Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[torusJKL]

So they will ban some kind of scripts? I.e.: some patterns?

And if they do something so crazy now, who knows which other patterns will be banned in the future?



I think the plan to remove isStandard check is in every roadmap (even BTC!), but I can't see the relation to P2SH.

P2SH is just a standard and simple script, if you ban it you are doing another thing that contradicts itself: saying you remove the check for scripts, but then banning a few of them (so, implementing isStandard again), negating what you just stated; doublespeak again.


What users are exposed to is another matter altogether, and has nothing to do with how low level works.
I'm also all for avoiding those addresses and technicalities to end user, but it's a UI thing, nothing needs to be changed in the protocol for that.



How can you define scripts different from P2PKH without using something like P2SH?


You mean every.single.software.out.there.
P2SH is so old that every wallet and library in the world supports it.


Removing something used since 8 years that every software implements is is not dead serious, is dead-brain-damaged.



"collateral damage", lol.

The collateral damage done with segwit is nothing compared to such a thing, and segwit's only positive side is that it's backward compatible.

There is no point in arguing if P2SH is this or that.

BSV wants to go back as closely to the original code as possible
Once this has been accomplished the protocol will be locked down.
Nobody said that it would be locked down at the split from BCH to BSV.

P2SH was not part of the original code hence it will have to go.
From what I understand once you can do non-standard scripts you will be able to do the most of what you did with P2SH.

Those things you will not be able to do anymore were not part of the original design and hence arguing to make them work has no point.
This is by design.

As others have written already existing P2SH utxo will remain valid but you will not be able to create new ones.

Whoever enters BSV now should do that with the knowledge that P2SH will not be available much longer.

 

[cbeast]

@freetrader It's not that anyone is really against anonymity, it's just that it is of limited value. To say that it protects you from mobs or vigilantes is weak. Nixon showed us that taking away anonymous voting from our elected representatives gives lobbyists the power to correct improper voting to stay aligned with corporate interests. No seriously, there is no such thing as real anonymity, it's only a scale of privacy. It's like invisibility, it doesn't really exist.

 

[torusJKL]

There is no point in arguing if P2SH is this or that.

BSV wants to go back as closely to the original code as possible
Once this has been accomplished the protocol will be locked down.
Nobody said that it would be locked down at the split from BCH to BSV.

P2SH was not part of the original code hence it will have to go.
From what I understand once you can do non-standard scripts you will be able to do the most of what you did with P2SH.

Those things you will not be able to do anymore were not part of the original design and hence arguing to make them work has no point.
This is by design.

As others have written already existing P2SH utxo will remain valid but you will not be able to create new ones.

Whoever enters BSV now should do that with the knowledge that P2SH will not be available much longer.

In addition there are statistics on how often P2SH is used on https://www.svcharts.com/

On BSV it is 0 or very close to it.
On BSV is a small number compare to other chains and other outputs.

And whoever comes in now did it after the fact that the removal has been advertised.

 

[79b79aa8]

privacy is a precondition for freedom, when freedom is understood as it is in the liberal/republican political tradition, to which the west belongs. this is analytic.

under certain social conditions and for certain activities, anonymity is attainable if desired. but remaining fully anonymous precludes full recourse to the law or full access to regulated economic activity.

i can phone in an anonymous tip to the police (or, crucially, complain anonymoulsy about the police). but i can't sue anyone anonymously.

taxed economic activity cannot by definition be anonymous. you cannot realistically both want bitcoin to be a global currency and repudiate taxation.

fungibility requires privacy, but not anonymity. fiat is fungible. it is not anonymous. only cash is partially anonymous. but you cannot legally perform significant economic transactions with cash.

BU allows me to be a member and remain anonymous. but i can't stand for election, and if by omission the rules allowed it, sane members would not elect me.

can we move on?

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

I don't know of any wallet in BSV which supports P2SH. I guess the only ones using it are BitGo's exchange wallets. (on BTC all use P2SH, because SegWit)

Multisig, the only important application of P2SH, imho, is terrible to use. The only good implementation of it I know is on Ethereum, where it is done onchain and you wallet gets a notification when a transaction is partially signed. With BSV something similar could be done, with P2SH, but it seems like it will be done with threshold signatures, which are, of course, patented by Craig and developed by whoever knows. We will see if nChain will really abolish P2SH in early 2020 and if they will provide an alternative.

--

Anonymity, it's like cbeast says, it's more a scale of privacy. Bitcoin provides privacy - even anonymity - but it depends on the circumstances. Small amount, some work to protect privacy, no action which encourages NSA to crack you down by analyzing the whole internet or the FBI by doin six month of research - you are de facto anonymous. When it is a large amount, like 100k BTC, and you are a criminal searched by Europol, FBI and NSA, no amount of work will help you to stay anonymous.

For me, Bitcoin's privacy is perfect, as it allows the good and small people to be anonymous, while making it very very hard for serious criminals, the rich ones and large entities to hide. I really enjoy them NOT being anonymous, like when we could look at the FBI draining Ross Ulbricht's wallets and moving it to Tim Draper, like people watching Gox-coins, which eventually lead to the arrest of the hacker and the hope for the victims to get their money back, and like people looking at the coins of Quadriga, which have been supposedly lost forever but weirdly moved ...

The stupid point of all is: Everybody except Craig Wright and his stupid, braindead BSV lemmings is fully convinced that the balance of Bitcoin's privacy is bad, that Bitcoin needs to provide "real anonymity", that it is a broken system and so on. As it was a bad thing that Bitcoin doesn't allows the 100k btc hacker and murderers to hide or any exchange to do an exit scam.

And all comes with Adam Backs word salading of fungibility. "Money requires fungibility, and fungibility requires unlinkability". It all was a marketing move to not call anonymity anonymity. The idea is that each token must be the same, so there must be no blacklists, and you can be sure that each of your coins are accepted everywhere.

Craig Wright made another idea: Fungibilty doesn't require anonymity, but transparency and accountability. Seems paradox, and I didn't know how he meant it (like so often), but (like so often) thinking deeper it made sense: You must be able to proof that you received money in a lawful way. If you did this, each token is the same.

And hei, freetrader, I don't care if CSW is Satoshi. His ideas stand for themselves. Unfortunately, his character is not really good, he is not good in dealing with fame, he has the bad habit of smearing left and right, and he seems to have a tendency to make up every little story until it is too big to be believable. But his ideas alone, if he was not Satoshi, if he was just any person, would make a very good coin, and would be worth enough to be listened to in Bitcoin (in some alternative universum). The interesting question will be, what happens with BSV when CSW is fully deconstructed, if that happens? The court evidences don't look very good, imho ...

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Yes, anonymity in this context essentially means "complete immunity to legal investigation." Only a fool would want a world like that, no matter what your political stripe, even if anarchist.

Privacy means the veil of secrecy can be removed only by due process of law. You know, that thing Western civilization was built on. Again, since when are we anti-law here? Not even Murray Rothbard, Bob Murphy, David Friedman, Gustave de Molinari, etc. were in any way anti-law.

It doesn't take much thought to see what would happen if the use of fully anonymous money became widespread: the most heinous crimes would flourish, and the scared-shitless population of every advanced country would happily give their government a mandate to take draconian anti-privacy measures.

Anonymity in the sense sought by BTC and BCH kills privacy. It forces either complete lawlessness or totalitarian government. It's entirely the wrong path and is indeed everything Bitcoin stands against.

Moreover, why do people feel like they can just ride in here with the latest speculation they found on Twitter as their sole response to reasoned arguments?

Why is anyone saying they don't know the situation, then jumping to conclusions anyway based on reddit filter-bubble nonsense anyway?

The rallying cry of BSV was always "restore the original protocol THEN lock it."

The fact that so many people think it was about just locking the protocol as it was at the fork just reveals how pitifully little research most people do, and how little thought. Why do you think it's called Satoshi's Vision? Any guesses?

The root problem, as I keep saying, is people think they can rely on Reddit and Twitter groups to give an accurate story, that trawling those cesspits constitutes "investigation." It's entertainment. Drama addiction. Rooting for your team. Confirming your bias. Some people don't want to do their own research or think past what someone handed to them on social media, but they want to participate in the big boy debates anyway.

To circle back for a moment, yes fungibility requires traceability. It looks like the opposite is true, but only because people are ignorant of longstanding money law and its role. Funny how things can look the opposite of what they are when you don't have the complete story. Think about it next time you think you got "most" of the story from Twitter.

 

[Dusty]

it's not crazy since p2sh was never in the original protocol.

Of course, that's why it has been added: in the original protocol there was no way to create an address from a script different from P2PKH.

besides, it was highly controversial at the time of adoption via Luke Jr

Not exactly: everybody (everybody!) agreed that this kind of feature was missing and was absolutely needed to allow standard addresses for complex scripting, the controversy was only on the way to implement it: Lukejr's OP_EVAL introduced a new and quite powerful OP (hence a bigger change to the original protocol with more unforeseen effects).

>I speak about changing the date and forgetting to change the day, and you reply me about a font problem? WTH?
why don't you try calming down. i just provided a counter example of how evidence in this case is being extremely manipulated

I'm sorry I overreacted, this happens to me when I really can't understand something. But I'm harmless, don't worry

Anyway, I perfectly know about information manipulation (I followed the block size debate quite closely and I learnt a thing or two from it...), and that's exactly why I asked a specific question and not a generic one: I would like to know the answer of that specific one. I don't want you (or anybody else) changing topic to avoid to reply.
That seems like a forgery, and very very easy to prove, so the case seems closed for me, if I don't get an explanation.

No

So, tell me: how will you "ban" P2SH?
Remember that P2SH is a hack made to be backward compatible, and even old nodes would evaluate the enclosing script (not the enclosed one, though).

So, I asked a few questions and nobody replied, why?

1) How do you create addresses from random scripts?

2) How do you ban P2SH transactions, since they are normal scripts? If you disable the internal script validation they are still valid, you "just" are unable to reuse the same address because after the first usage all other transactions can be redeemed.

Dusty, if you are willing to learn my position I'm glad to explain. If you are looking to let off some steam I'm not interested in sparring with you.

Yes, sorry if I reacted a bit too much.

In particular, P2SH does not expose any new functionality that script otherwise does not have. Just the position of the script changes.

Of course not, it's just needed to create a simple address, otherwise you would need to give the whole script to the payer, and that's not very practical since it can be quite long.

P2SH can circumvent IsStandard checks. When IsStandard and P2SH are removed at the same time the exact same expressive power of script is kept.

isStandard is a check that can be taken out at any moment, it's not the problem.
And also, it is enforced only on node relay since miners can create whatever transaction they want, already now.
So if you need to publish a non-standard transcation you just find a miner willing to accept it. I bet that with the right fee that's not a problem.

> How can you define scripts different from P2PKH without using something like P2SH?

By removing IsStandard.

I mean how can you create (usable) addresses.

> You mean every.single.software.out.there.
The software will be altered so that it expresses the semantics you want without P2SH. I don't see why this is supposed to be such great damage. Software can be altered. It is an inconvenience, nothing more.

Because removing work done by others is not a good message to devs, exactly like changing the protocol and becoming uncompatible with the past.
Extending a protocol in a compatible way should be the way to go, and how it goes in software development since ages.

> But the BSV development is totally and completely centralised by what CSW decides, so how can you separate the two?
No! By freezing the protocol even CSW can no longer decide.

Who could believe such a thing?
CSW said so many things that didn't happen, that I think nobody sane would believe such a crazy statement.
Actually I was one of his (few) supporters when he declared that it will attack the BCH chain with hashing power to avoid a split (do you remember "you split, we bankrupt you!" ?).
I was very impressed, because I like PoW and I think it should rule. I was very pro-craig at that time.
But then that, and many other claims, showed to be just empty words, and I don't like people that does not follow words with actions, sorry.

As others have written already existing P2SH utxo will remain valid but you will not be able to create new ones.

But I asked how, can you please explain me, technically speaking?

@Cristoph Bergmann:

Multisig, the only important application of P2SH, imho, is terrible to use. The only good implementation of it I know is on Ethereum, where it is done onchain and you wallet gets a notification when a transaction is partially signed.

You haven't used Melis then ;-)
The server coordinates signing by different parties until the transaction is ready to be broadcasted.
And sends you notifications when an action is needed.
And also applies restrictions (TFA, spending limits) if amongst the signers there is the server too.
You can also attach the transaction a little chat between the participants, so that the expense will be documented and will be accessible in the future.

With BSV something similar could be done, with P2SH, but it seems like it will be done with threshold signatures

No, that can't be done with threshold signatures because Melis, since day one (and it means at least since 5 years) is able to implement complex signature schemes like "N out M signatures are needed plus K mandatory ones".

No other wallet in the world is able to that that, and this works on BTC, BCH, LTC, GRS (and BSV too, until P2SH is working).

which are, of course, patented by Craig and developed by whoever knows.

As a software developer I hate software patents (actually I am against every kind of patents, but software ones are the worst) and that's another point I don't like about CSW.

 

[freetrader]

Anonymity in the sense sought by BTC and BCH kills privacy. It forces either complete lawlessness or totalitarian government.

Abject nonsense. There is no middle way for you apparently, despite common sense and facts staring you in the face.

Privacy protections on BCH and BTC are optional (e.g. CashShuffle).

Even when using those means, someone sending BCH or BTC can decide how much of their identity they wish to reveal when performing a transaction.

In Bitcoin Cash as in BTC this choice is left to the users.

Realistically though, privacy on BTC is not feasible for the general public with the fees that BTC developers aim for on chain. If your on chain transactions cannot be private due to economic constraints, then only the elite will have privacy (hello status quo). LN won't help them much at all in this regard for reasons ranging from economic to regulatory.

For some reason, only BSV users come across as allergic to active privacy protection measures, and I predict it will cost them in terms of real users willing to choose their chain.

 

[trinoxol]

With BSV something similar could be done, with P2SH, but it seems like it will be done with threshold signatures, ...

BSV supports multisig. On BTC, multisig is wrapped in P2SH because it is non standard (I believe). Multisig still uses the normal opcodes that are found in script on any chain. BSV can do multisig by placing the script in the tx output.

Electrum on-chain multisig works very well in my experience.

I think BSV intends to have the receiver of the payment generate the transaction and send it to the sender for signing. Currently, the sender creates the transaction based on the receiver address. To me this seems like a worse solution. P2SH was quite useful in this respect.
[doublepost=1562866606][/doublepost]

So, tell me: how will you "ban" P2SH?
Remember that P2SH is a hack made to be backward compatible, and even old nodes would evaluate the enclosing script (not the enclosed one, though).

So, I asked a few questions and nobody replied, why?

1) How do you create addresses from random scripts?

2) How do you ban P2SH transactions, since they are normal scripts? If you disable the internal script validation they are still valid, you "just" are unable to reuse the same address because after the first usage all other transactions can be redeemed.

Yes, sorry if I reacted a bit too much.

I mean how can you create (usable) addresses.

I won't hold your reaction against you. We all are passionate Bitcoiners.

You can't create addresses for random scripts anymore. That's another unfortunate collateral damage.

Two solutions: Make the receiver create the transaction (ad stated above), or send to a normal P2PKH address and the receiver immediately spends that again into a format that he likes better.

To be clear: I think losing P2SH definitely is a loss. But I do agree with prioritizing restoring the protocol in order to lock it down.

> How do you ban P2SH transactions, since they are normal scripts?

They are not. They require additional magic outside of what script can do. This is hard coded in the software.
[doublepost=1562866865][/doublepost]

For some reason, only BSV users come across as allergic to active privacy protection measures, and I predict it will cost them in terms of real users willing to choose their chain.

I really think that privacy is lacking. My feeling is that BSV can get away with reduced privacy because normal users don't understand this. That's not ideal.

So far I have yet to see a BSV company explaining how they expect to guard users privacy. None of the wallets have commented on that. I assume that they are using some naive way to generate payments that is easily trackable.

Bitcoin Core has implemented certain algorithms to chose UTXOs for spending so that tracking is harder. But it's a very incomplete solution.

If you want privacy you really need something like CoinJoin. Nothing else will do. BCH is developing fantastic CoinJoin options at the moment.

 

[cypherdoc]

>On BTC, multisig is wrapped in P2SH because it is non standard (I believe).

looks standard to me; see table 6.7:

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/52528/how-is-a-standard-bitcoin-transaction-defined

 

[KoKansei]

My browser couldn't even load that entire dump of tweets by @freetrader, but the first one looks like it is an attempt to smear Craig based on something purportedly said by his ex-wife.

Maybe we should ask @freetrader's highschool ex whether or not he is a competent coder, too?

This must be peak CDS. I don't see how things could get any loonier.

 

[freetrader]

I don't see how things could get any loonier.

Trust me, we're all waiting for Craig's experts to take the stand and then you'll find out.

 

[79b79aa8]

Rooting for your team.

paradoxically, the role of most political argumentation is not to convert to your point of view those who think differently. this very seldom happens. it is to reassure those who already share your point of view that they are correct in so doing, and to help them articulate and refine their position.

 

[cypherdoc]

oh well. doesn't help to fight it. go with it. inflation (Bitcoin) to the Moon:

 

[cypherdoc]

pg 45: according to the IRS, BCH was born from a UASF

August 1, 2017, one of those factions went live. That faction is the User Activated Soft Fork
(UASF). When this happened, the bitcoin chain split into two and created a “fork”.


heavens me; best pay your taxes just in case you get audited for some mistaken unrelated reason.
[doublepost=1562878374][/doublepost]pg 51

looks like Bitcoin shouldn't have anything to worry about in terms of getting banned by the IRS:

This is quite
an interesting trait which is often associated with on‐chain transactions, even though
Bitcoin is not anonymous in this regard by any means.
[doublepost=1562878836,1562878148][/doublepost]pg 95, lovely:

The determination of whether or not a Subject transacts in or maintains a balance
of bitcoins can be accomplished by several methods, such as interviews, Open
Source searches, and electronic surveillance. However, one method that should be
considered is serving Grand Jury Subpoenas to a variety of companies. Issuance of a
Grand Jury Subpoena should be considered for Apple, Google, and Microsoft for the
Subject’s complete application download history. Each application’s function should
be explored to determine whether or not the application can transmit, or otherwise
allow, transactions in bitcoin. If it is determined that an application was
downloaded by the Subject that allows for the storage or transmission of bitcoins, it
should be determined if the application only allows for P2P or P2B transactions or if
it allows for the exchange of bitcoins via P2B2P transactions.
Such as those who know the financial habits of the Subject, including, but not
limited to, bank tellers, family and friends of the Subject (if feasible), and
establishments the Subject frequents that may accept bitcoins.
Facebook, Twitter, and other social media outlets.
Notification of the Subject about the obtainment of information regarding their use
of bitcoin may be detrimental to the seizure of any bitcoin balance.
This can be accomplished via a simple Google search for the application.
Several companies offer services in which a user can back‐up their Bitcoin Wallet
online so that a secure backup with a 3rd party of all of the user’s Bitcoin Addresses
and Private Keys exists.
[doublepost=1562878974][/doublepost]pg 97, they are definitely coming:

If it is identified that the Subject does maintain a bitcoin balance, an attempt should
be made to identify the Subject’s Bitcoin Wallet and associated Bitcoin Addresses,
as well as the balance for each Bitcoin Address. The number of Bitcoin Addresses
for the user may be numerous. If the Subject does not appear to use a TPE, the
obtainment of the Bitcoin Addresses and Private Keys may be quite difficult, as the
Subject’s Bitcoin Wallet may only exist locally, such as on their cellular phone.
However, the Subject’s Bitcoin Addresses may be publicly available and tied to the
Subject, such as through posts by the Subject on his Facebook page or Twitter
account.
If it is learned that the Subject utilizes a specific TPE or online Bitcoin Wallet service,
a subpoena for records could be issued to the company to identify the Subject’s
bitcoin balance, Bitcoin Addresses, and any identifying information. Additionally,
the TPE may be able to provide any linked financial accounts, login times and
information, correspondence, and transaction details.
The reliability of this method, both in record retention and non‐notification of the
customer, has yet to be extensively tested. As such, it may not be advised to send a
Subpoena for records if not critically necessary.

 

[Zarathustra]

The only reason to support guaranteed anonymous agitation is if someone wants to destroy the society, because it would, if it was enabled.

@Norway risks his personal reputation when he says CSW is Satoshi and it turns out he isn't. @freetrader risks nothing if he's wrong. He can just create another account. It's a decadent, disgusting asymmetric fight that hopefully will become impossible with widespread realisation of Satosh's Vision.

I only need anonymity as long as I have to compete with anonymous rulers and competitors.
[doublepost=1562880819][/doublepost]

taxed economic activity cannot by definition be anonymous. you cannot realistically both want bitcoin to be a global currency and repudiate taxation.

Yes, and there is no such thing as a non-taxed economy, by definition.

 

[Bloomie]

According to Google, Craig Wright is just one of several contenders for "author of bitcoin" and is currently behind Dorian Nakamoto. Has Craig considered suing Google?

 

[Zarathustra]

Abject nonsense. There is no middle way for you apparently, despite common sense and facts staring you in the face.

Privacy protections on BCH and BTC are optional (e.g. CashShuffle).

Good news! Privacy protection for all kind of government, corporate and individual criminal agitation is optional.

In Bitcoin Cash as in BTC this choice is left to the users.

Wow! In BCH and BTC the choice is left to government, corporate and private criminals. Great Vision!
Worldwide adoption inevitable.

 

[freetrader]

I think I broke the Zarathustra bot.

Sorry, not sorry

 

[79b79aa8]

electron cash 4.0.6 and up has schnorr signatures enabled by default. this is not explicitly announced upon installation. i was absolutely NOT AMUSED about making a transaction and finding out after the fact that i participated in a group signature scheme.

the way paymail avoids address reuse is a far less intrusive implementation of a privacy feature, which does not force users to transact in ways that can potentially get them investigated.