Topic: Segwit is a 51% attack on Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 946 times)

That's not how I operate, I am open source.  I don't support centralization by telling only select people of flaws, I tell everyone so they can prepare properly and not be blindsided.

And please explain how non-mining full nodes vote on block validity?

You can keep on saying that, and it will still never happen. It's impossible while there are still regular people running full Bitcoin nodes. And as long as people have the resources to run full Bitcoin nodes, they will.


Let's put it this way: your detractors in this thread are very confident you are wrong. Why not email the major mining pools & mining farm owners to tell them about this extra money you believe they can make? Responsible behaviour is certainly not a reason, you should be trolling contacting the Bitcoin developers about this privately, not exposing it publicly so that the miners (according to your non-logic) can make malicious use your "exploit"

Is it up to me to provide proof that changing the blockchain is detrimental or is it up to them to provide proof that changing the blockchain is innocuous?

I'm a human so I don't work in proofs, proof is relative to an individual's current knowledge.

Non mining nodes don't vote.  If someone is standing on the sideline, what they say doesn't matter.  What matters is what the person says who has the ball, ie: the person who will either mine on your chain or not.  People vote by which chain they mine on.  If they aren't mining, they aren't in the game.

So if code is released that skips the signature verification part and makes miners make more money, then the more miners adopt this code, the fewer of their blocks will be rejected and the more "valid" blocks they will create.  Thus the amount of extra money they make will snowball and get bigger and bigger.

I am trying to bang my head around your ideas.   I cannot come to a conclusion  
Is it looking for a flaw in the design (so far this was very poor), or just to challenge the audience and keep them busy?
DannyHamilton, HeRetik and achow121 all explained, why your assumptions are wrong, still you insist on cancer, epidemic stuff, domino effects and other buzz words.
You have posted in several threads here in this forum, with a theory, that is not accepted, and you already had fairly harsh comments on it. You do not show, that you have understood how the network (network is not miners) works, and could not underline this knowledge with hard facts (e.g. mathematical proof, in CPU seconds for sig verification, or what it means in Euro/Dollar/Pounds). In your last post you are asking DannyHamilton, to provide the figures, but hey, that's not how things work! You post a statement, it is up to you to underline it with reference data, otherwise it's wasting our time. Or you'd be ready to pay for someone to underline your logic...

Your wording is repetitive, stating that it is more beneficial (than what?) for a miner to work against the network, instead of playing the game.
Besides that this statement is lacking fundamental data, I try to turn it a bit around: the incentive that miners have to check the sigs, is to have valid tx into a block no matter if segwit or not. They can only gain money, if they propagate correct blocks, otherwise they loose potential earnings, and the whole power consumption costs.

on verification: it was explained, that every full node verifies the tx (and initially the blockchain), whereas e.g. SPV wallets do not. The danger behind SPV is well known, though people are still using SPV wallets, and others rely on full nodes. Full nodes give the proof (to me !), that a forwarded tx is valid or not, and that I am on the correct set of blocks since inception. If miners want to change the rules, they can do so, and need 51% (maybe even a bit less) - that is well known, and part of bitcoin's design. So let's try to think miners do not verify, then they might waste a lot of their processing power on the "potentially wrong" chain. Until it eventually comes to the point where they propagate with the majority (51%). I think this is, what you try to phrase in your words as "domino effect". But anyhow, words are not sufficient here to gain credibility for the statements made...

I think it can be said for certain that it takes longer to verify segwit signatures than non-segwit signatures.  Can you provide a reference that disputes this?

That is not true.

It is both

trivial to verify signatures with SegWit

AND

personally a VERY expensive mistake to skip verifying them.

The reason everyone verified signatures in the past is it was so quick (a few microseconds) to do that no one really thought it worthwhile to do a cost/benefit analysis of how much it is actually costing them and how much it is actually gaining them by verifying signatures.

Now verifying signatures becomes non-trivial and people will do that cost/benefit analysis sooner or later.  We can only assume some of them at some time might actually find it more favorable to stop verifying signatures.  And once one domino falls...

0 out of 100 times is the correct figure

your attack is pure fiction, which is why no-one is doing it

And I made a pretty elaborate analogy to say why the network would tend to not verify, can you discuss how that is wrong?

The point is say you gain 10  seconds (1.6% blocktime) every block by not verifying the witness data.  One of your blocks is rejected by the network 1 out of 100 times (1%).  This practice gains you net profit.

Your trolling is very poor quality (or you're totally insane, or unable to read)

You were just told what the incentive is, and that it's a very strong motivator.

Bitcoin Core Nodes verify. Nodes decide, what is valid a Bitcoin block. Not the miners. Miners can post as much invalid blocks as they want, the only effect is, that those blocks are rejected by the nodes and miners don't get reward. Every Core node checks each block independendly.

I'm not a big blocker either.  I think bitcoin blocks are too big.  If I designed the blocksize I would make it so the block propagation time to 90% of the network is less than 5% of the blocktime.  This translates into an optimized value of roughly 45kb blocks and 3.5 minute blocktime.

If there is no incentive for you to verify then what incentive would there be for the network to verify?  The problem is everyone will be more competitive if they stop verifying the signatures.

Its like saying: You can mine gold here but you have to make sure that the gold is weighed before you take it.  Who is going to validate that you weighed the gold?  The other miners?  The other miners don't give a shit.  They will respond to you breaking the rules and getting more gold by they themselves breaking the rules so they can compete with you.  Is the little non-mining full node with the crossing guard uniform and whistle going to stop them?  No they will just bowl right over him.

The problem with segwit is the network requires a central enforcer to make sure everyone checks the signatures.  Even if people thought that was ok (which they wouldn't), the bitcoin protocol doesn't allow for a central enforcer.  You have to incentivize people to enforce, this is why there will always be many more mining nodes than non-mining full nodes.

Plus even in the slim chance that the block you mined was rejected by the network, you probably won 3 more extra blocks because you save time by not checking witness data.  A loss here and there is made up by the time you save and extra hashes you can get in.

The brokers like Coinbase are scared to death by forks of the data and maybe this is why Bit-Gold was DDOSed when it split

You see anyone with coins held in the ledger before the split are entitle to a new coin in the new system so were has my money gone
and why won't Coinbase or other brokers allow access to Bit-Gold

Well you see they have this pool account thing in a database so if you sell a coin using a broker then
it just returns to the pool but they still charge you massive fees and then as someone buys the coin
they charge them a big fee too but this movement of digits does not take place on the block-chain even
if you think it does because they gave you a BTC public address.

No sir, these coins in the pool are fake and on any fork they won't tie up with data in the real block-chain
so kiss the free bit-gold goodbye

Each fork double the money/token supply and we have fake coins being generated by brokers so
when someone talks about having no inflation due to a limit of 21m digits then may i suggest that you turn
a blind ear because clearly this is not true.


 

The FUD is strong in this one. Hahaha.

The big blockers will keep spreading their propaganda and false analysis to give the newbies the wrong impression about Segwit, while they push for Bitcoin Cash as the "real" Bitcoin.

I do not have a problem with Bitcoin Cash personally, but you cannot go around and say it is the real Bitcoin. It's simply not true.

The incentive is that if they mine invalid block, it gets rejected by the network, and if it gets rejected by the network, then they are not mining Bitcoin, they are wasting electricity to mine some fork that they can't even sell on exchange. Miners do not control Bitcoin, they are simply hired to timestamp transactions, while the network of nodes enforces the rules.

It will be a disaster.  Can anyone tell me what incentive miners will have to check the witness data?  They would only loose time waiting for that witness block before they start mining the next UTXO block...

What signatures?  They aren't in the UTXO, (the real blockchain, the one that matters and the only blockchain miners have incentive to check).

The risk in doing this, would out weigh the reward. Let's say it was possible and these miners have been doing it for a while. and one day, someone notice this. Guess what will happen then. The coins they collected would drop in value or become worthless.

This will happen because people would lose faith in this technology and they will start dumping it.

Not a lot of things goes unnoticed in Bitcoin.

Segwit is the process of increasing block size. So its not possible to rearrange or remove the digital signature.
Blockchain is the technology which is connected and match only with digital signature of each blocks. In simple it like a book where it has page number to connect each other. It doesn't make sense if you rearrange or remove any page.
We can avoid invalid transaction in the block. Blockchain has its own character we can't write a new process apart from segwit.