Topic: Segwit opens the door for mining cartels (Read 1258 times)
After the risk of 51% attack, I've been reading for months that China was taking over BTC with its huge mining farms. Mining cartels, now. I think Craig Wright lacked imagination when he wrote this.
Debunked scam attempt.
Someone even put out a Litecoin $1MM bounty at the time to prove this wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/6azeu1/1mm_segwit_bounty/
Someone even put out a Litecoin $1MM bounty at the time to prove this wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/6azeu1/1mm_segwit_bounty/
irony, from the thread:
Code:
–]BowlofFrostedFlakes [score hidden] 25 days ago
There are 3 transactions associated with this address. 2 small transactions and 1 large one for 40,000 LTC.
The large one does NOT appear to be an actual segwit transaction. Only the small one does (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/ltc/tx.dws?e85fab6667028a8902904f4cbd3b0e129d526ceafbf150193109661adc898645.htm)
If you look at the raw transaction data for the 40,000 LTC transaction, there is no parameter named "txinwitness". So the bounty is only 0.99 LTC, not 40,000 LTC.
So the wager is only $20 LOL. Furthermore, Litecoin didn't have much trouble adopting Segwit (even though Segwit was useless for LTC!), Bitcoin has many opponents to Segwit and a much higher incentive for people to hack around with it.
Just because a person in the past had been a scammer.... it does not mean this time round a person could be right. Ignoring a person 100% because of one's past is plainly stupid.
Whilst doing this would be somewhat fallacious, not doing it with certain individuals such as C.W. is unreasonable. Let's suppose Craig told you your house is on fire... you ignore him... arrive home and whoops, house burnt down.
I'm absolutely sure that my house would not be in flames if C.W. told me that. 
Anyway, you claim to have debunked it ages ago, but i was more concerned about the "This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open."
Would you "be concerned" about a high school kid telling you that there are "several hundred attack scenarios" in something that has been peer reviewed by dozens of engineers? This is pretty much it. C.W. is not competent enough to find a single attack scenario that someone else may have missed. https://twitter.com/i/moments/877046701474721793
Yes i am aware of that. However it doesn't mean the article is wrong. People are entitled to reform themselves and do good.
Actually, in this case it does. Why do we have to waste everyone's time on a known scammer who has zero credibility?The point of the article is to be debate and Craig isn't the first person to mention the "anyone can spend" attack.
There is nothing to debate. It has been debunked months prior to the existence of this article. Read my previous posts.Just because a person in the past had been a scammer.... it does not mean this time round a person could be right. Ignoring a person 100% because of one's past is plainly stupid.
Let's suppose Craig told you your house is on fire... you ignore him... arrive home and whoops, house burnt down.
Anyway, you claim to have debunked it ages ago, but i was more concerned about the "This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open."
he discribes a problem which exsits since bitcoin was introduced and than offers a solution to a non exsitent problem....i mean WTF?
?edit: and doesnt he work for a companie which focuses on the blockchain??? he should have known better... just another fagott whos whats to profit
Yes i am aware of that. However it doesn't mean the article is wrong. People are entitled to reform themselves and do good.
Actually, in this case it does. Why do we have to waste everyone's time on a known scammer who has zero credibility?The point of the article is to be debate and Craig isn't the first person to mention the "anyone can spend" attack.
There is nothing to debate. It has been debunked months prior to the existence of this article. Read my previous posts.Just because a person in the past had been a scammer.... it does not mean this time round a person could be right. Ignoring a person 100% because of one's past is plainly stupid.
Let's suppose Craig told you your house is on fire... you ignore him... arrive home and whoops, house burnt down.
Anyway, you claim to have debunked it ages ago, but i was more concerned about the "This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open."
The author is Craig Wright. Wait a minute?! Isn't that the guy who invented bitcoin? Isn't that Satoshi?
lolQuote
Maybe. Afaik Satoshi was always in favor of scaling up the block size as the numbers of transactions increase. Getting rid of the signature block via Segwit is just "proof by Authority" and doesn't really solve anything since you'll eventually need to scale up the block size anyway as Bitcoin becomes more and more popular.
The network as Satoshi knew it is very different from what it has become. I don't even think he took into account that nodes could be specialized and not do any mining? Otherwise he would have looked for a financial incentive for nodes, which is notably absent now. If nodes were paid for their job their would be no problem with increasing the block size, but because they aren't the security of the network would be greatly put at risk. Yes i am aware of that. However it doesn't mean the article is wrong. People are entitled to reform themselves and do good.
Actually, in this case it does. Why do we have to waste everyone's time on a known scammer who has zero credibility?The point of the article is to be debate and Craig isn't the first person to mention the "anyone can spend" attack.
There is nothing to debate. It has been debunked months prior to the existence of this article. Read my previous posts. 
...
Anything that makes SPAM more expensive is worth a look.
I would not trust Craig Wright with a bitnickle. But, it is hard keeping track of who the REAL players are, and who the trolls are.
I hope the miners understand that no good agreement ruins them too.
Anything that makes SPAM more expensive is worth a look.
I would not trust Craig Wright with a bitnickle. But, it is hard keeping track of who the REAL players are, and who the trolls are.
I hope the miners understand that no good agreement ruins them too.
This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open. Under a SegWit regime, such attacks against the bitcoin network could work because the economics of the system would be changed; rather than illicit activity being discouraged, it would be encouraged under SegWit. This seems to be the aspect of the system that is least understood by Bitcoin Core developers and other proponents of SegWit.
Segwit encourages UTXO consolidation and makes UTXO creation more expensive IIRC (thus makes this kind of spam more expensive). This is completely opposite from what the statement claims, unless of course you want to claim that a bloated UTXO set helps scaling. 
I do wonder what are the other attack scenarios are?
The article is just pure bullshit. Craig Wright is a scammer. Yes i am aware of that. However it doesn't mean the article is wrong. People are entitled to reform themselves and do good.
The point of the article is to be debate and Craig isn't the first person to mention the "anyone can spend" attack.
This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open. Under a SegWit regime, such attacks against the bitcoin network could work because the economics of the system would be changed; rather than illicit activity being discouraged, it would be encouraged under SegWit. This seems to be the aspect of the system that is least understood by Bitcoin Core developers and other proponents of SegWit.
Segwit encourages UTXO consolidation and makes UTXO creation more expensive IIRC (thus makes this kind of spam more expensive). This is completely opposite from what the statement claims, unless of course you want to claim that a bloated UTXO set helps scaling. I do wonder what are the other attack scenarios are?
The article is just pure bullshit. Craig Wright is a scammer.
This is one of several hundred attack scenarios which SegWit could open. Under a SegWit regime, such attacks against the bitcoin network could work because the economics of the system would be changed; rather than illicit activity being discouraged, it would be encouraged under SegWit. This seems to be the aspect of the system that is least understood by Bitcoin Core developers and other proponents of SegWit.
I do wonder what are the other attack scenarios are?
I do wonder what are the other attack scenarios are?
I believe a flaw in the argument is that once Segwit is the consensus, reverting it would cause a fork because not spending a segwit transaction properly would be considered invalid by the rest of the network.
Forking the network would not be a viable attack because the attacking miners would be on an unsupported fork.
Doing that is essentially a hard fork. The stuff written in the article is in no way inherently more dangerous that a classic 51% attack. Read my post(s); this has been debunked long ago.Forking the network would not be a viable attack because the attacking miners would be on an unsupported fork.
It's actually quite cute that the scammer C.Wright thinks that he is smarter than the author of SegWit, i.e. Pieter Wuille, let alone everyone who participated in the peer review.
I believe a flaw in the argument is that once Segwit is the consensus, reverting it would cause a fork because not spending a segwit transaction properly would be considered invalid by the rest of the network.
Forking the network would not be a viable attack because the attacking miners would be on an unsupported fork.
Forking the network would not be a viable attack because the attacking miners would be on an unsupported fork.
That actually sounds exactly like something Satoshi would support.
CW is a scam artist. It's easy to make it sound like "something Satoshi would support" if you just base your statements on a few cherry picked posts.Any comments on the article itself?
Debunked scam attempt.Thanks!
Someone even put out a Litecoin $1MM bounty at the time to prove this wrong: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/6azeu1/1mm_segwit_bounty/ Biased much? "Dr. Craig Wright is Chief Scientist at nChain, the global leader in research and development of innovations in blockchain technology. nChain opposes SegWit and instead supports removing the Bitcoin blockchain’s artificial block size limit (temporarily set at 1MB) to fuel increased scalability. nChain also supports on-chain scaling as the only viable method for the Bitcoin protocol to scale globally and remain decentralised. nChain also advocates for the formation of a neutral standards organisation to coordinate and manage the Bitcoin protocol and technical standards."
What did you expect from the local snake oil salesman? You will risk a ton of hashing power in the hope that you could pull of a 51% attacks with precision timing. Once you have done this, you effectively ruined Bitcoin and the whole technology would have failed because you bought a new Tesla or a 70" Smart screen TV. ^Woopla"
What did you expect from the local snake oil salesman? You will risk a ton of hashing power in the hope that you could pull of a 51% attacks with precision timing. Once you have done this, you effectively ruined Bitcoin and the whole technology would have failed because you bought a new Tesla or a 70" Smart screen TV. ^Woopla"
That actually sounds exactly like something Satoshi would support.
Any comments on the article itself?
just my 2 btc
And he just does not stop. Neither Jonald nor the scam artist "Dr. Craig Wright" can be trusted with anything they say.
No. AnyoneCanSpend is not a new concept and is certainly not a fundamental change. AnyoneCanSpend does not mean literally anyone can spend1. It's a script without conditions attached to they way the related output can be spent. This whole article has been debunked months before it came into existence.
[1] - https://seebitcoin.com/2017/02/segwit-facts-not-anyone-can-spend-so-stop-saying-they-can/
[2] - Wiki Entry from ages ago: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Anyone-Can-Spend_Outputs
Quote
SegWit introduces a fundamental change to bitcoin: the “AnyOneCanSpend address”, or essentially a blank signature for transactions. SegWit uses an “AnyOneCanSpend” address so that transactions will be validated and recorded into blocks, even though the sender/receiver signature data is separated. Normally, an “AnyOneCanSpend” output (as its name implies) would allow any miner to spend the funds associated with that transaction; therefore, SegWit would introduce new rules for interpreting “AnyOneCanSpend”. This means that miners could not take advantage of that output address to inappropriately spend the funds associated with all SegWit transactions.
[1] - https://seebitcoin.com/2017/02/segwit-facts-not-anyone-can-spend-so-stop-saying-they-can/
[2] - Wiki Entry from ages ago: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Anyone-Can-Spend_Outputs
Thanks!
Biased much? "Dr. Craig Wright is Chief Scientist at nChain, the global leader in research and development of innovations in blockchain technology. nChain opposes SegWit and instead supports removing the Bitcoin blockchain’s artificial block size limit (temporarily set at 1MB) to fuel increased scalability. nChain also supports on-chain scaling as the only viable method for the Bitcoin protocol to scale globally and remain decentralised. nChain also advocates for the formation of a neutral standards organisation to coordinate and manage the Bitcoin protocol and technical standards."
What did you expect from the local snake oil salesman? You will risk a ton of hashing power in the hope that you could pull of a 51% attacks with precision timing. Once you have done this, you effectively ruined Bitcoin and the whole technology would have failed because you bought a new Tesla or a 70" Smart screen TV. ^Woopla"
What did you expect from the local snake oil salesman? You will risk a ton of hashing power in the hope that you could pull of a 51% attacks with precision timing. Once you have done this, you effectively ruined Bitcoin and the whole technology would have failed because you bought a new Tesla or a 70" Smart screen TV. ^Woopla"
That actually sounds exactly like something Satoshi would support.
Any comments on the article itself?
And he just does not stop. Neither Jonald nor the scam artist "Dr. Craig Wright" can be trusted with anything they say.
No. AnyoneCanSpend is not a new concept and is certainly not a fundamental change. AnyoneCanSpend does not mean literally anyone can spend1. It's a script without conditions attached to they way the related output can be spent. This whole article has been debunked months before it came into existence.
[1] - https://seebitcoin.com/2017/02/segwit-facts-not-anyone-can-spend-so-stop-saying-they-can/
[2] - Wiki Entry from ages ago: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Anyone-Can-Spend_Outputs
[3] - Litecoin $1MM Segwit bounty: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/6azeu1/1mm_segwit_bounty/
Quote
SegWit introduces a fundamental change to bitcoin: the “AnyOneCanSpend address”, or essentially a blank signature for transactions. SegWit uses an “AnyOneCanSpend” address so that transactions will be validated and recorded into blocks, even though the sender/receiver signature data is separated. Normally, an “AnyOneCanSpend” output (as its name implies) would allow any miner to spend the funds associated with that transaction; therefore, SegWit would introduce new rules for interpreting “AnyOneCanSpend”. This means that miners could not take advantage of that output address to inappropriately spend the funds associated with all SegWit transactions.
[1] - https://seebitcoin.com/2017/02/segwit-facts-not-anyone-can-spend-so-stop-saying-they-can/
[2] - Wiki Entry from ages ago: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Script#Anyone-Can-Spend_Outputs
[3] - Litecoin $1MM Segwit bounty: https://www.reddit.com/r/litecoin/comments/6azeu1/1mm_segwit_bounty/
Biased much? "Dr. Craig Wright is Chief Scientist at nChain, the global leader in research and development of innovations in blockchain technology. nChain opposes SegWit and instead supports removing the Bitcoin blockchain’s artificial block size limit (temporarily set at 1MB) to fuel increased scalability. nChain also supports on-chain scaling as the only viable method for the Bitcoin protocol to scale globally and remain decentralised. nChain also advocates for the formation of a neutral standards organisation to coordinate and manage the Bitcoin protocol and technical standards."
What did you expect from the local snake oil salesman? You will risk a ton of hashing power in the hope that you could pull of a 51% attacks with precision timing. Once you have done this, you effectively ruined Bitcoin and the whole technology would have failed because you bought a new Tesla or a 70" Smart screen TV. ^Woopla"
What did you expect from the local snake oil salesman? You will risk a ton of hashing power in the hope that you could pull of a 51% attacks with precision timing. Once you have done this, you effectively ruined Bitcoin and the whole technology would have failed because you bought a new Tesla or a 70" Smart screen TV. ^Woopla"
nothing new... a 50%+ attack could have been done pre segwit
Jump to: