Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

AdrianX

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
2,097
5,797
bitco.in
I oppose BIP148.

I give the Core/SegWit supporters EXACTLY the same advice I have give on this forum again and again:
LOL, you should be selling them on that 98% consensus before they try to activate, don't forget to tell them not to signal before there is consensus. And my favorite, you should stop supporting the UASF if you stop supporting it you will get more support.

Troll harder, you still look like a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:

xhiggy

Active Member
Mar 29, 2016
124
277
We should go for the best technical solution, whoever proposed it.

This is not reality. The best technical solution exists independent of any one person proposing it. It will be rediscovered by someone else if it is actually the best technical solution.

In general, yes we should adopt the best tech while crediting and giving opportunity to those who invented/developed it. If this tech is being offered by someone who has sewn distrust and discord repeatedly for their own benefit, then you should just make your own, and shun them until there is evidence they have changed.

People did embrace GMAX's work, until it became not worth it...
 

jonny1000

Active Member
Nov 11, 2015
380
101
> In general, yes we should adopt the best tech while crediting and giving opportunity to those who invented/developed it. If this tech is being offered by someone who has sewn distrust and discord repeatedly for their own benefit, then you should just make your own, and shun them until there is evidence they have changed.

There are several independent implementations of SegWit

Out of interest, what terrible things have Johnson Lau and Pieter Wuille done? I think they are two of the nicest and most genuine people in the Bitcoin space
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
The security of SPV as implemented now, when the blocks are small and the ratio of full nodes to SPV nodes is as high as it will ever be is not the issue - it's as secure now as it's ever going to be (in the current SPV design).

As the transaction rate increases, and as the number of users increases, the security will drop.

The questions are whether to ignore this effect, or do something about it, and what (if anything) to do about it.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
I believe people have been defrauded by double-spends during block re-orgs. For example, during the Berkley database fork of 2013, I'm pretty sure I read that MtGox lost some money due to a double spend.

The thing is that block-reorgs affect both full-validating nodes and SPV wallets. If empirically the number of additional fraud cases due to SPV-level security is 0, then practically the security offered by a SPV wallet and a full node are equivalent.

Can someone explain why theoretically the security models are different if I'm only concerned with my transactions?
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
To start with, if you're going to start talking about security you need to be clear about what you're talking about. What do you need to be secure from? What's the expected behavior, and how could it be violated?

As a owner of bitcoins, you expect that:

  • your balance represents a defined percentage of the total ledger
  • your coins can not be spent without meeting the conditions you've specified
  • you can spend your coins by meeting those conditions.
Violations of the first two expected behaviors are fraud. Violations of the third expected behavior is a denial of service.

If your wallet is a full node, you can detect all forms of fraud, and your wallet will reject chains containing fraud automatically.

The cost of being immune to fraud is the cost of operating a full node.

If you have an SPV wallet, then your wallet can not detect fraud. Your risk of experiencing fraud depends on the willingness of economically-important full nodes (exchanges, payment processors, high volume merchants, etc) to resist fraud compared to the willingness of miners to engage in fraud.
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
Can someone explain why theoretically the security models are different if I'm only concerned with my transactions?
This idea that you can relax your security assumptions if you only care about your own transactions is false.

If anyone's coins are being confiscated by the network, then yours are also at risk.

If any counterfeiting is allowed in the network then your purchasing power is being diluted.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
@Justus Ranvier: Right, so running a full node allows you to more quickly detect a "systemic breach" like a coin moved without a valid signature, an output being spent twice, an output that never existed being spent, or an increase in the inflation schedule.

But I don't understand though how me running a full node makes a systemic breach less likely. If I run two full nodes it clearly doesn't make it further unlikely.
 

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
@awemany If the ratio of SPV nodes to full nodes double while the value held per node remains constant, then the incentive to attempt a subversion of enough miners & full nodes to successfully perpetuate fraud also doubles.

Doublings aren't as interesting as multiple order of magnitude changes though.
[doublepost=1495227816][/doublepost]@Peter R Currently running a full node is the only way to detect a systemic breach, and it's currently not possible for a full nodes that detects such a breach to communicate this fact to SPV nodes.

That's why you want fraud proofs.
 

awemany

Well-Known Member
Aug 19, 2015
1,387
5,054
Fair point. But that line of argument excludes changes in amount of POW security countering these incentives, or doesn't it?

I would assume the amount of extra transaction fees these new SPV users bring to the table is likely correlated to the amount of money stored on chain by these SPV users.
 

Peter R

Well-Known Member
Aug 28, 2015
1,398
5,595
Personally, I'm confident the incentives of bitcoin are sufficient to ensure that honest miners maintain the integrity of Bitcoin as money. If they do not, I see that as a failure of bitcoin anyways, so I'm not worried about learning of the failure with a bit of a time delay.

Although I agree that mathematically there are some frauds that cannot be proven to an SPV node in a compact way, I believe that practically all frauds can be proven to "beyond a reasonable doubt" to an SPV node operator. For example, if a breach was reported by credible sources (and I'm confident it would be unless all node operators were conspiring) then if the breach report turned out to itself be a fraud, any other full node operator could prove it (thereby debunking the fraud report).
 
Last edited:

Justus Ranvier

Active Member
Aug 28, 2015
875
3,746
The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.

A generation ago, multi-user time-sharing computer systems had a similar problem. Before strong encryption, users had to rely on password protection to secure their files, placing trust in the system administrator to keep their information private. Privacy could always be overridden by the admin based on his judgment call weighing the principle of privacy against other concerns, or at the behest of his superiors. Then strong encryption became available to the masses, and trust was no longer required. Data could be secured in a way that was physically impossible for others to access, no matter for what reason, no matter how good the excuse, no matter what.

It's time we had the same thing for money. With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless.
 

xhiggy

Active Member
Mar 29, 2016
124
277
> In general, yes we should adopt the best tech while crediting and giving opportunity to those who invented/developed it. If this tech is being offered by someone who has sewn distrust and discord repeatedly for their own benefit, then you should just make your own, and shun them until there is evidence they have changed.

There are several independent implementations of SegWit

Out of interest, what terrible things have Johnson Lau and Pieter Wuille done? I think they are two of the nicest and most genuine people in the Bitcoin space

They have done no terrible things to my knowing, blocking segwit is about moving in a different direction than the current Core philosophy which is largely influenced by Greg's thinking (blocksize limit with 2nd layer as a priority). Those who have chosen to work with him will probably have their reputation suffer when this move away from Core happens.

Most things are either 51% bad or 51% good, nothing is all bad, nothing is all good. Pointing out that Pieter is in the good 49% of Core is nice of you to do for Pieter, but doesn't change the argument.