Topic: How would it be know if a segwit thieft actually happened? (Read 677 times)
nullius is correct in his loving account of Maxwell’s humanitarian contribution to bitcoin. What I don’t understand is how someone can be that dedicated and selfless while working on a system that is purely a money creating tool of commerce. Nearly everyone else with talent in the bitcoin ecosphere that began working on bitcoin as a cool coding side project, a cryptography nerds play toy, an anarchist/libertarian fantasy decided to jump ship with dreams of massive wealth and glory. I could see someone with an altruistic love for privacy and society and a crystal clear understanding of cryptography dedicating every available extra moment to the advancement of SecureDrop but not Bitcoin. Stefan Thomas and David Schwartz (JoelKatz) went on to chase riches with Ripple. Vitalik Buterin and Mihai Alisie ran away to huff ether for fame and riches. So many have left while Maxwell just chugs along on Reddit, IRC and this upholstered brothel as he has always done. Why he doesn’t just leave all this crap to Wuille and Todd to chase fame and glory I’ll never understand.
Meh I was wrong about one thing. I should have described him as 'Passingly entertaining'. As for the rest, the evidence is ^.
Anyway, I leave you to get on with your topic.
Anyway, I leave you to get on with your topic.
So, Mircea Popescu argues against Segwit with death bounties. This is how his followers make their case:
The post which evidently set “Last of the V8s” off his rocker was in a PGP-related thread, wherein I briefly quoted myself from this thread. An interesting portion of Mr. V8s’ signature is here presented with my addition of red boldface:
I do not accept segwit outputs as payment, nor send them.
~14 easy tricks to save bitcoin http://trilema.com/2013/how-to-airgap-a-practical-guide/
The auditable hardware RNG https://archive.is/CGQkR
Last I checked, the “phuctor” page had disappeared and was a redirect to the author’s homepage. I didn’t bother digging, given that said author is one whom I’ve found to eviscerate his own credibility:
Anyway, this is off-topic on this thread. If you care to take it up elsewhere, feel free to start a new thread in an appropriate forum and PM me the link. I’ll reply if (and only if) it’s interesting.
Any more questions about M.P., cellard? Don’t take that the wrong way. I’ve read Trilema; I know that its author knows how to speak very persuasively.
(Aside, MPEx (Mircea Popescu’s stock Exchange) still demands a 50 BTC registration fee despite that its homepage currently advertises a 30-day total volume of 1.19999520 BTC. That’s for the entire exchange—while the homepage also advertises, “Providing nucleation in the superheated fluid of Bitcoin.” Popescu’s forum spokeswoman has been silent since 18 April 2016. Popescu is evidently not a man who can keep a big-money project going for more than a few years. Too bad for all the people who paid 50 BTC for that.)
The post which evidently set “Last of the V8s” off his rocker was in a PGP-related thread, wherein I briefly quoted myself from this thread. An interesting portion of Mr. V8s’ signature is here presented with my addition of red boldface:
I have (much) more to say about PGP keys.
Did you follow the phuctorings? I do not accept segwit outputs as payment, nor send them.
~14 easy tricks to save bitcoin http://trilema.com/2013/how-to-airgap-a-practical-guide/
The auditable hardware RNG https://archive.is/CGQkR
Last I checked, the “phuctor” page had disappeared and was a redirect to the author’s homepage. I didn’t bother digging, given that said author is one whom I’ve found to eviscerate his own credibility:
N.b. that unlike most of the anti-Segwit crowd, Popescu is against P2SH, too. He really means it when he claims that the only valid Bitcoin addresses start with a “1”.
Caveat lector. Generally, Popescu states many truths, including a few controversial ones; he liberally mixes that with half-truths, innuendo, bare assertions of questionable factuality (or worse), and occasionally, outright nonsense. He is obviously intelligent. He excels at showmanship. He is probably effective at overawing and brainwashing many readers. I have no idea what his game is, and he is not sufficiently important for me to attempt divining his motives.
Caveat lector. Generally, Popescu states many truths, including a few controversial ones; he liberally mixes that with half-truths, innuendo, bare assertions of questionable factuality (or worse), and occasionally, outright nonsense. He is obviously intelligent. He excels at showmanship. He is probably effective at overawing and brainwashing many readers. I have no idea what his game is, and he is not sufficiently important for me to attempt divining his motives.
Anyway, this is off-topic on this thread. If you care to take it up elsewhere, feel free to start a new thread in an appropriate forum and PM me the link. I’ll reply if (and only if) it’s interesting.
Any more questions about M.P., cellard? Don’t take that the wrong way. I’ve read Trilema; I know that its author knows how to speak very persuasively.
(Aside, MPEx (Mircea Popescu’s stock Exchange) still demands a 50 BTC registration fee despite that its homepage currently advertises a 30-day total volume of 1.19999520 BTC. That’s for the entire exchange—while the homepage also advertises, “Providing nucleation in the superheated fluid of Bitcoin.” Popescu’s forum spokeswoman has been silent since 18 April 2016. Popescu is evidently not a man who can keep a big-money project going for more than a few years. Too bad for all the people who paid 50 BTC for that.)
Another limited reply:
To be clear, I had my heart set on “nullius” as a favoured nym for a future project years before I ever heard of nullc. My attachment to the nym is why I made the mistake of beginning to use it without checking for collisions with existing use. (I’m not the “nullius” on Reddit, either; I’ve never had a Reddit account.)
I’ll take it as quite a compliment if you mistook Gregory Maxwell for me!
Good point. Thus, is it any wonder that
are leading big-blockers? Cui bono?
Thank you for focusing on “real technical reasons”. In the twentieth post I made to this forum as a “Newbie”, I wrote:
Now, let’s see what “real technical reasons” are offered by the evidently intelligent gentleman of whom you speak:
Mircea Popescu’s primary technical argument against Segwit is, “There’s a one Bitcoin reward for the death of Pieter Wuille.” (Dr. Pieter Wuille, a/k/a sipa, is one of the principal codesigners of Segwit; he is gmaxwell’s esteemed colleague.)
I remember thinking nullc was nullius due to the similarity!! i did later see that it was Gregory Maxwell.
To be clear, I had my heart set on “nullius” as a favoured nym for a future project years before I ever heard of nullc. My attachment to the nym is why I made the mistake of beginning to use it without checking for collisions with existing use. (I’m not the “nullius” on Reddit, either; I’ve never had a Reddit account.)
I’ll take it as quite a compliment if you mistook Gregory Maxwell for me!
I wanted to add that this discussion also puts light to the fact that this "dishonest miner" scenario is kept in check because normal users, small merchants CAN run full nodes. That should explain why keeping block size within sustainable limits is important. A lower block size keeps the entry-barrier for running a full node as low as possible.
Good point. Thus, is it any wonder that
Jihan and co
are leading big-blockers? Cui bono?
[Snipped long quote from Mircea Popescu. — nullius]
Im not too familiar with this but apparently MP got a lot of bitcoins, and these guys are not trying to scam anyone with shitcoins (forks included) and as far as I understand they are trying to do what's best for bitcoin, so I value their opinion on the matter. I would like to know what you think and why there are big discrepancies with Core, because these must be real technical reasons, since again, they aren't selling their own scamtoken, as Roger and co do.
Im not too familiar with this but apparently MP got a lot of bitcoins, and these guys are not trying to scam anyone with shitcoins (forks included) and as far as I understand they are trying to do what's best for bitcoin, so I value their opinion on the matter. I would like to know what you think and why there are big discrepancies with Core, because these must be real technical reasons, since again, they aren't selling their own scamtoken, as Roger and co do.
Thank you for focusing on “real technical reasons”. In the twentieth post I made to this forum as a “Newbie”, I wrote:
So as for ulterior motives to oppose Segwit. What overt arguments are advanced by the anti-Segwit side?
On the presumption that Segwit-haters must have at least some plausible excuse for their position, I have spent far too many hours searching the Net and reading what they say. My objective: Find even one good reason to oppose Segwit on technical grounds. Yet despite my such efforts, I have never seen a valid technical argument against Segwit.
On the presumption that Segwit-haters must have at least some plausible excuse for their position, I have spent far too many hours searching the Net and reading what they say. My objective: Find even one good reason to oppose Segwit on technical grounds. Yet despite my such efforts, I have never seen a valid technical argument against Segwit.
Now, let’s see what “real technical reasons” are offered by the evidently intelligent gentleman of whom you speak:
Mircea Popescu’s primary technical argument against Segwit is, “There’s a one Bitcoin reward for the death of Pieter Wuille.” (Dr. Pieter Wuille, a/k/a sipa, is one of the principal codesigners of Segwit; he is gmaxwell’s esteemed colleague.)
Segwit sinner, dare ye blaspheme Bitcoin Jesus? If you squint at it hard enough, you can see a 666 in the Segwit logo. It is hidden and double-crossed inside itself within an ancient Satanic symbol called the Iron Knot of Thermopylae:
And if you play the Segwit jingle backwards, you can hear it say, “Hail Satan!”
The number 51 is also clearly a reference to Area 51. If Segwit is a 51% attack against Bitcoin, as OP so cogently explained, then how could the grey aliens not be involved!? Try explaining that away, Segwit shill.
I know this is all true, because I read it on /r/btc.
But that’s not the worst. There is a frightening secret to Segwit; but I can’t tell you about it, because theymos would ban me.
And if you play the Segwit jingle backwards, you can hear it say, “Hail Satan!”
The number 51 is also clearly a reference to Area 51. If Segwit is a 51% attack against Bitcoin, as OP so cogently explained, then how could the grey aliens not be involved!? Try explaining that away, Segwit shill.
I know this is all true, because I read it on /r/btc.
But that’s not the worst. There is a frightening secret to Segwit; but I can’t tell you about it, because theymos would ban me.
Is there some kind of solution to this problem. Ie a method to hide the addresses from the miners?
Not with Bitcoin. Since every transaction is supposed to be public. However, its possible to minimize the linkage of your addresses to your real life identity. If not, use a mixer that guarantees you the most privacy. It wouldn't really work after the miner decides to do this since you can't move your coins anymore.
If miner B controls 51% of the network could they prevent anyone they want from making a bitcoin transaction?
If someone controls more Bitcoin hash power than the entire rest of the world combined, then yes.
However, the main issue is with them identifying the addresses that those contributors uses. They could "freeze" the address associated with the supporters by refusing to confirm their transactions. However, I don't see that this would help them or Bitcoin. It would just bring out the fact that, if its done, censorship is possible with Bitcoin.
If miner B controls 51% of the network could they prevent anyone they want from making a bitcoin transaction?
If someone controls more Bitcoin hash power than the entire rest of the world combined, then yes.
However, the main issue is with them identifying the addresses that those contributors uses. They could "freeze" the address associated with the supporters by refusing to confirm their transactions. However, I don't see that this would help them or Bitcoin. It would just bring out the fact that, if its done, censorship is possible with Bitcoin.
Does that also mean that if miners collectively dislike policies implement by the developers they could effectively freeze their accounts as a form of boycott?
Bitcoin doesn't use accounts.
How would the miners know which bitcoins belong to the developers?
If miner B controls 51% of the network could they prevent anyone they want from making a bitcoin transaction?
If someone controls more Bitcoin hash power than the entire rest of the world combined, then yes.
It's sad that people are getting bamboozled by malicious disinformation on this subject.
I wish to reply to some of the other above posts; perhaps later. For now, I want to explain something about this post I gave +40.
Bitcoin would not be what it is today without the efforts of a select few people, including Greg Maxwell (gmaxwell). Without them, Bitcoin would be slower, less reliable, and less secure. Early on, the Satoshi software was run-and-gun cypherpunk code; it was important because it created Bitcoin, but many parts were—problematic. Nowadays, despite some necessarily remaining idiosyncrasies in the RPCs, etc., Core is a product of professional software engineering. This is thanks to the work of many contributors, but principally among them, a few who have more or less dedicated their lives to the project.
Money can’t buy the combination of expertise and devotion which gmaxwell has given to Core. That can only be bought by ideological dedication to the freedom made by a new form of money. I’m not saying this to praise gmaxwell; I doubt he needs some Internet hagiography. Rather, I want to make sure that newbies reading this will understand who gave the answer I deemed to merit +40 (which would have been +50, but the system wouldn’t let me). He’s not just someone who knows what he’s talking about: He’s someone who helped make what we’re talking about. I think he knows how it works.
gmaxwell (a/k/a nullc) is also active in places where Bitcoin is discussed, and used to be much more active here in those days from the archives of the Bitcoin Forum as I wish I could experience it. To variations of the same disinformation, he’s given that same answer (often at greater length) so many times over the years that I really only gave him a few millimerits for each time he’s explained this. Sorry about that.
I remember thinking nullc was nullius due to the similarity!! i did later see that it was Gregory Maxwell. I've taken the liberty to quote and credit these posts. LOL.
I wanted to add that this discussion also puts light to the fact that this "dishonest miner" scenario is kept in check because normal users, small merchants CAN run full nodes. That should explain why keeping block size within sustainable limits is important. A lower block size keeps the entry-barrier for running a full node as low as possible.
The 'core' idea of giving preference to basic developments like SegWit that optimize data usage for transactions is much better than randomly increasing block size to say, 8 MB, 32 MB and so on. This way you give more time for the hardware costs to go lower while code improvements are built upon.
It's sad that people are getting bamboozled by malicious disinformation on this subject.
I wish to reply to some of the other above posts; perhaps later. For now, I want to explain something about this post I gave +40.
Bitcoin would not be what it is today without the efforts of a select few people, including Greg Maxwell (gmaxwell). Without them, Bitcoin would be slower, less reliable, and less secure. Early on, the Satoshi software was run-and-gun cypherpunk code; it was important because it created Bitcoin, but many parts were—problematic. Nowadays, despite some necessarily remaining idiosyncrasies in the RPCs, etc., Core is a product of professional software engineering. This is thanks to the work of many contributors, but principally among them, a few who have more or less dedicated their lives to the project.
Money can’t buy the combination of expertise and devotion which gmaxwell has given to Core. That can only be bought by ideological dedication to the freedom made by a new form of money. I’m not saying this to praise gmaxwell; I doubt he needs some Internet hagiography. Rather, I want to make sure that newbies reading this will understand who gave the answer I deemed to merit +40 (which would have been +50, but the system wouldn’t let me). He’s not just someone who knows what he’s talking about: He’s someone who helped make what we’re talking about. I think he knows how it works.
gmaxwell (a/k/a nullc) is also active in places where Bitcoin is discussed, and used to be much more active here in those days from the archives of the Bitcoin Forum as I wish I could experience it. To variations of the same disinformation, he’s given that same answer (often at greater length) so many times over the years that I really only gave him a few millimerits for each time he’s explained this. Sorry about that.
If miner B controls 51% of the network could they prevent anyone they want from making a bitcoin transaction?
If someone controls more Bitcoin hash power than the entire rest of the world combined, then yes.
From the information in this thread, I understand that it would be impossible for miners to forge a transaction even they have more than 51% of the network because all Segwit nodes recognize the fact that they are illegal transactions. (Please correct me if I am wrong).
Let go at it from a different angle than.
If miner B controls 51% of the network could they prevent anyone they want from making a bitcoin transaction?
Let go at it from a different angle than.
If miner B controls 51% of the network could they prevent anyone they want from making a bitcoin transaction?
Example:
You're trying to buy a GPU from EggsRUs. You send BTC. Unbeknownst to you, the big mining pools have changed the rules to give themselves a 2100 BTC block reward every block forever. (Purists are calling the pools' coin MinerCoin.) Eggs, being a merchant, knows about this inflationary change - and doesn't like it. Your transaction quickly confirms on MinerCoin, but Eggs isn't looking for it on that chain. A rag tag collection of miners are still on the legacy chain. Eventually, your transaction does confirm on the legacy chain. With some delay, you get your GPU. At some point, the big pools attempt to cash out their new found riches, but alas, nobody with real money on the line will accept their coins.
TLDR summary: Users transacting real value determine which fork has value.
You're trying to buy a GPU from EggsRUs. You send BTC. Unbeknownst to you, the big mining pools have changed the rules to give themselves a 2100 BTC block reward every block forever. (Purists are calling the pools' coin MinerCoin.) Eggs, being a merchant, knows about this inflationary change - and doesn't like it. Your transaction quickly confirms on MinerCoin, but Eggs isn't looking for it on that chain. A rag tag collection of miners are still on the legacy chain. Eventually, your transaction does confirm on the legacy chain. With some delay, you get your GPU. At some point, the big pools attempt to cash out their new found riches, but alas, nobody with real money on the line will accept their coins.
TLDR summary: Users transacting real value determine which fork has value.
I understand this situation - it could fork if they wanted to tweak and price would crash.
And that is exactly why I wrote what I wrote in the first place this:
It doesn't matter if your node will reject it, I think that you forgot that miners have complete power and if you are not mining there is not much you can do. Miners are the ones who control the network I mean we should say mining pools as mining solo is not what we want. Anyway I think if this happens however we will see that BTC price will dump since people will not have faith in it due to mining pools living to their own terms and thus it would drastically decrease profit from miners.
The real question here is are they really ready to go that far to hurt BTC in a way where they will lose potential profit? I think not.
The real question here is are they really ready to go that far to hurt BTC in a way where they will lose potential profit? I think not.
They certainly have the power over the network, the outcome of it is another story. Just this dude said I am wrong so I wanted to make sure where I was wrong plus I don't see that what I said is incorrect info...
Could you then explain me at least why miners don't control the network? Because from my understanding they are the ones who control rules of creation of new blocks. It doesn't matter if your node starts to reject new blocks as long as miners opt for other block rules if you don't comply you won't then see any incoming blocks. What you could potentially do is do another fork another alt with lower hash power.
Example:
You're trying to buy a GPU from EggsRUs. You send BTC. Unbeknownst to you, the big mining pools have changed the rules to give themselves a 2100 BTC block reward every block forever. (Purists are calling the pools' coin MinerCoin.) Eggs, being a merchant, knows about this inflationary change - and doesn't like it. Your transaction quickly confirms on MinerCoin, but Eggs isn't looking for it on that chain. A rag tag collection of miners are still on the legacy chain. Eventually, your transaction does confirm on the legacy chain. With some delay, you get your GPU. At some point, the big pools attempt to cash out their new found riches, but alas, nobody with real money on the line will accept their coins.
TLDR summary: Users transacting real value determine which fork has value.
It doesn't matter if your node starts to reject new blocks as long as miners opt for other block rules if you don't comply you won't then see any incoming blocks.
Yes. I'll still see blocks from all the honest miners that are NOT mining invalid blocks. The ONLY blocks that I (AND the entire rest of the SegWit enabled network of users, merchants, exchanges, nodes, wallets, etc) won't see are the few nonsense invalid blocks created by the "attackers" that are wasting their own time and money on block rewards that they will never be able to spend.
Nullius and DannyHamilton are spot on.
It's sad that people are getting bamboozled by malicious disinformation on this subject.
The _exact_ same thing protects segwit outputs from being stolen by malicious miners as any other coin: Following the rules is part of what _defines_ mining. A miner that steals an output hasn't mined as far as nodes are concerned, their blocks will simply be ignored (and the peers relaying them eventually banned).
Segwit is no different from any other consensus rule in this respect-- other than some were introduced later than others, but many have been introduced over time.
We didn't see these same sorts of malicious FUD with P2SH though it was exactly the same-- I guess because back then felons hadn't figured out how to monetize that sort of confusion.
It's sad that people are getting bamboozled by malicious disinformation on this subject.
The _exact_ same thing protects segwit outputs from being stolen by malicious miners as any other coin: Following the rules is part of what _defines_ mining. A miner that steals an output hasn't mined as far as nodes are concerned, their blocks will simply be ignored (and the peers relaying them eventually banned).
Segwit is no different from any other consensus rule in this respect-- other than some were introduced later than others, but many have been introduced over time.
We didn't see these same sorts of malicious FUD with P2SH though it was exactly the same-- I guess because back then felons hadn't figured out how to monetize that sort of confusion.
Indeed, the Bcash scammers finally found a way to get money out of it, BUT there are groups of people not selling a shitcoin, an ICO or any other monetizable product whatsoever, which also think segwit poses risks, for example I remember this log from MP that someone posted in the bitcoin classic thread:
Quote
thestringpuller: cause there is no way TRB will ever enforce segwit, so there is no way it can ever truly verify a segwit output was spent "legitimately"
mircea_popescu: thestringpuller the derp in question can just spend again normally and his coins will be visible.
mircea_popescu: trb has no notion of "coin history". nor should it. because taint is not a thing.
thestringpuller: gotcha. just never have anyone spend to your from a fake address.
mircea_popescu: moreover, there ISNT, in general, and for very good reasons, a way to verify segwit crapolade.
mircea_popescu: which is what it aims to be, a sort of "let's dao bitcoin"
thestringpuller: TMSR rule of thumb: "Never accept non standard transactions" ?
mircea_popescu: pretty much.
thestringpuller: gotcha. thanks for clarity. mod6 ^^^ nvm question has been answered.
mircea_popescu: but this said, yes it is deeply irresponsible for anyone to use prb clients. this doesn't just mean 13, or 12, or 10. ANY of them.
mircea_popescu: they keep adding shit, but it's been shitsoup for years now.
mod6: thestringpuller: np.
mod6: if we needed to add code everytime these gnomes comeup with a new crapolade, that's all we'd ever be doing.
thestringpuller: i just don't want them to add something in a "fork" that allows TMSR to get scammed.
thestringpuller: but I think at that point BTC is dead
mircea_popescu: and in other lulz, ro chicks trying hard :http://fabulousmuses.net/2016/06/marina-yachting-summer-trends.html
mircea_popescu: mod6 the main concern is that their bullshit will "accidentally" start fabricating coins.
mircea_popescu: nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name.
BingoBoingo: thestringpuller: From what I understand Segwit to a normal 1xxx adress requires a signature in the blockchain so when segwit stops being miner enforced the recieved transaction would still be, even though it came from freemoneyshitsoup.
thestringpuller: BingoBoingo: AHA!
mircea_popescu: yeah, except the next stop is for shitsoup to put out more coins than it got in.
thestringpuller: elaborate?
mircea_popescu: you been watching the dao thing ?
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name. << totally agree.
mircea_popescu: segwit is EXACTLY "dao for bitcoin".
mircea_popescu: thestringpuller the derp in question can just spend again normally and his coins will be visible.
mircea_popescu: trb has no notion of "coin history". nor should it. because taint is not a thing.
thestringpuller: gotcha. just never have anyone spend to your from a fake address.
mircea_popescu: moreover, there ISNT, in general, and for very good reasons, a way to verify segwit crapolade.
mircea_popescu: which is what it aims to be, a sort of "let's dao bitcoin"
thestringpuller: TMSR rule of thumb: "Never accept non standard transactions" ?
mircea_popescu: pretty much.
thestringpuller: gotcha. thanks for clarity. mod6 ^^^ nvm question has been answered.
mircea_popescu: but this said, yes it is deeply irresponsible for anyone to use prb clients. this doesn't just mean 13, or 12, or 10. ANY of them.
mircea_popescu: they keep adding shit, but it's been shitsoup for years now.
mod6: thestringpuller: np.
mod6: if we needed to add code everytime these gnomes comeup with a new crapolade, that's all we'd ever be doing.
thestringpuller: i just don't want them to add something in a "fork" that allows TMSR to get scammed.
thestringpuller: but I think at that point BTC is dead
mircea_popescu: and in other lulz, ro chicks trying hard :http://fabulousmuses.net/2016/06/marina-yachting-summer-trends.html
mircea_popescu: mod6 the main concern is that their bullshit will "accidentally" start fabricating coins.
mircea_popescu: nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name.
BingoBoingo: thestringpuller: From what I understand Segwit to a normal 1xxx adress requires a signature in the blockchain so when segwit stops being miner enforced the recieved transaction would still be, even though it came from freemoneyshitsoup.
thestringpuller: BingoBoingo: AHA!
mircea_popescu: yeah, except the next stop is for shitsoup to put out more coins than it got in.
thestringpuller: elaborate?
mircea_popescu: you been watching the dao thing ?
mod6: <+mircea_popescu> nevertheless, we're not making the mistake of introducing coin taint, under any name. << totally agree.
mircea_popescu: segwit is EXACTLY "dao for bitcoin".
Im not too familiar with this but apparently MP got a lot of bitcoins, and these guys are not trying to scam anyone with shitcoins (forks included) and as far as I understand they are trying to do what's best for bitcoin, so I value their opinion on the matter. I would like to know what you think and why there are big discrepancies with Core, because these must be real technical reasons, since again, they aren't selling their own scamtoken, as Roger and co do.
miners have complete power
WRONG.
Miners are the ones who control the network
WRONG.
I am sometimes amazed at the confident airs put on people who make authoritative-sounding declarations of totally incorrect information.
Could you then explain me at least why miners don't control the network? Because from my understanding they are the ones who control rules of creation of new blocks. It doesn't matter if your node starts to reject new blocks as long as miners opt for other block rules if you don't comply you won't then see any incoming blocks. What you could potentially do is do another fork another alt with lower hash power.
Nullius and DannyHamilton are spot on.
It's sad that people are getting bamboozled by malicious disinformation on this subject.
The _exact_ same thing protects segwit outputs from being stolen by malicious miners as any other coin: Following the rules is part of what _defines_ mining. A miner that steals an output hasn't mined as far as nodes are concerned, their blocks will simply be ignored (and the peers relaying them eventually banned).
Segwit is no different from any other consensus rule in this respect-- other than some were introduced later than others, but many have been introduced over time.
We didn't see these same sorts of malicious FUD with P2SH though it was exactly the same-- I guess because back then felons hadn't figured out how to monetize that sort of confusion.
It's sad that people are getting bamboozled by malicious disinformation on this subject.
The _exact_ same thing protects segwit outputs from being stolen by malicious miners as any other coin: Following the rules is part of what _defines_ mining. A miner that steals an output hasn't mined as far as nodes are concerned, their blocks will simply be ignored (and the peers relaying them eventually banned).
Segwit is no different from any other consensus rule in this respect-- other than some were introduced later than others, but many have been introduced over time.
We didn't see these same sorts of malicious FUD with P2SH though it was exactly the same-- I guess because back then felons hadn't figured out how to monetize that sort of confusion.
Sorry for beeing off topic, but @DannyHamilton and @nullius are you guys merit sources already? If not I would like to give my vote to you. Please @theymos ...
Jump to: