Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 13567. (Read 26717059 times)

No, it is increasing. The value in the UTXO that traces back to segwit transactions -- even if not currently on a segwit address -- is monotonically increasing. The prize available to the miners for reverting to the older rule set does nothing but increase over time.

I'll agree that it is by no means known that they will do so. But it is also by no means known that they will not. Funny that for all the lip service Core gives to security, and the rather dim view that many if not most Core devs have of miners, that they would introduce such a vulnerability.

Stop it! Im allergic on red candles!!!

Good point, gentlemand.

Sure, there can be all kinds of hypothesizing that miners will do this or that, but in the end, why the fuck would they want to kill the golden goose, when the end plot is not going to cause the whole bitcoin network to move over to some kind of new fork that they supposedly branch into and to give their supposed new fork value.

There were similar premises previously, around the time of the bcash fork, regarding the supposed power for miners to do whatever the fuck they wanted including removing their hash power from bitcoin because they were ultimately the boss of security, yet we found that when push came to shove, value incentives did not move so easily or shift over to something that was perceived to be a deviation from consensus.. so the fantasy of miners throwing around power and threatening the movement of value (or stealing value) ended up not being as true in practice as it was in theory.

Yeah...but...
I had dreams, you know.

You haven't been listening. A 51% miner gets to declare that what were formerly segwit transactions are now anyonecanspend transactions. After all, that would merely be reversion to the consensus rules that existed before segwit activation (by a so-called 'compatible soft fork'). What happens to an anyonecanspend transaction? It's output is literally assignable to anyone. If you are mining, you are you going to assign that value to other than yourself? If you solve the block, they're yours.

Funny thing however, is that it is arguably not stealing, as it is merely operating under the existing consensus rules. Ones that were universal before some misguided individuals promulgated the idea that they were something other than anyonecanspend.

And what is most important: Exchanges do run their own nodes and would not accept the tx's stealing segwit from the rogue fork no matter if it temporarily have more hashrate than the original blockchain. Good luck doing anything with your worthless stolen "bitcoins".

But I guess the alternative world of BCash with 0 conf and riddled with double spends galore should be applauded then because it has big blocks and no SW?  /s    

All hail BCash!  /s

Also infofront, pls notice the timing of this sudden SegWit FUD. Look at the price action today. It's not just a coincidence, ok? Anunymint, Ibian, jbreher and others are known stealth (concern) trolls.

Seems to have started a storm, a lot happening, such an awakening



You don't seem like you understand at all how the technology works
your response sounds like it could have been written by a computer algorithm

I don't believe it to be a significant exposure.... But last time we discussed this subject I was a bit more verbose than just handwaving:



The risk you are mentioning here is somewhat "real" but it is decreasing as more funds get moved to segwit addresses. It was a real concern in the beginning as it would have been a (remote) possibility that miners would do as you say. In fact, even if I believed Segwit was a favourable upgrade I was very cautious to NOT move my funds to Segwit addresses until many months later.

Currently, with so much funds already moved into Segwit addresses IF miners decided to stole any Segwit address this is what would happen:

- A fork between the consensus chain and the stolen one.
- A drop in price to almost zero on the stolen one.
- A considerable drop in price on the consensus chain too.

... And basically a major drop in ALL cryptocurrency market as confidence and trust on the main cryptocurrency and its foundations would be severely harmed.

Or maybe it would just be that noone would give any value to the forked (stolen funds) chain and the crisis would not be as deep... but, in any case, whomever carried out that sort of attack (necessarily a main player in crypto mining) would end in a useless (no value) chain and be economically harmed in every way on its core business.

Also take into account that exchanges can be hit by a 51% attack in the sense of double spending BUT they are not vulnerable to this type of attack. Why? Because their wallet software would NOT acknowledge the "anyonecanspend" spoofed tx's no matter how many hashrate decides to support the rogue chain. (If I am wrong in this point please enlighten me).

So, still a 51% "double spending" attack -while hugely improbable in Bitcoin for many reasons- is a (orders of magnitude) bigger "vulnerability" than a segwit "anyonecanspend" attack right now.

Are you engaged in selective listening, or you just want to purposefully describe something that is not even really addressed in the video?   The vast majority of the video discusses the problematic nature of attempting on-chain scaling.  And, what the fuck you talking about LN centralized?  You just making shit up because you and your bcash pumpers want to assert such fallacies while the factual evidence does not seem to support your contentions, especially since LN, even though it remains in early test phases, seems to have a multitude of contributors and nodes.. .so your "centralization" assertion seems to be the opposite of what is actually happening in regards to ongoing LN developments.



Get the fuck out of here, Ibian.

In this thread, people have been explaining the fucking weakness of the BIG BLOCKER nutjob theories for nearly three years.  

The essence of the argument remains that BigBlockers have failed to provide evidence or logic that bitcoin would benefit from BIG blocks as much as it would likely cost...   In other words, there is no burden for anyone here to explain why BIG blocks are not a good idea, but instead the burden is on you and your other BIG blocker nutjob supporters to provide evidence and facts to convince others to go along with supporting BIG blocks.  

As you likely realize any change to bitcoin has to be agreed to, tested and implemented through appropriate and accepted consensus mechanisms.  

BIG blocker theorizors like your self have not even gotten past the proposal stage without getting rejected by the vast majority of bitcoin peeps..

In other words, there has been a failure of BIG blockers to come anywhere close to reaching consensus in bitcoin, but you got such in bcash, so go over there and see how that is working out for you.. the main consensus that BIG blockers have achieved in bitcoin is to provide ..a minority of BIG mouthed whiners (that lack substance) about the topic and ongoing suggestions that their solution is simple (without really providing evidence that advantages outweigh disadvantages).

And with bitcoin the nodes wouldn't validate these transactions since they don't have signatures, hence this would result to a hard fork of the chain. And the miners could do a hardfork right now if they wanted. And they haven't yet for good reasons.

When the search for greater fools takes you to the darkest jungles of the Congo...

In big blocker world you don’t need non mining nodes. Miners enforce and determine consensus. Therefore 51% attack can do anything they like including stealing coins without keys.

so if you doublespend a tether does that make it a real dollar?
https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/8ulr0t/a_doublespend_has_been_successfully_performed_on/e1gispn/?context=3

You statement is very confusing since you are taking about two things: a) 51% attack and b) stealing coins.
How can you steal coins without private keys on Bitcoin?  What kind of bull shit is this?
Please enlighten me!

It IS a scalability solution. Bigger blocks will (presumably) be needed some time in the future though, except not as much bigger as if Segwit+L2 were not in place.

You can argue developers will never accept a blocksize increase even when the need comes.... Well, that is speculation and I sincerely hope you are wrong in that one.

Not one of you Segwit haters have provided any decent argument or evidence describing any substantive weakness. You all troll and pat yourself on the back for spotting some imaginary flaw.

I am still waiting on you to reveal the problem.

Your 51% attack nonsense doesn’t wash, what else have you got?

1) Steal coins with hash power
2) Everybody finds out and bitcoin is dead
3) Now you have useless coins?

Wow my first post after lurking around for months now.. so hello to everyone that's been around for years.. I'm one the new HODLers

As far as I could gather, this post here pretty much discusses this topic. It is also explained why SegWit shouldn't be a problem since the 51% attack would hard fork bitcoin because the nodes wouldn't validate the transaction: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6p3wie/can_anyone_explain_why_this_attack_against_segwit/

All outputs free of segwit taint all the way back to segwit activation are completely unaffected by the scenario under discussion.