Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Oh, that would be confessed fraudster, Peter Todd. Right?
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.
- Thread starter cypherdoc
- Start date
- Aug 28, 2015
- 517
- 1,679
Who stole from coinbase? That's him. 
Bitcoin flying gents. A long while back I think I predicted a rally in november. Didn't quite believe it though. I have eventually got round to writing a white paper for my quantum resistant ledger idea. It is almost complete. Comments welcome (privately!).
http://theqrl.org
Bitcoin flying gents. A long while back I think I predicted a rally in november. Didn't quite believe it though. I have eventually got round to writing a white paper for my quantum resistant ledger idea. It is almost complete. Comments welcome (privately!).
http://theqrl.org
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
Definitely good to see some movement. We should be a long way from stability.
If it sinks in that SegWit is dead, the arguments left to block or derail a simple, clean maxblocksize increase will finally run out of steam. Because the most vocal players against a blocksize increase were o.k. with an increase to 4MB of 'blocks', after all ...
I kind of think that the bigger investors on the sidelines understand this dynamic and are acting accordingly.
I kind of think that the bigger investors on the sidelines understand this dynamic and are acting accordingly.
- Aug 22, 2015
- 1,558
- 4,693
Even if SegWit gets this dead then Maxwell will be propping it up pretending like nothing is wrong...
majamalu
Active Member
- Aug 28, 2015
- 144
- 775
Norway
Well-Known Member
- Sep 29, 2015
- 2,424
- 6,410
jbreher
Active Member
- Dec 31, 2015
- 166
- 526
Right... but those "quite a few" nodes need a complete history in order to re-sync on shared state.
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
@solex
That reminds me, earlier this year there was a local news story out of Pensacola about Satoshi Forest / Sean's Outpost, and one of the neighbors complaining wanting to get it shut down was .... Richard Grimes!
http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/2016/04/03/seans-outpost-homeless-shelter-threatened-city/82389850/
That reminds me, earlier this year there was a local news story out of Pensacola about Satoshi Forest / Sean's Outpost, and one of the neighbors complaining wanting to get it shut down was .... Richard Grimes!
http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/2016/04/03/seans-outpost-homeless-shelter-threatened-city/82389850/
albin
Active Member
- Nov 8, 2015
- 931
- 4,008
It occurred to me recently, that the way to get the entire Maxwellian / Toddian / Jdillon(-ian?) house of cards to collapse is to rigorously demonstrate a way that persistent tx backlogs might not be necessary to maintain hashing power in the absence of block reward. When you finally work your way through the corn-maze of post-hoc self-contradictory rationalizations and furious hand-waving, that's always where the issue ultimately lands.
Intuitively I have a hunch they're not right about that one (like it kind of falls into Satoshi's conception that the attacker profits more actually getting the Bitcoins, maybe even stronger because sans a block reward, you have to actually provide utility in processing tx's to get any bitcoins at all!), but the idea that in the tx fee only environment a miner will turn off hashing until accumulating enough transactions for MC=MR @ current difficulty does seem logical at first glance.
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
albin, more likely a miner would switch to mining alts with their hash-power than switching off. I don't really see this as a problem though.
If transactions are coming in at a fairly regular pace, the hash-power immediately following a block would potentially be quite low but would rise as transactions accumulated until, at some point, the full hash-power of the network would be in effect. What this would do is tend to push the finding of blocks towards a more regular 10 minutes than is currently the case. I would argue that this would be much better than the current situation where a new block is often found instantly with very few transactions and we can occasionally go long periods of times (hours plus) between blocks.
The idea that a well adopted Bitcoin would go any significant amount of time after a block is mined before sufficient transactions accumulated for a miner to consider it worth mining them (even if with only minimal effort) is laughable.
Core seem most intent on crossing bridges before we come to them. Except for hitting the block size limit for some reason.
If transactions are coming in at a fairly regular pace, the hash-power immediately following a block would potentially be quite low but would rise as transactions accumulated until, at some point, the full hash-power of the network would be in effect. What this would do is tend to push the finding of blocks towards a more regular 10 minutes than is currently the case. I would argue that this would be much better than the current situation where a new block is often found instantly with very few transactions and we can occasionally go long periods of times (hours plus) between blocks.
The idea that a well adopted Bitcoin would go any significant amount of time after a block is mined before sufficient transactions accumulated for a miner to consider it worth mining them (even if with only minimal effort) is laughable.
Core seem most intent on crossing bridges before we come to them. Except for hitting the block size limit for some reason.
Last edited:
Richy_T
Well-Known Member
- Dec 27, 2015
- 1,085
- 2,741
#checkmylogic
You can't use Segwit to send to a regular Bitcoin address, right? (Non-segwit nodes would only see the send to anyone can spend)
[doublepost=1482513312,1482512428][/doublepost]What I'm rolling around in my noggin right now is that segwit transactions are actually not individual transactions but actually two stage transactions of the form.
1aBcd...(address) -> Xdef3.... -> 3defg...
Where Xdef3... is actually "anyone can spend" and can, in terms of Segwit be regarded as an address under the control of Core (and, perhaps, the miners) and that the second part does not actually complete on the Bitcoin blockchain so is not subject to it rules.
As coins accumulate in Xdef3..., they only actually have to be redeemed if they are spent to a traditional Bitcoin address. Segwit to segwit addresses can just leave the coins where they are (do they? How could they not?) Otherwise, they are there, sitting in the Bitcoin equivalent of "Fort Knox" and are a juicy target for rehypothecation. In terms of tradtional Bitcoin nodes, Segwit addresses deal in promissory notes and are potential targets for inflation. As a soft fork, nodes running traditional Bitcoin transactions do not have to agree to participate.
I think this may be why certain Core members are spinning transactions denominated in Bitcoin (notably LN transactions) as Bitcoin transactions. Not because of LN but because when you make a Segwit transaction, you are exchanging your bitcoins for promissory notes.
Edit: I should note that I acknowledge that Segwit, as coded currently, (probably) is not inflationary. But following this methodology for upgrades, particularly with some of the scripting changes opens some very shady doors.
[doublepost=1482513563][/doublepost]There is a Peter Todd quote about how script versioning opens up a lot of things they can do but I can't find it.
You can't use Segwit to send to a regular Bitcoin address, right? (Non-segwit nodes would only see the send to anyone can spend)
[doublepost=1482513312,1482512428][/doublepost]What I'm rolling around in my noggin right now is that segwit transactions are actually not individual transactions but actually two stage transactions of the form.
1aBcd...(address) -> Xdef3.... -> 3defg...
Where Xdef3... is actually "anyone can spend" and can, in terms of Segwit be regarded as an address under the control of Core (and, perhaps, the miners) and that the second part does not actually complete on the Bitcoin blockchain so is not subject to it rules.
As coins accumulate in Xdef3..., they only actually have to be redeemed if they are spent to a traditional Bitcoin address. Segwit to segwit addresses can just leave the coins where they are (do they? How could they not?) Otherwise, they are there, sitting in the Bitcoin equivalent of "Fort Knox" and are a juicy target for rehypothecation. In terms of tradtional Bitcoin nodes, Segwit addresses deal in promissory notes and are potential targets for inflation. As a soft fork, nodes running traditional Bitcoin transactions do not have to agree to participate.
I think this may be why certain Core members are spinning transactions denominated in Bitcoin (notably LN transactions) as Bitcoin transactions. Not because of LN but because when you make a Segwit transaction, you are exchanging your bitcoins for promissory notes.
Edit: I should note that I acknowledge that Segwit, as coded currently, (probably) is not inflationary. But following this methodology for upgrades, particularly with some of the scripting changes opens some very shady doors.
[doublepost=1482513563][/doublepost]There is a Peter Todd quote about how script versioning opens up a lot of things they can do but I can't find it.
@Zangelbert Bingledack : Nice one. It is curiously missing the obvious though: Gold.
@awemany
That'd be about 275 kg of gold, fitting in maybe five very heavy briefcases or one nearly unliftable suitcase.
That'd be about 275 kg of gold, fitting in maybe five very heavy briefcases or one nearly unliftable suitcase.
Brg444 is doing his job at Blockstream, though it appears he still needs a helping hand from time to time:
Lets - just for the sake of it - entertain a big, bad conspiracy theory regarding SegWit. Just because I am expressing it here doesn't mean I believe it myself, but I still do it to form a hypothesis about future events which might make this theory interesting in hindsight (for the IMO still overall unlikely case of SegWit activation):
Assume that SegWit is a carefully planned poison pill in a larger scheme to destroy Bitcoin. 1MB stalling was the first step and SegWit is the next.
Assume no bigger, indebted country particularly likes Bitcoin. Rather, those countries want Bitcoin to go away.
China as well as the US have debt. But China much less so than the U.S. (per capita per GDP).
So it would be more in the U.S. interest to destroy Bitcoin early (and with it the trust in other cryptocurrencies), rather than China. China has more stamina left to absorb Bitcoin, whereas the U.S. has already a huge debt problem.
However, miners in China own the hashpower needed to switch to SegWit. The power that is signalling SegWit already is BTCC (Core affiliated) and BitFury (suspected U.S. NSA ties).
What if the Chinese government is using Bitcoin as a 'diplomatic' bargaining chip against the U.S.?
What would be expected if they reach agreement and China hands in the bargaining chip for some kind of favor from the U.S.?
It would mean that there would be a geopolitical realignment between those two powers, a sudden agreement of some sort, likely communicated in the mass media. Likely of that scale due to the level of prominence that Bitcoin has already reached and the severe future threat potential that it poses and that intelligent people in the government on both sides of the deal have likely figured out a long time already. So I think it would mean that the favor bargained is going to be big enough to be report-worthy. Coincident (or close enough) with SegWit activation and most or all of the Chinese miners switching to it.
Now, I do not believe Jihan or anyone else intends to screw us over. But I think it is hard for everyone to say 'no' under certain conditions and pressures.
It would also mean Core is likely working on a long con. With secp256k1 being one of the trust building bits to make the con long.
Assume that SegWit is a carefully planned poison pill in a larger scheme to destroy Bitcoin. 1MB stalling was the first step and SegWit is the next.
Assume no bigger, indebted country particularly likes Bitcoin. Rather, those countries want Bitcoin to go away.
China as well as the US have debt. But China much less so than the U.S. (per capita per GDP).
So it would be more in the U.S. interest to destroy Bitcoin early (and with it the trust in other cryptocurrencies), rather than China. China has more stamina left to absorb Bitcoin, whereas the U.S. has already a huge debt problem.
However, miners in China own the hashpower needed to switch to SegWit. The power that is signalling SegWit already is BTCC (Core affiliated) and BitFury (suspected U.S. NSA ties).
What if the Chinese government is using Bitcoin as a 'diplomatic' bargaining chip against the U.S.?
What would be expected if they reach agreement and China hands in the bargaining chip for some kind of favor from the U.S.?
It would mean that there would be a geopolitical realignment between those two powers, a sudden agreement of some sort, likely communicated in the mass media. Likely of that scale due to the level of prominence that Bitcoin has already reached and the severe future threat potential that it poses and that intelligent people in the government on both sides of the deal have likely figured out a long time already. So I think it would mean that the favor bargained is going to be big enough to be report-worthy. Coincident (or close enough) with SegWit activation and most or all of the Chinese miners switching to it.
Now, I do not believe Jihan or anyone else intends to screw us over. But I think it is hard for everyone to say 'no' under certain conditions and pressures.
It would also mean Core is likely working on a long con. With secp256k1 being one of the trust building bits to make the con long.