechanics of the soft fork concept for the sake of a FUD based argument, and you can't do much better than demonstrating just that alone in these circumstances

Providing other readers of this thread can assure me that they're still happy to use SegWit and the demented loon isn't having any sway on their thoughts in that regard, I'll happily stop.  It's was never about trying to convince Anonymint of anything, since I know from repeated prior encounters that's a complete waste of time.  Plus, it's not like his opinion matters anyway.  I just like to know the FUD isn't having the desired effect.

[aliashraf]

Providing other readers of this thread can assure me that they're still happy to use SegWit and the demented loon isn't having any sway on their thoughts in that regard, I'll happily stop.  It's was never about trying to convince Anonymint of anything, since I know from repeated prior encounters that's a complete waste of time.  Plus, it's not like his opinion matters anyway.  I just like to know the FUD isn't having the desired effect.

No! Sorry but you can't give any credit to SegWit by refuting @anunymint's hypothetical attack.

SegWit and LN are the worst things happened to bitcoin not because of vulnerabilities guys like him suggest or the possibility of a crazy fork in the name of Satoshi.

SegWit is evil because of its complexity and anomaly in design and Ln is evil because, besides its dependency on SW and its stupid target service(recurring transactions), it is a second layer protocol.

As of SW, Bitcoin deserves more! Its code shouldn't be obfuscated and ruined with such a childish mind. It should be elegant and clean, junior hackers who feel genius and become excited about their ability to find weird techniques to "solve" problems and at the same time remain careless about obfuscating and complicating the code and making it practically unmaintainable, are not the best candidates for the job.

Plus, LN as a second layer protocol is a curse. It alienates users from what bitcoin really is and how it should be understood and experienced.

Neither scalability nor any other problem in bitcoin should be projected to second layer protocols, it is a dangerous move that discourages mass adoption of bitcoin because it hides bitcoin and all its beauty under a pile of garbage and nonsense.

It was how "genius" programmers ruined internet in the last few decades and made it an unsecure, theft friendly environment.
Fuck second layer protocols, they do nothing other than fooling people and making them both slaves of rich and victims of thieves.

[Wind_FURY]

Yes yes Segwit can be reversed

Incorrect. SegWit addresses can be spent by anyone in Satoshi’s protocol because they’re non-standard and put the signature data in a format that Satoshi’s protocol cannot decode. That is not the same as “reversed”. Details are important. How many times I have explained already that no reversal of the chain is required and no 50+% attack is required. Yet you n00bs continue the sloppy statements.

Ok and I agree. In the TRB chain split, once the "Satoshi miners" decide to "attack", coins stored in the Segwit addresses can be spent by anyone, and be considered "donations", while in the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue on as normal. I have to say that again for the n00bs like me reading this.

but only for the TRB fork

The Satoshi protocol can’t fork off. It is the extant protocol, so it can’t fork itself. The Core protocol is soft-to-be-hard-forking. This has been exhaustively explained to you.

But once the "Satoshi miners" start their "attack" it will cause a chain split and make two coins, BTC and TRB.

, chain split, that does not follow the rules enforced by 80% of total nodes in the network that are Segwit compatible.

You continue repeating this fucking node nonsense even after I have wiped your face with the floor about it.

What nonsense? It is the infrastructure that reinforces consensus code, and 80% or more of the total nodes are Segwit compatible nodes.

TRB will be in its own blockchain where miners can steal coins in Segwit addresses and wipe out the Lightning channels. We already get it. Good luck to that fork. I hope that the market and the users will value it more than Bitcoin so you can leave in peace.

You’re entirely confused. LN will continue running on the Core altcoin after Core forks off from Bitcoin. LN will AFAICT continue to be an insecure clusterfuck (which I expounded about) even on the Core altcoin.

As for the economic reality w.r.t. to the Core altcoin versus the extant Bitcoin (aka Satoshi’s immutable protocol), again I already wiped your face with the floor about it.

I hope we are done with this discussion. Please stop pestering me. You are free to lose all your Bitcoins and hodl Bitcons instead. Just leave me out of your stupid nonsense.

I am not pestering you, and I will not stop asking you questions if I disagree in your ideas.

[Wind_FURY]

Ok and I agree. In the TRB chain split, once the "Satoshi miners" decide to "attack", coins stored in the Segwit addresses can be spent by anyone, and be considered "donations", while in the Bitcoin chain, everything will continue on as normal. I have to say that again for the n00bs like me reading this.

You continue to lie with “attack”, “TRB”, etc..

TRB, short for "The Real Bitcoin", the implementation you call the "Satoshi protocol". The implementation you have given us the links to. Correct me if you mean something else.

If it is not an "attack", what would you call it? Another question, what do you believe its ticker should be if listed by an exchange?

What nonsense? It is the infrastructure that reinforces consensus code, and 80% or more of the total nodes are Segwit compatible nodes.

See that link thing in the quote? Click it and read:

If your client differs to a supermajority of other full nodes on the network to the point where it becomes incompatible, you are the fork.

Liar. It has been exhaustively explained that the number non-mining full nodes being online is basically irrelevant.

We have debated on that before and we will never agree who is right. Mining nodes and non-mining nodes are the same because the all validate fully.

I know there are some mining nodes that connect directly to some other mining node through a relay network like FIBRE. BUT it is not exclusive to miners, any node can join, and not all miners use it. Plus mining nodes also connect to non-mining nodes because they need peers.

[aliashraf]

... There is no rational conversation I can have with individuals who just proclaim that my reasoning is incorrect without providing a cogent argument as to why the economic reality is not such as I have explained it.
...

There has been no cogent rebuttal.

You don't even listen dude  
You are just amazing, you tell your story and you just don't care about what others say. You deliberately pick the weakest arguments against your story and write another sequence ...

I briefly explained to you that economy is not all about currency not even dominating fiat currencies deserve to be considered the most important part of economy.

Crypto market is driven by forces ways more stronger than semi-anonymous bitcoin whales who have not enough courage to show up and make few real deals.

Millions of new comers just in less than a year have joined, whales didn't pumped up (they are dumping) people did, rich people, middle class people, and adventurists all over the world, they are the true source of power, they are the real economy.

Just crystal clear!

Why are you so obsessed with bitcoin as a brand anyway? Let it to stay at rest, it needs it, it has been almoswt 10 years and is now time to grow up, to mature.  Isn't it?

Bitcoin needs to improve and not to stick with a semi-failed implementation, imo.