Pages:
Author

Topic: Why do some people believe that only the nodes miners run matter? (Read 4794 times)

legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1159
Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing.
Good Riddance!!

He was spreading confusion and conspiracy theories. His basic argument was that what he was saying needs an understanding of Game theory and Schelling points. Nobody else was intelligent enough to understand it and so he was right. How else is that different from that other credential flaunting mad hatter who tried to prove himself Satoshi?
hero member
Activity: 568
Merit: 703
It was less of a "discussion" and more of a diatribe anyway.

Even if that were true, you entirely did not respond to my point.

You know what else is antithetical to crpyto and our movement?  Theft at the protocol level.

You do not know the definition of decentralization.
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 3191
Leave no FUD unchallenged
Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing.

Many will argue that it makes far more more sense now.    Cheesy

It was less of a "discussion" and more of a diatribe anyway.  Plus, readers should still be able to gain sufficient context from the segments of insanity that remain in quotes.


CENTRALIZED determination of what is misinformation is the antithesis of our entire decentralized crypto movement.
Bitcointalk is no longer is congruent with our movement.

You know what else is antithetical to crpyto and our movement?  Theft at the protocol level.  No amount of calling it a "donation" changes the fact that people have ownership over the funds in their SegWit addresses and they aren't going to relinquish that ownership by following a chain where the funds have been taken.  If you think advocating theft is congruent with our movement, you need to find another movement.
hero member
Activity: 568
Merit: 703

It might be because of the lies and misinformation they were spreading.



CENTRALIZED determination of what is misinformation is the antithesis of our entire decentralized crypto movement.
Bitcointalk is no longer congruent with our movement.
It has become some echo chamber for selling CENTRALIZED, PERMISSIONED, BOOTY calls.
hero member
Activity: 2576
Merit: 883
Freebitco.in Support https://bit.ly/2I9BVS2
Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing.

The account has been banned and all posts deleted. https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/anunymint-2189580
https://snag.gy/loMb9V.jpg

It might be because of the lies and misinformation they were spreading.

hero member
Activity: 568
Merit: 703
Every post from @anunymint apparently was deleted. The thread is now very difficult to understand because a significant portion of the discussion is missing.

Some of this thread was archived here and here.
legendary
Activity: 2674
Merit: 2965
Terminated.
I think some of you will find this very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvI73jJ6uc
I would recommend at least watching from 28:00-33:00 (by that point you'll be hooked  Wink). Andrew DeSantis explains the importance of the Satoshi address format, the importance in maintaining the continued, shared heritage with the genesis block , and its address format, etc.

He also implies around 31:40 that the Satoshi fork will be very valuable there will be a Satoshi fork, since it contains the last 10 years of data on the blockchain.

There are known and emergent properties of the Satoshi address format that will be lost forever when we switch to bech32 addresses. He posits that this change in address format, which no one seems to question, may break the bitcoin incentive system in unexpected, and even currently unknown, ways.
That is absolute nonsense. Bech32 is superior to the legacy address format(s) in every definable-aspect. There is no network effect on the addresses; 99.9% of the users today don't care whether the prefix is '1', '3', 'bc1'  or something completely random. He's partially delusional. Stop listening to fake experts.

I quit this video after 5 minutes. I'm almost better off listening to Ver's gibberish, at least he isn't trying hard. Smiley
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
Are you replying in the wrong thread to make things confusing again? Seriously, grow up

Haha. I thought it was only me because I was a little stupid to "get" some concepts about Bitcoin, and I swear I thought some of his "theories" might be biased or too extreme and impractical that they will not materialize.

But I believe he is a person to learn from. I hope the other posters will not be afraid to ask him more questions.

I think some of you will find this very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvI73jJ6uc
I would recommend at least watching from 28:00-33:00 (by that point you'll be hooked  Wink). Andrew DeSantis explains the importance of the Satoshi address format, the importance in maintaining the continued, shared heritage with the genesis block , and its address format, etc.

He also implies around 31:40 that the Satoshi fork will be very valuable there will be a Satoshi fork, since it contains the last 10 years of data on the blockchain.

There are known and emergent properties of the Satoshi address format that will be lost forever when we switch to bech32 addresses. He posits that this change in address format, which no one seems to question, may break the bitcoin incentive system in unexpected, and even currently unknown, ways.

Thanks. I will watch it later.
legendary
Activity: 2646
Merit: 2842
Shitcoin Minimalist
I think some of you will find this very interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMvI73jJ6uc
I would recommend at least watching from 28:00-33:00 (by that point you'll be hooked  Wink). Andrew DeSantis explains the importance of the Satoshi address format, the importance in maintaining the continued, shared heritage with the genesis block , and its address format, etc.

He also implies around 31:40 that the Satoshi fork will be very valuable there will be a Satoshi fork, since it contains the last 10 years of data on the blockchain.

There are known and emergent properties of the Satoshi address format that will be lost forever when we switch to bech32 addresses. He posits that this change in address format, which no one seems to question, may break the bitcoin incentive system in unexpected, and even currently unknown, ways.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Are you replying in the wrong thread to make things confusing again? Seriously, grow up
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
Continuing on the real topic.

From what I got from Anonymint, there are "a cartel of miners" that are "possibly" colluding. Then that opens the argument that users should run full nodes and validate transactions and make sure that they are valid. Am I wrong in thinking that?

Plus we have also witnessed a group of Bitcoin "oligarchs" try to "take over" through the NYA. That too should be a reason for users to run full nodes. Yet the UASF and NO2X were dismissed as drama? Hahaha.

But Anonymint then posts technical explanations why non-mining nodes do not matter, and makes it more confusing. But in reality, don't the nodes treat other nodes as "nodes" and that there are really no "mining nodes" but "just nodes" from a full node's perspective?

I am not criticizing the teacher but I expect no less than the teacher not criticizing his student for his inquisitiveness as well.

 
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
So if Segwit is a different fork of Bitcoin, why are the pre-segwit nodes still following the original chain
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
The ANYONECANSPEND exists precisely as an immunity defense so that people can fork off from Bitcoin if they wish to. It provides a way for transactions to be accepted by Satoshi’s protocol while the transition takes place. Otherwise it would be difficult for the Core fork to transition. And of course it also means those who use it, will have forsaken their tokens on the Satoshi protocol.

Which Bitcoin fork used this "transition" feature you speak of? None
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
If on any fork of Bitcoin users start signing transactions which are backwards incompatible in a way that they become spendable by anyone, they thus have forked off from Bitcoin.

That’s inherent in the fact that Nakamoto proof-of-work solves the FLP impossibility theorem of Byzantine fault tolerant consensus, by being only probabilistically and never 100% final.

Since the legacy protocol can never be 100% finalized, then any fork which proposes to create transactions which are spendable by anyone in the legacy protocol, is thus inherently a technological flaw.

This statement is self contradictory. If old nodes without segwit are incompatible, why are old nodes without segwit still following the Bitcoin blockchain? How are they doing it?

ANYONECANSPEND has existed in Bitcoin since before Segwit was introduced, and I think using it as a way to upgrade signing rules was always at least one of the intentions for ANYONECANSPEND's existence. Old nodes understand ANYONECANSPEND, precisely to maintain compatibility with changes in how transactions are signed. Get a job
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
The attempts to bury the detection logic about whether SegWit is active on the blockchain does absolutely nothing to prevent a Satoshi blockchain miner from stealing SegWit ”pay to anyone” transactions on the Satoshi protocol blockchain.

Right, and all BTC in segwit addresses on the original blockchain will be protected.


The blockchain must fork for this attack to work, so it's simple really: anyone can create a fork anytime with rules that permit stealing outputs. There's nothing special about choosing a "Segwit booty" approach, any fork can choose to redistribute BTC in any way the creators of the fork see fit. You're trying to say this is somehow a weakness in segwit, it's not.

So, now you've popularised this idea of a "steal from Segwit addresses" fork, what's the reason to do it? Do you have one? Why don't you want to steal from vanity addresses, or Satoshi's coins? All are equally possible when you fork, so why not some other target
legendary
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1252
the wealthy

When you talk about wealthy, you mean wealthy in general, or Bitcoin wealthy specifically? Because I've seen wealthy ($billionaires) involved in scams such as Ethereum and others, so I doubt all that wealth has any idea of all of this, most are still learning. As far as old money is concerned (the one that owns most of the real state, gold, access to armies, nukes.. etc out there) I doubt they are involved at all in Bitcoin and if they are, they aren't aware of your proposed scenario and are just holding BTC not worried about any of this. All these "Rothschild-Bitcoin" type of connections I've seen are just conspiracy theories as far as im concerned.

The marketplace will decide which fork is more valuable.

As long as the USD is accepted to buy things, they can print as much as it's needed to pump anything they want in the marketplace, and if for some reason they decide to buy the other fork then the rest will follow, and assuming the other end has already sold their share after the split they no longer have selling pressure on it. For how long that would be viable I don't know, but then again, they have managed to keet USD alive for ages even if it should have died already, as long as it's accepted to buy things it will continue being the case.
legendary
Activity: 3122
Merit: 2178
Playgram - The Telegram Casino
But it is still a lie to insinuate the signaling or non-mining full nodes are indicative of the economic majority. That is a social justice warrior lie.

Carlton Banks stated a clear technical fact. I expanded on it. While I obviously can't speak for Carlton Banks I personally definitely never said that SegWit nodes are a reflection of the economic majority -- neither explicitely nor implicitely.

However the market is. And I can't say for sure, of course, but I personally doubt that SegWit-booty-coin would fare well in the market. Even given plenty of room for market manipulation.


It’s also a lie to state that Core is the canonical Bitcoin.

As there is no central authority to say otherwise, and pretty much everyone refers to the "Core blockchain" as Bitcoin, it is the currently canonical Bitcoin blockchain.

That's what canonical means.

Unless you're the Pope of Bitcoin you have no say in what constitutes the canonical Bitcoin blockchain.
legendary
Activity: 1652
Merit: 4392
Be a bank

trilema.com

Ah, you've been drinking the MP kool-aid.  Not surprising that he attracts your ilk.  The mentally unhinged always rally around MP's deranged war-cries.  I can't take anyone who references or quotes his gutter-spiel seriously.  


Your contribution to bitcoin has been #noted.
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
It's good exercise to refute Annoymint's claims, it consolidates the way one understands Bitcoin.

And where’s the refutation?

Where's yours?

"Liar, liar" was your reply, and unfortunately you failed to identify a lie, or provide reasoning. That's not a request as such btw, I think your reply speaks for itself Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3430
Merit: 3080
Annoymint is essentially saying that the miners can follow any rules they like, the users must follow their choice of consensus rules. Which isn't what's happening in reality of course, but it's a clever argument nonetheless.

Thanks. That proves my first thought that he might be a person that I should not listen to.

It's good exercise to refute Annoymint's claims, it consolidates the way one understands Bitcoin.

OTOH, I had Annoymint and his alias accounts (TPTB_need_war, iamnotback, dinofelis etc) in mind when I suggested adding a pay per post feature to the forum. I was wrong, I hereby propose "pay-per-character" Cheesy

(seriously, imagine if you earned enough merit to get a cut of the paid-posters? Annoymint would be paying you every time he unleashes his rainbows of effluent)
Pages:
Jump to: