Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Justus Ranvier]

Remember, that when Adam Back proposes it, a "2-4-8" proposal is not contentious.

When Gavin proposes "2 only", suddenly is is contentious, because "it's about governance".

He is using every disinfo manipulation tactic in the book. Was he lying when he first proposed "2-4-8?" or is he lying now? He doesn't want you to pay attention to the continuity between past and present so that you never even ask the question.

 

[awemany]

Googled PWC. Found this:

Pesky cypherpunks in pinstripe suits.

 

[Aquent]

I thought to reply to gmaxwell's r/bitcoin post with a laying out of the arguments and choice https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/439ada/bitcoin_is_a_payment_network_and_gold_and_smart/

I'll try and get it translated for the chinese miners too.

 

[YarkoL]

I find this very worrying:
does anybody have more info about Garzik meeting with miners in Beijing?

Yes, that one hasn't been much in the news, has it?

Regarding the bitcointalk thread, it is, or was an interesting thread until the looney squad came along. If anything, it shows how fragile the Core's relationship to Chinese miners is. Basically all they got to do at Hong Kong scalability conference was to sit nicely down on a sofa so someone could take a picture!

Now that's Classic is rolling out with Gavin as a representative, maybe they'll reconsider.

 

[Richy_T]

I thought this guy was a Troll, Did I miss something?

He was never really a troll. Often trolling is attributed by some to others simply because they don't like what they are saying.

I often disagreed with Jorge, often to the point of frustration, but I always felt he was sincere.

In fact, most of what I disagreed with is him more or less predicting where we are now. If we can't get a block size increase, he was pretty much right all along.

 

[cypherdoc]

Peter Todd having 2nd thoughts about the safety of a SF SW:

While segregated witnesses is a soft-fork, because it adds new data
blocks that old nodes don't relay segwit nodes can't sync from
non-segwit nodes and still be fully validating; once the segwit softfork
has activated full nodes need witness data to function. This poses a
major problem during deployment: if full node adoption lags miner
adoption, the segwit-supporting P2P network can partition and lose
consensus.

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012301.html
[doublepost=1454087883,1454087069][/doublepost]PT is rightfully picking on old nodes, as i have been, who will allow ANYONECANSPEND tx's. his attack is somewhat similar to one i outlined here:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-270#post-10067

of course, the obvious flaw in mine is that it's unlikely that an exchange as fully invested in Bitcoin's success as BTCC, would perform such an attack. but the gist of my theoretical attack remains; these old nodes could be problematic given that they will relay these tx's around to other nodes and have their security reduced to that of SPV levels. just b/c they don't have to upgrade b/c this is a SF doesn't mean they can't be exploited by some non-BTCC level like attacker or be partitioned off the network.
[doublepost=1454088170][/doublepost]What a non-upgraded wallet can do

• Receiving bitcoin from non-upgraded and upgraded wallets
• Sending bitcoin to non-upgraded and upgraded wallets with traditional P2PKH address (without any benefit of segregated witness)
• Sending bitcoin to upgraded wallets using a P2SH address
• Sending bitcoin to upgraded wallets using a native witness program through BIP70 payment protocol

What a non-upgraded wallet cannot do

• Validating segregated witness transaction. It assumes such a transaction is always valid

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki

 

[rocks]

If an economic majority of users can not figure a way out of this, I'll have to reconsider my faith in a fair number of things, including the ability of a group of individuals to be able to determine their own path from within the confines of a larger society. Basically my faith in individualism would be shaken. Right now I still can not believe this would happen and believe users will find a way, but we are getting close to the edge.

 

[cypherdoc]

in essence, PT is saying that a SF SW is just as bad as a HF in terms of consequences. if you're an old node, or even a new SW node, the consequences can be bad if a significant proportion of the p2p network refuses/doesn't upgrade. both those types of nodes may inherit major problems, such as partitioning. as well as possible ANYONECANSPEND attacks on the old node side.

therefore, a SF SW is just as dangerous as a HF in these terms. but it's seems worse than that; #Cuz700linesNewCode.
[doublepost=1454089940][/doublepost]http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches

And minoritycoins will be worth much less than majoritycoins, because they are worse in every practical way. They take longer to confirm, fewer people accept them for payment, they are protected by less hash power, and they are much more difficult to transact safely.
[doublepost=1454090605,1454089795][/doublepost]i stand corrected. SWSF is more complicated than i thought:

SegWit: +2,198 −391 code lines (ATM, including wallet and tests).

 

[cypherdoc]

Core praising itself for a roadmap when Gavin had the very first roadmap; 101
[doublepost=1454092560][/doublepost]jtoomim [10:28 AM] @jgarzik: i suppose it's time to start spinning up nodes on testnet?
jgarzik AM] @jtoomim: yeppers! Ideally we have a separate testnet, that forks early

 

[cypherdoc]

i honestly couldn't have top ticked my sell on DXD any better, 25 & 25.30:

[doublepost=1454095122][/doublepost]
jonasschnelli

Peter Todd:

>For this reason I'd suggest any hard fork use 99%+ activation thresholds, measured over multi-week timespan. Hard-forks should not be controversial for good social/political reasons anyway, so there’s little harm in most cases to at worst delaying the fork by two or three months if stragglers won't upgrade (in very rare cases like security issues there may be exceptions; blocksize is certainly not one of those cases).

Source: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012309.html

 

[theZerg]

there's only one case where a minoritycoin could compete with a majoritycoin and that is if majoritycoin breaks the 21million limit. In that case, the inflationary price pressures reducing the value of a majority coin could compensate for the pressures that Gavin mentioned that will reduce the value of the minoritycoin.

 

[cypherdoc]

clown won't answer me:

cypherdoc@adam3us: i didn't hear your answer on this one: even with a 99% SWSF requirement, we won't know what the full node adoption is. and since SWSF shifts the security assumptions to that of "non censored full node connections" and given what PT just taught us about partitioning, then we can't tell if SWSF is safe.

 

[Richy_T]

in essence, PT is saying that a SF SW is just as bad as a HF in terms of consequences. if you're an old node, or even a new SW node, the consequences can be bad if a significant proportion of the p2p network refuses/doesn't upgrade. both those types of nodes may inherit major problems, such as partitioning. as well as possible ANYONECANSPEND attacks on the old node side.

therefore, a SF SW is just as dangerous as a HF in these terms. but it's seems worse than that; #Cuz700linesNewCode.
[doublepost=1454089940][/doublepost]http://gavinandresen.ninja/minority-branches

And minoritycoins will be worth much less than majoritycoins, because they are worse in every practical way. They take longer to confirm, fewer people accept them for payment, they are protected by less hash power, and they are much more difficult to transact safely.
[doublepost=1454090605,1454089795][/doublepost]i stand corrected. SWSF is more complicated than i thought:

SegWit: +2,198 −391 code lines (ATM, including wallet and tests).

Something never smelled right about this hacky way of implementing segregated witness, regardless of its utility. Reusing stuff that was once used a different way is always questionable and quite simply not clean. I was kind-of giving them the benefit of the doubt because I hadn't read the full spec but often, first instincts are right, especially when honed by experience.

Though it has already been successful in delaying the max block size increase so score 1 for Core. When will people realize they're being taken for chumps?

 

[cypherdoc]

so PT's proposal for SW is to HF all old nodes off the network. well, that's f*cking just great given all the BS they've been slinging for the last year against HF's:

the obvious thing to do is to add a new service bit
such as NODE_SEGWIT, and/or bump the protocol version, and for outgoing
peers only connect to peers with segwit support.
[doublepost=1454098210][/doublepost]cypherdoc
the difference is that with a HF @ 75%, we are *intentionally* partitioning away the old nodes b/c we are CONFIDENT that the economic majority (users/miners) will reorg the network to the 2MB fork. the 95% SWSF folks are NOT CONFIDENT that their strategy is sound, thus they elect to try and fool old nodes into going along.
aquent [12:07 PM]
but gmaxwell and petertodd - although my tab says he is here? are very absent from explaining their presumptions
I mean, if this is about ideas, lets discuss them...
cypherdoc
the big new problem that has now become evident is that even with a 99% miner hashing SWSF requirement, we still won't know what the full node adoption is. and since SWSF shifts the security assumptions to that of "non censored full node connections" and given what PT just taught us about partitioning, then we can't tell if SWSF is safe.

 

[solex]

PT was instrumental in ending momentum for fixing the 1MB in mid-2013 with his childish "keep bitcoin free" video which trumpeted the importance of decentralization. Now, he can make a suggestion which could kill off more full nodes than a co-ordinated 3-letter agency attack.

 

[cypherdoc]

@solex

all in all PT has contributed something constructive to the debate b/c it brings into question the safety of SWSF for the first time from one of their own.

 

[Richy_T]

I've said before that Peter Todd is possibly the most dangerous person to Bitcoin. He is very smart but has learned no humility.

 

[cypherdoc]

well, i like PT today. he may have just killed SWSF.

 

[solex]

@cypherdoc
true, but his solution is as good as an overdose of chemo for a cancer patient.

 

[cypherdoc]

and don't dismiss what i just added to the debate:

and since SWSF shifts the security assumptions to that of "non censored full node connections" and given what PT just taught us about partitioning, then we can't tell if SWSF is safe.