Topic: I do not feel like upgrading my core wallet. (Read 924 times)

May we know the reason why? Is it laziness, a form of protest or something else? Maybe you are now leaning towards setting up a Bitcoin Unlimited node perhaps? It is your choice really but I am curious on what the reason is for the hesitation to upgrade.

You will miss lots of changes and development that comes with the upgraded version plus I think the upgraded version is more secure than the non upgraded. So, there are lots of advantages in upgrading.

Depending on your current version if you upgrade your client could be significantly faster in downloading blocks.  Do it regardless.

took you long enough

good day

Yes.

Please stop with your analogies. They are usually incorrect. I know exactly how Bitcoin works; just because my opinion differs from yours does not mean that I am wrong nor that I don't understand how it all works.

Yes.

Why are you asking all of these questions? They are irrelevant to the point at hand. At no point in time have I ever said that fully validating was bad and that miners were trustable. All I was trying to do was to point out that the statement "non-upgraded nodes just blindly accept segwit transactions" is incorrect. You have taken this and spun it way out of control. Just stop.

do you agree pools should not be 100% trusted to not make bad data
do you agree pools should not be 100% trusted to not be malicious
meaning nodes have a real reason to FULLY validate

do you agree that orphans do happen and while nodes cannot FULLY validate a transaction as not being malicious/ bad more orphans can occur
and while not all pools are uptodate there is a heightened risk even further

do you agree that nodes should not 100% trust data they receive
do you agree that nodes should 100% independently and FULLY data they receive

overall do you agree that for those not upgrading.. they should be more wary of risk

anyone can steal someones chequebook and right a destination an acceptable date and an acceptable amount.. but the cheque is not valid unless its fully validated.
any banks cashing a cheque without the signature risks a double spend. and should "accept" the cheque and let it pass on to other more uptodate banks to validate the cheque using uptodate technology before its then deemed safe

again wait a few confirmations to ensure it doesnt orphan because bad data and malicious intent is and always will be a risk and thats why nodes are important

This is pointless. You just keep running around in circles screaming the same things you said earlier, not listening to what anyone else has to say, constantly ridiculing them and thinking you are correct and everyone else who doesn't think the same is wrong.

What does that have to do with ANYTHING that you quoted? I never said that fully validating was unnecessary. All I said regarding validation is that a non-upgraded node will still be validating the rest of the transaction. It is still validating, albeit partial validation. It is not just "blindly accepting" all segwit transactions.

Stop putting words in my mouth. At no point in time have I said any of that sort and at no point in time will I say anything of that sort. I have said nothing except facts which you can look up and verify yourself by reading the source code. All you have said are baseless statements, false statements, and slander against me and others who do not share your viewpoint. And the occasional true statement. Much like Donald Trump.

the point of FULLY VALIDATING INCLUDING SIGNATURES is to rule out malicious or accidentally nasty data.

untill all pools are running updated software
untill all pools are proven not to be malicious
untill all nodes before yours are proven to not be malicious.

then you should not trust the data you receive.
but in utopia then you can be comforted to not need to fully validate a transaction, because you TRUST the network will do it for you.

in which case validating independently and diversly and decentrally is no longer required..

so think about this:
why do you think bitcoin needs to be independently and decentrally validated..
think about bitcoins whole ethos. think about why double spends happen why orphans happen

segwit has not fixed that and its still a problem which is the point of needing decentralized and independent validation.. to not trust a miner is uptodate and ethical.

let me guess.. next month you will be saying segwit is such a success nodes are not needed because all the pools are running core and they alone can hold the blockchain. and you will start promoting only running lite clients because you think independent security is not relevant

come on wake up!!
ask yourself why decentralized nodes exist.
why not let just the pools hold the blockchain.. if they are so ethical and perfect

Are you ignorant, blind, terrible at reading comprehension, or all of the above?

The only IF that I said is IF A MINER DOES NOT UPGRADE. How about this, it means exactly the same thing: Miners who do not upgrade and continue to operate as they do now will not have their blocks orphaned by those who do upgrade.

OMG
all your IF if if.
your not thinking about risk your thinking of shying away from risks with 'if' statements
you are not even considering malicious intent to double spend.
instead your saying if there is no double spend then you can accept a tx with 1 confirm

hellloo... wakey wakey
you need to wait out more then one confirm to ensure there is no ifs, buts or maybes

seriously wake up

IMO yes. I do not think that there is a larger orphan risk. Most miners are already following the standardness rules. If they do not upgrade but continue to follow the already existing standardness rules then their blocks will not be orphaned.

ok lets break it down to a community helpful question

should old legacy clients trust a 1 confirm segwit tx.. i mean 100%.
please before putting the shoe shinner hat on.. think about the larger orphan risk.

again
should old legacy clients trust a 1 confirm segwit tx.. i mean 100%.

What is the problem? As soon as you have adequate backup, you ll be safe. So no worries and always keep your software updated.

Seriously, again?

As I said before, the signatures are not everything that need to be checked for the validity of the transaction. The other data that the transaction contains do matter, not just the signatures. What part of that do you not understand? There are more to transactions than just a signature.

Why do you feel it necessary to include this at the bottom of every single response to me? I have not stated anything that is factually incorrect. If you look at the code (which I highly doubt you have) then you will see that everything I say is factually correct. And yet nearly everything you say has some false statement in it. I am not "shoe shining the devs", I am stating exactly what happens as specified by the code, you are not.

I am prioritising the community first by trying to help stop the spread of misinformation from people like you.

seriously, again?
if you cannot verify the signature then you cannot validate the funds should be moved.
acceptance is different then validating it.

EG
someone writes out a cheque.  no signature seems to be present (wrote in vinsible ink).. "hey bank will you cash this while i stand here."
"well i can see that the amount is wrote correctly, i can see that the funds are going somewhere.. i dont see a signature.. but the date looks good enough..screw it lets cash that cheque. dont worry if it bounces later, its just a double spend"

above scenario is baddddd

hello wake up..
yes the network of segwit banks will validate the cheque because they have the special UV light to see the invisible ink signature. but the old fashioned bank should not cash the cheque. they should pass it on to the network of clearing houses and then the customer has to wait for a few days in the hope the other banks can validate it. for the bank to then cash it

again. if your not up to date, dont accept a tx in a block at just 1 confirm, let the block relay around the network and wait to see if other nodes throw out the block for having a dodgy tx. and then be satisfied it is TRUSTED to be settled by others doing the validation

i feel sorry for anyone to say. go ahead risk a double spend simply because the locktime date looks legit..

seriously stop shoe shining the devs and start being honest to the community.
are you that desperate to appease the devs due to probably wanting to get a salary??

seriously prioritise the community first

You cannot do this with any address. You can only do that with a segwit output type which does not have any address type associated with it.

Addresses for segwit will actually be P2SH addresses with the segwit script being the redeemscript of that p2sh address. Thus you cannot execute this attack with most segwit stuff since they will be protected by the Hash160.

It is still checking other parts of the transaction for validity. Signatures are not the only thing to check for when checking validity of a transaction. The fact that it still checks validity as best as it can means that it is not just blindy accepting the transaction. Blindly accepting would be accepting a transaction regardless, even if it is invalid in some other way than just signatures, i.e. included in block but locktime has not passed yet.

Well that doesn't sound very good...

seriously??

her goes i can grab your address of funds you have not spend. and not sign it.. and push it through a malicious pool i bribe to add in the transaction knowing that 3000 nodes will not be asked to check for a signature anyways.
so the block (containing the tx) gets relayed around the majority of the nodes. BLINDLY

however 3000 nodes have to wait and "trust" segwit nodes that have seen the signature to validate it on your behalf. for you to blindly ACCEPT IT

if a node is not validating a transaction signature itself then the node is not validating the transaction. it is BLINDLY ACCEPTING it and trusting that its valid by the hopes of previous nodes doing the job for them.

i feel sorry for you trying to twist things to hide a problem by brushing it under the carpet rather then being brutally honest so people are aware of risks and be fully informed.

yes in 95%+ of cases this problem is not a worry. BUT if there was an issue, old nodes would still accept it blindly.

as i said best to wait an extra few confirmations to 'trust' that somewhere in the 5000+ nodes there are enough segwit nodes to orphan out malicious data to then "trust" that it must be second-party-valid(not by own checks) based on the network agreement of it not appearing to have orphaned out.

the only way old nodes know its a malicious tx is if the block orphans out. so you have to wait a few extra confirmations to gain "trust".

in short OLD NODES should if they originally waited 1confirm due to a 1% orphan risk, wait 5 confirms for the 5% orphan risk

atleast be brutally honest and stop shining the shoes of core devs.

Now's a good time to do it

Folks are finally getting more and more up to date, from what I can see on bitnodes...

I haven't upgraded in YEARS lol