Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

Since there are alot of readers coming through here right now learning about SW for the first time, here's an easy primer on SW math that will get you up to speed:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-410#post-14176

 

[Lee Adams]

No, I'd rather stick with what's worked so far with devs I trust with Classic. Namely Gavin and Jeff.

http://gavinandresen.ninja/segregated-witness-is-cool

and, as pointed out by@sgbett, Seg Wit is on the Classic roadmap.

Please note I have already said that I think unelected fork seg wit is a bad idea.

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@Lee Adams

It is the kind of fundamental idea that will have huge benefits in the future.

It would have been nice if Gavin explained what the huge benefits might be.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I don't know about you, but I don't want a bunch immature kid geeks backed by $76M of fiat oriented investors constantly tinkering around with my money on an ongoing basis.

But they've proven themselves to be so honest and trustworthy! How could anyone doubt them!

 

[cypherdoc]

@Lee Adams

I know what Gavin said. I've had private pm's about SW with him and tbh he hasn't looked at it carefully. I think he got one of his facts wrong too regarding the ANYONECANSPEND treatment. Not that I blame him. There are multiple aspects to SW. It's perfectly possible to like some aspects of it and hate others.

As far as it being on the Classic roadmap, I honestly think people are simply paying deference to pwuille on this without having had the benefit of time and analysis to really take apart the economics of what it does. We've already done that here on this thread I believe to a significant degree. What does it say to you when guys like me have to simplify the math for everyone? Why aren't the core devs out educating us on the math and its implications? And I've probed the waters pretty heavily from my perspective to Adam, Todd, Morcos, Strateman, & gmax and haven't heard any real counter arguments to my math or what I've said about its implications.

SW changes Bitcoin economics and that is not a good thing.

 

[theZerg]

@cypherdoc, I think that you are right. We've heard that it solves malleability, actually segregating the witness data we can take it or leave it. But the more you poke, the more nasty stuff starts leaking out like the unequal weighting of witness data, the wide open scripting facility, and of course the deal-breaking soft-fork anyone-can-pay.

In essence, most of these changes (seg wit, open scripting, soft-fork anyone can pay) force or encourage full nodes to trust the miners. This is a major modification of the philosophy and very much centralizes power into the hands of the few large miners we have.

When you combine this with their support of Corollo's relay network, LN, and their attempt to price many people out of the blockchain, and the vision that you get is clearly that of a company that is forcing centralization into the network.

 

[cypherdoc]

@theZerg

Actually, if you listen to pwuille's presentation, SW shifts Bitcoin's security model away from miners and over to an assumption that, as a new partially validating SPV node under SW, you are not being censored from other fully validating nodes who will do the validating for you and warn you through a fraud proof that there's a fraudulent TX somewhere in a circulating block. yet we don't have any info on how these magical proofs are going to be implemented. And they expect growth of these types of nodes to be a good thing? I thought fully validating full nodes were supposed to be non negotiable?

 

[freetrader]

A bitcoin business leader openly accusses core devs / blockstream of a massive conflict of interest. Just ... wow!

Sam Cole definitely has a no-nonsense approach to things.

His next article will be about SegWit ("SegWit Vs HF called plain overview")

Someone should point him to the information that this forum has collected so far, to enable him to present as complete a picture as possible.

 

[cypherdoc]

@theZerg

Actually, if you listen to pwuille's presentation, SW shifts Bitcoin's security model away from miners and over to an assumption that, as a new partially validating SPV node under SW, you are not being censored from other fully validating nodes who will do the validating for you and warn you through a fraud proof that there's a fraudulent TX somewhere in a circulating block. yet we don't have any info on how these magical proofs are going to be implemented. And they expect growth of these types of nodes to be a good thing? I thought fully validating full nodes were supposed to be non negotiable?

actually, a better way to look at this, is that it changes a full nodes security model away from miners to core dev. in the sense that since you've forever given up your right to object to code changes via this wide open script versioning by SF by not upgrading, you are now completely dependent on core dev to introduce changes to the protocol that they feel is right for Bitcoin. either that or "if you don't like it, go start your own altcoin".

 

[molecular]

Come on guys, how can any of this be a surprise. Roger owns a lot of btc. People are already scared shitless of Ethereum, and now you're coming in with your pesky Satoshi coin. They could swallow XT and Unlimited because they thought their wallets were safe, but you are encroaching on big money now. Molecular has it right.

SatoshisBitcoin is not a threat to their wallets, they will have their coins on the SatoshiFork all intact (at least the ones they had at the fork point and didn't spend afterwards). That (and of course the fact that people can mine again) is the beauty of SatoshisBitcoin (or any other 'spinoff'): people don't have to worry about missing the boat (except regarding the mining, of course)

 

[cypherdoc]

remember this?

 

[molecular]

whats not to like about segwit
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

afaik, the only thing anyone can dislike about segwit would be how it's implemented, i mean there's alot of code for segwit and its complex, testing on the testnet forked the testnet ( thats to be expected , but still it highlights how complex segwit is and the NEED to get this RIGHT )

i havn't heard anything negative other then " its a complex update "

these 2 posts by satoshis_sockpuppet contain some more negative points:

• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-429#post-14871
• https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-432#post-15048

my personal points:

• not necessary
• not scaling solution or blocksize increase
• benefits (fraud proof, malleability) can be done separtely (without the package)
• high risk
• high wallet dev workload
• complex
• cannot be undone
• sneaky "soft-fork" is sneaky and not necessary
• hackish misuse of scripting language semantics

 

[Richy_T]

Anyone good at infographics?

 

[Lee Adams]

Is there a transcript somewhere?

There doesn't seem to be. It's been a while since I heard it and to be honest I'm starting to doubt the benefits espoused now. He congratulates luke-jr on the 'soft fork' hack. He likes the fact it solves tx malleability. Then he loves the fact it can do 'super cool' scripting. Now this last one always sounded like a deal breaking feature to me, but I can understand the reluctance for it in this thread.

I think Gavin really needs to do another blog post about SW now.

 

[theZerg]

actually, a better way to look at this, is that it changes a full nodes security model away from miners to core dev. in the sense that since you've forever given up your right to object to code changes via this wide open script versioning by SF by not upgrading, you are now completely dependent on core dev to introduce changes to the protocol that they feel is right for Bitcoin. either that or "if you don't like it, go start your own altcoin".

Hmm... could be -- or at least to the core devs as expressed by miners running nodes. But the point is centralization, and maybe its worth a reddit post where it is all laid out...

I suppose the fraud proofs could partly reduce this centralization trend. However, last I read @Justus Ranvier was pretty unhappy about how they turned out in SW... maybe he would weigh in.

 

[albin]

I'm still dying to know if there's any real answer to the questions Stolfi raised in /r/bitcoinxt way back when SF SW first arose (other than "it's a softfork").... why is this not something like "prunable signatures via normalized txid"? I.e. why can't omitting or including the signatures be a feature of the calls made to the API/wire protocol?

 

[molecular]

@cypherdocBut the more you poke, the more nasty stuff starts leaking out like the unequal weighting of witness data, the wide open scripting facility, and of course the deal-breaking soft-fork anyone-can-pay.

I think I missed that bolded part. What is this "wide open scripting facility"?

 

[Zarathustra]

Hmm... could be -- or at least to the core devs as expressed by miners running nodes. But the point is centralization, and maybe its worth a reddit post where it is all laid out...

I suppose the fraud proofs could partly reduce this centralization trend. However, last I read @Justus Ranvier was pretty unhappy about how they turned out in SW... maybe he would weigh in.

That would be essential to win the mother of all battles that starts next month. If the mining pools implement SegWit, the game is over.

 

[cypherdoc]

1. since we've now found out straight from the mouths of gmax and pwuille that 4MB blocks are perfectly ok to pass around the network, why not make the SW math this; a+b<=4MB? this treats both normal and SW tx's equally and accomplishes all the other things core dev wants. it doesn't address my other concerns about the wide open script versioning rule changes that can be SF'd in, nor the SPV node deprecation but still better than what we're getting now if we have to have SW. plus, it gives us our blocksize increase to 4MB

2. this is no longer about a SF vs HF. that's just obfuscation. given the year long blocksize debate, everyone and their mother knows about the importance/significance of what is about to happen and if Classic is HF'd away, your mother i'm sure will upgrade her client immediately. it now is a matter of the meat and potatoes, ie, the details of what is being proposed. on the one hand, you have a perhaps 10 LOC change that changes a 1 to a 2. otoh, you have SW which changes a shitload of critical operating functions of core code which, imo, changes Bitcoin economics. not only that, to facilitate this change you need >2000 LOC to do so. we've already seen a testnet fork that has been explained away. hmmm, do we trust them on this given what has happened? anyways, it's about the actual changes themselves that we should be debating. forget SF vs HF.
[doublepost=1458056326][/doublepost]

I think I missed that bolded part. What is this "wide open scripting facility"?

read pwuille:

https://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability/
[doublepost=1458056422][/doublepost]someone dig out that Peter Todd tweet where he say "with SW we can do all sorts of things!". fyi, he's blocked me so i can't do it and i'm too lazy to go back here in this thread to find my post on it.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

I suppose the fraud proofs could partly reduce this centralization trend. However, last I read @Justus Ranvier was pretty unhappy about how they turned out in SW... maybe he would weigh in.

I wouldn't say that I'm unhappy about how they turned out in SW - I have no idea what Blockstream/Core means when they say "fraud proofs".

They are talking about a feature that uses that name, but without knowing exactly what they actually plan to implement I have no way to know if that features has any resemblance at all to what I was describing using the same term.