Topic: Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT! - page 4. (Read 1358 times)

Just so I've got this straight, you want to present the simultaneous argument that Bitcoin is centralised due to a limited number of miners and also that a distributed network of non-mining nodes don't help at all with securing the network?  Is that correct?

Misinformation. There's more than 4 mining pools, although I admit that mining has been cartelized into a few players, especially Bitmain, who threw away Jihan Wu in the trash can.

But, the game-theory behind Bitcoin is holding everything together, miners will not dare attack the network. Something that cannot be said of your dead Zeitcoin. Hahaha!


Try harder, troll.

I like updates of protocols. After segwit im paying much less fees

This is the reality.
BTC Miners => 4 Mining Pool operators = security is dependent on 4 guys with over 51% attack vector.  

No matter the energy waste the btc miners give 4 guys a 51% attack potential every day.
LTC also has a mere 4 guys with a 51% attack potential,
which is why coins that have more than 4 guys are more secure than your PoW pooling coins.

FYI:
Wind_Fury is so clueless, he thinks running a non-mining node can earn him money. 

What anti-Bitcoin newbies like Kahos77 fail to understand, or avoid to understand, is that Bitcoin's model has been very sustainable. It's already right there in front of their eyes for 10 years.

More miners => more secure => more confidence => more users => higher price => more miners => ...

compare their respective hash rates. miners obviously believe in BTC much more than those altcoins.


"just as good security"---no, not with regard to attack cost.

why should there be any guarantee that price covers cost? is that true for gold miners or any other commodity producers? of course not, because that's not how free markets work.

Try harder troll.


Many have debated that, yet 10 years later it's still the king. Long live the king!

Plus use Bitcoin.com's mining power to mine Bitcoin Cash without the miners' permission, like the last time. Or pump Bitcoin Cash through their mined Bitcoins, like the last time.

Either of them will not be sustainable.

or they do another hard fork (5th one?) and manipulate the difficulty again to invent the incentive for miners to mine their shitcoin just like they did in the early days when they were practically giving away 12000-13000 BCH per day to miners and it was worth ~0.24BTC back then so the miners profit was ~3000BTC per day instead of 1800BTC per day.

Wait for the next Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Cash SV halvings. The Miners Of The Forks can't mine at a loss forever. The Forks will either follow Bitcoin's model, or their miners leave and mine Bitcoin.

the bech32 outputs are smaller not as inputs, it is because the ScriptPub (of type P2WPKH in comparison to P2PKH) doesn't have the same OPs otherwise the transactions spending them are bigger.
every SegWit transaction has overhead. there is the 2 byte marker/flag (=0001), there is a 1 byte leftover CompactInt indicating size of ScriptSig being zero, and finally the CompactInt added to witness indicating the number of items in it.
unless i've missed something in transactions, the total size seems to be the same for P2WPKH (smaller previous tx but bigger tx spending it)

as for ETF and Carltons debate about transaction size

bech32 uses MORE bytes
also nested segwit is also bigger
even funnier part is segwits only real purpose is for a LN gateway which requires bytes for a lock and multisig meaning when segwit does get real active for its true purpose the bytes per transaction will be higher

P.S
there are stupid websites that push the positive propaganda of segwit.. like this one
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/segwit/
celebrating how bitcoin has a 2mb block.. but look closely at the image... number of transactions: 225 (facepalm)

and good old doomad. running out of technical rebuttles so resorts to personal attacks.. how obvious
also trying to make out that i am part of bch team is him scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

if only he knew more about bitcoin and LN and not so much caring for his own greed, would doomad be singing a different song
by the way. devs do ridicule me. until they realise fixing bitcoin means more then protecting their own reputation. the ridicules end up just being about how i inform the community of flaws rather than be about the flaws. yea i dont spoon feed all details but for good reason. if those who rebuttle cant work it out, its their loss

as shown by doomads link. the devs had to do a workaround for segwit when i started mentioning its flaws in 2015/6.
same with segwits noinput. i mentioned it last year and suddenly they decide after introducing it to then not make it a public release and even a year later they still cant figure out a workaround for it. (but they still want to have it, otherwise they would have dropped it)
seems that doomad and devs have things in common. care more about reputation than bitcoin issues

If you cared about Bitcoin, you'd stop trying to turn it into a shitty BCH/SV clone.  That benefits no one other than the people in charge of those centralised shitcoins.  Now go whine to the devs of your preferred client, BU, to implement all the utterly dismal, imbecilic crap you think would make Bitcoin better.  Most of the devs on this chain just think you're a sad joke.  No wonder they ridicule you.



No, moron, you've got that backwards.  I've already told you.  

some moral following devs have also highlighted the flaws.. you seem to be someone that wants things to break and then say "oh well X did say it was an experiment"

you love the idea of getting people off the network, you love the idea of increased fee's to deter usage, you love the idea of promoting positives to get newb's in. but then lack care about what happens when users actually want to use it

if you cared about bitcoin and cared about people in the worlds utility of it, more than your own greed of getting rich from others loses. you would actually see things more clearly.

it appears you are more so the "scum" as you have quite openly shown how much you dont want people to use bitcoin as a currency

good luck with your greedy self indulgent idea's of how you wish bitcoin to be bypassed and users pushed towards other networks. but even with me wishing you luck, im afraid to tell you that your not going to get rich via your LN promoting and utility

nested segwit inputs are a little bigger than old style inputs, but bech32 (i.e. native segwit) inputs are a little smaller

I didn't say SegWit transaction have smaller size in byte and i know the fact SegWit transaction have bigger size in byte, what i said are :
1. SegWit transaction have far lower weight size
2. SegWit indirectly allow higher TPS because max. block size changed from 1MB to 4 million weight unit


Fair point, but the fact average transaction fees would be higher without SegWit remains true


I agree with your opinion, but few people also argue that's the cost of decentralization.

How about you actually wait to see how it's implemented before you completely jump the gun with your alarmist 'sky-is-falling' nonsense, where you insinuate we're locked into a course where SegWit transactions will be malleable?

You could have phrased it that if the feature was implemented incorrectly, it had the potential to allow malleability.  But you chose to phrase it in the way that you did, making it sound as though malleability was the only conceivable outcome. 

You just can't help yourself.  Stop pointing the finger at other people when they call you out on the undeniable fact that you bring it all on yourself.  People would stop calling your integrity into question if you stopped giving them every reason to.

If it looked likely that the proposed feature would reintroduce malleability and devs still wanted to push ahead with it, then I would absolutely question that decision, just as I suspect everyone else here would.  Which is precisely why such an outcome is unlikely to ever occur.  But not once in the course of your last few years of your mindless FUD have you ever come close to making a reasonable statement like that.  As such, you deserve all the attacks people make on your character.  I can't even begin to comprehend how you look in a mirror and like what you see.  You are scum.

You "get it", OK. Or you claim you get it. But it doesn't mean there's "something", especially from your history, your anti-Core bias, and your pro-increase-block-size-or-die-propaganda.

1. july 2018 (14 months ago) devs introduced the new feature which they said would be included in the next segwit script update
2. devs were actually playing around with it meaning those with applications that had it in could use it.
3. the words i used were not 'publicly activated feature'
4. the words i used were "introduced".. which is the case
5. as shown by many quotes i could offer you, including one example i put into previous post to windfury. i have actually been telling people about no input since last year. shame you couldnt pick up on the subtly too
6. no input is both a sighash and opcode. if you dont think its a sighash then maybe you should review the bip which literally calls it SIGHASH_NOINPUT
7. you can do all you want trying to insult a forum username by attacking the personality. but if you do your research you will end up agreeing with the stuff i mention. (once you wipe away your 'fluffy cloud only mention positives' mindset)

people on this forum dont want to know only the fluffy positive propaganda which they will get from adverts and people promoting bitcoin. people want the real information which includes the negative.. remember to be on this forum they must have already heard of bitcoin. so there is no need to be trying to positively sell people on the fluffy cloud features. because they have already been introduced.. instead they want proper and real information

instead of trying to hide the negatives.. you should also be highlighting them.
a great currency is one that recognises its flaws and fixes them. not works around/hides them
if you actually cared for bitcoin then you would have the old mindset of the original devs that actually wanted people to try to find the flaws and try to break bitcoin so that bugs can be fixed.

P.S segwit is not a bugfix. its a gateway tool for another network

i think the subtly game is up due to pooya revealing NO input.. if you didnt get the hint when i was being subtle about offering no input.. maybe you just didnt get the hint

i literally in several topics told people including yourself i was both being subtle.. and i was offering them NO_INPUT

just because you didnt get it, doesnt mean i didnt "show anything/offer" and doesnt mean "there's nothing"

but now its been presented to you clearly. i hope you actually do some research on the matter. and i mean read code and documentation. not just get propaganda fluffy cloud speaches from friends that cover up the true risks.

EG doomad saying he loves schnorr and soft forks. which shows he has not looked into the risks and is just fluffy clouding