Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Ouch!

 

[Zarathustra]

@freetrader

Are you alive and well?

 

[adamstgbit]

sooooo, when are you guys planning to fork off?

 

[majamalu]

@freetrader

Are you alive and well?

He asked me if I could check the mail in transifex.com because he was going to take vacation for about 10 days.

 

[cliff]

FYI - I created a BUIP index here:

https://bitco.in/forum/threads/buip-index.1414/

Let me know if there are any errors or suggestions.

 

[jonny1000]

How about the rule that a spend_any transaction can be spent by anybody? If core get all the miners on board and you try to spend from a spend_any transaction without using segwit, your transaction will not be included in a block.

Under Segwit all old rules still apply, it is a softfork that adds extra conditions to some anyone can spend transactions, one can still do old anyone can spend transactions if they want.


As this is a softfork, existing nodes are not booted off the network. This prevents the chain from splitting into two. The softfork rather than a hardfork policy is not political or ideologically driven, instead the decision is a practical and pragmatic decision, to keep the network together on one chain.

 

[Zarathustra]

"In fact this is not only a problem of segwit, but a problem of any soft forks, since they all have this virus-like behavior"

 

[Nat-go]

jonny1000, you just write how SF-SW should work. How it could work, look at this for example: Sergio Demian Lerner -- issues with segwit continues to come up ; it's nowhere ready for prime time
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4zfbk7/bitcoindev_attack_by_modifying_nonsegwit/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4zfbk7/bitcoindev_attack_by_modifying_nonsegwit/

The softfork rather than a hardfork policy is not political or ideologically driven, instead the decision is a practical and pragmatic decision, to keep the network together on one chain.

The SF keeps old clients, old transactions, old blocks, new clients, new transactions, new blocks together on one chain.
Practical and pragmatic? From the linked reddit-thread:
the-goat-herder
Yeah and the complex solution will create another new problem which will require an even more complex solution .... and on and on until the code becomes unintelligible and useless.

 

[Bagatell]

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/world-news/banking-crisis/are-central-bankers-coming-to-a-bitter-end/

No they're not Martin. They have cushy consultancies in fintech now.

 

[Roger_Murdock]

I'm surprised I haven't seen more discussion surrounding this. This sounds very promising and like it could be the start of the kind of "organized resistance" I was just talking about.

Are the "Ents" (major hodlers) finally going to go to war?

 

[steffen]

Credit Suisse on blockhain and bitcoin:
https://www.finextra.com/finextra-downloads/newsdocs/document-1063851711.pdf

A few qotes:

We spoke to a number of investors who are concerned about medium-term disruption to the payments landscape. However, our analysis shows there is little risk from blockchain.

Ha ha

Our key conclusions are that;
1) bitcoin is likely to remain a niche payment network and unlikely to gain mainstream adoption, and
2) we see little scope for blockchain technology to disrupt the back-end architecture given that card acceptance already takes place instantly and card schemes provide invaluable dispute management which is difficult for a new technology to disintermediate.

Credit Suisse doesn't understand the advantages of bitcoin. A hard currency will outcompete inflationary currencies. A non-censorable currency will outcompete censorable currencies. A currency that cannot be easily seized/stolen will outcompete the ones that can easily be seized/stolen.

 

[AdrianX]

Under Segwit all old rules still apply, it is a softfork that adds extra conditions to some anyone can spend transactions, one can still do old anyone can spend transactions if they want.


As this is a softfork, existing nodes are not booted off the network. This prevents the chain from splitting into two. The softfork rather than a hardfork policy is not political or ideologically driven, instead the decision is a practical and pragmatic decision, to keep the network together on one chain.

You do realise old nodes don't relay or validate segwit transactions - in effect they just host the blockchain and are capable of broadcasting pre segwit transactions. Old nodes just accept what the network tells them is a valid block. they are nothing more than zombie nodes hardly part of the P2P backbone of an online Digital Cash protocol.

There is not much point in preserving them if they don't add to network security. Segwit is just a hack to bypass the security full nodes would otherwise provide to prevent such an insidious hack.

 

[Richy_T]

it is a softfork that adds extra conditions to some anyone

That is a change in the rules. It is a more restrictive change but a change is a change is a change.

 

[jonny1000]

Old nodes just accept what the network tells them is a valid block. they are nothing more than zombie nodes hardly part of the P2P backbone of an online Digital Cash protocol.

They check there are no double spends and the input all the way back to the coinbase transaction..

Segwit is just a hack to bypass the security full nodes would otherwise provide to prevent such an insidious hack

That is a political point of view. It is important to also be pragmatic and practical and realize this actually works

 

[Christoph Bergmann]

Anybody know who /u/frogolocalype is?

http://archive.is/By0d5

Had a conversation with him on rbitcoin.

He is hired by blockstream From all the toxic people around blockstream, he is the most toxic imho. I'd wish I knew who he is ...

 

[freetrader]

@freetrader

Are you alive and well?

Never better. Back from vacation, rested and ready to go
Thanks for your concern everyone, and thanks @majamalu for looking after the translations of the fork site.
I've gotta get those translations up, going to have a chat in the #website channel (public btcforks Slack).

I'll be checking into the on-chain scaling conference today, and of course I'll be updating threads here :-D

 

[Justus Ranvier]

That is a political point of view. It is important to also be pragmatic and practical and realize this actually works

The pragmatic and practical course of action is to realize that you and everyone you represent are the most dangerous form of toxin and fork to a different currency as far away from you as possible.

You have the nerve to run that line after we were subjected to over a year of propaganda that the block size must remain at 1 MB forever because the ability of Luke-Jr to run a fully validating node on his parent's farm dial up connection was essential to Bitcoin's security model.

What's it going to take to get rid of you? Garlic? Silver bullet? Holy water?

 

[Roger_Murdock]

Oh man, this piece almost gave me an aneurysm.

Hard forks and Consensus Networks: Meta Questions and Limitations

Pieter Wuille elaborates:

“No matter how you determine the switchover date, there is no way of knowing when (and whether at all) everyone changes their full nodes (and perhaps other software), and even very high hash power votes cannot prevent an actual fork from appearing afterwards. At best, people lose the guarantee that their confirmations are meaningful (because at some point it becomes clear that the other side will get adopted, and they need to switch). At worst, a fork persists, and two partitions appear, in each of which you can spend every pre-existing coin. This defeats the primary purpose Bitcoin was designed for: double spend protection.”​

Really? Peter Wuille conflating the ability to spend pre-fork outputs on two chains with a double spend? But here's the section that really made me lose my mind:

Secondly, a hard fork is a clear attack on the basic security premises and underlying philosophy of Bitcoin. There is no software mechanism to measure user consent to remove consensus rules. There is a widespread misunderstanding in the Bitcoin community which states that hard forks can be enforced as a matter of hash power. This wrongly conflates the nature of hard forks with that of soft forks. Eric Voskuil explains:

“In the case of a hard fork, a new transaction may be valid despite not conforming to the original rules. In the case of a soft fork, new transactions are valid under the original rules. In other words, holders of a money have not agreed to a hard fork but inherently accept a soft fork… A soft fork can be enforced by simple majority of processing power. In other words a soft fork isn’t actually a change in consensus among people, it’s a change that flows from the people controlling a majority of processing power… The original paper does not articulate a distinction between these rules, loosely referring to both scenarios as consensus. However it is an error to refer to soft fork rules as ‘consensus rules’.”

So, it is very true that a majority of hash power can enforce new rules with a soft fork. However, it is clearly inaccurate to say that hash power has any relationship to the software’s consensus rules.​

"No software mechanism to measure user consent to remove consensus rules"? WTF? Um, how about, oh I don't know, not running that software, not valuing / accepting coins from the chain produced by that software? This is so completely backwards it's insane. It's soft forks that don't give ordinary users an easy way to effectively not consent to a change imposed by miners. If you don't consent to a hard fork, you can simply not do anything, which means that there's no coordination problem for a disgruntled minority to overcome. On the other hand, if there's a minority group that's strongly opposed to a soft fork, they're now faced with the difficult task of coordinating their own hard fork if they don't want to be swept along.

And holders "inherently accept a soft fork"? What kind of Orwellian bullshit is that?! Hey, I know. I’ll acquire 51% of the hash power and implement the following two simple soft forks: “no blocks are valid unless I mined them” and “transactions that attempt to spend from addresses I don’t own are invalid” (i.e., a complete blacklist of everyone else’s coins). Those are just “new rules” (and thus not “consensus rules”), and so there’d be no problem, right? After all, by holding Bitcoin you would have already “inherently accepted” those modest changes.

 

[Justus Ranvier]

@Roger_Murdock Pieter Wuille has gone full "War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength."

 

[satoshis_sockpuppet]

@freetrader @Roger_Murdock

This is exactly, why I think it is extremely important to use the SegWit activation logic to trigger a HF.

No, I didn't inherently consent to being SW-Softforked by Pieter Wuille and his gangsters. And I can set my node up, to not follow his Blockstream-Chain, and the non-SW chain will be Bitcoin. Not the SW-Fork.

Fuck you Blockstream and everybody working for them. Every single one of them needs to be as far away from Bitcoin as possible.