Topic: Yet another reason to hate and reject SegWit altcoin (Read 2435 times)

Why do you behave like you and your brilliant ideas are going to save Bitcoin then?

You've seemed really motivated by your ideas, right up to the point where someone asks you to do something to prove them. What's the problem?

This conclusion doesn't follow from your premises. Please stop spamming this thread with nonsense.

Facepalm. What you're referring to is mining support, not node support. Node support is around or above 50%: https://bitnodes.21.co/

Also known as the false dilemma fallacy.

Then why are you arguing your viewpoints in a subject in which you have very limited knowledge in? Are you trying to imply that you're smarter than the top cryptographers working or doing research on Bitcoin?

Node majority =/= economic majority =/= mining majority.

There isn't a valid reason to do so.

Nonsense.

Because you cant do anything about an armageddon, but you can do something about flawed cryptography.

It's easier to patch a weak cryptographic algorithm, than to save the entire world.



That is true, I admit to that. I am still learning.



If that is true, then why care about the "economic majority"

Let's just ignore them and hardfork the network now, maybe the price will tank,but who cares right?

But then if people care about the price, and the merchants, and the miners, then we will also never upgrade.

It's like the IPV4 IPV6 argument, once you have big money invested in an infrastucture, you cant change it.



It's not my job to save the world.

Well, you're on fire today aren't you.


All you have to do is find a programmer to code up your killer cryptocoin design, and pay them. But, what's this, you won't put your money where your mouth is? Why not?

A single paper "proves" nothing. Even if this was the case (I'm not going to read that whole paper right now), look at the date. Do you think that Satoshi is a time traveler or something?

How do you know that there isn't a secret weapon of mass doom that is going to kill us all in 5 years? I don't wear tinfoil hats, those are irrational.

The issues that Segwit aims to fix are far from "small", therefore making your whole statement worthless.

It's obvious that you either have very limited or very flawed understanding of cryptography.

Read my previous remark. The network per consensus won't give a damn about any miner that has invested a single $1 if there is an emergency requirement to move onto another algorithm.

---

Anyhow, you are just speculating on doomsday scenarios which are just a waste of time. There are other issues that require focus right now.

Ok that link was indeed irrelevant, but I am going out of my way here to prove my point.

I have found this:

https://www.cs.nyu.edu/~dodis/ps/h-of-h.pdf

This paper proves that HMAC is superior to SHA256d.

Also here is a discussion about this issue:
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/7895/weaknesses-in-sha-256d




How do you know there arent some in some secret underground bunker? Secret projects are always 10-20 years ahead in technology than things that are available publicly.





Not it's not irrelevant, if we cant achieve consensus on small issues, then how can we reach consensus on big issues that might come in the future?



There were some collisions found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2#Cryptanalysis_and_validation

It might make bitcoin mining more unstable if more are found.



But will they upgrade if there will be a need to upgrade. How do you know if there is or is not a need to upgrade.

Why not let the nodes decide it, and if a node thinks they need a better software that fixed certain bugs, then it should be ok for them to use that fixed version.





Well upgraded miners. Yes it's a long stretched thought experiment, and I am not saying that it's practical to upgrade the network now.

But the problem is that when we will need to upgrade it, we will face this exact issue.

Asics will become worthless, and miners will lose either way. So the losses are not eliminated, they are just postponed into the future.

Maybe SHA2 will be broken in 10-15 years, and if miners by then had invested billions in ASICS, then that will be a big  fat loss.

That link is less relevant. Saltes password hashes and double hashing of SHA256 are different concepts. Read:
https://crypto.stackexchange.com/questions/779/hashing-or-encrypting-twice-to-increase-security

There are none, and feasible quantum computers are still a distant future despite what some "bitcointalk experts" claim.

Irrelevant statement.

False again. SHA2 is not a weak algorithm.

Wrong again. Nobody is going to upgrade because there is no need to upgrade.

Assuming that SHA3 PoW would be incompatible with SHA2 PoW, then you don't need miners. Therefore, this  argument is also invalid.

Wrong again.

You mean they have overengineered a bit and lost some traction?

Skipped the marketing and some soft skills?

 

Well they are cryptographic experts, so maybe they know more about cryptography than average programmers

https://security.stackexchange.com/questions/29951/salted-hashes-vs-hmac#29955





If there are quantum computers out there, then it's very very bad.

I have heard that ECDSA will be replaced sometime ,but if the enthusiasm of the network is as good as it is now with segwit (23%), then I fear we have a much bigger consensus problem, not a cryptographic problem.




I think they will be a very good upgrade, but we also cannot keep weak algorithms around just because the majority of miners have invested a lot in equipment.

If SHA3 is better than SHA2, then the only reason we cant upgrade is because the miners would lose a lot of money.

But if that is the case, then we can never upgrade, because if SHA2 will become insecure 10 years from now, then we can't upgrade in 10 years because the miners would lose even more money by then.

So we are keeping the bandaged weak version of Bitcoin, just because it would upset the market.


But with this attitude, Bitcoin can never evolve, nor it can reach consensus in any important issue.


Maybe a lot of people would lose money with Segwit activated, so on the same logic Segwit won't be activated. And then Bitcoin will never have consensus on anything.

That ain't gonna happen.


Neither is that. Core will be ousted by design.

Argumentum ad populum.

This is just outright false. Who sold you this story? ECDSA should be replaced by Schnorr post Segwit anyways.

I'm going to take a risk and say that your "fixes" or 'suggestions' would probably be the end of Bitcoin. Or they just aren't necessary, like this one:

Bullshit, these are cryptographic facts, look them up. I read up on double hashing ,and many people suggested that its inferior to HMAC.

Same with ECDSA a very depreciated public key system.

The solution is out there, it's just that the expert devs, don't have time for 5 minutes of Google search on basic cryptography to read up on vulnerabilities, that an amateur like me can find.





I am not a programmer, but it is disturbing that there is no programmer on earth that can fix these?

Maybe because programmers need money, nobody will write tens of thousands of lines of code for free, for hobby.

Maybe if some donation fund would be setup for developers, then the BTC development would be more frictionless.

Didn't you read what my reply the last time you came out with your design "critiques"?

No expert in the field sees what you're seeing. So you could be rich, don't you see? You've come up with all the correct design decisions, and this "Real" Bitcoin of yours will be top on coinmarketcap.com, right? Wrong.



Well address it with your own code then. If you can't, why do you expect anyone to listen to your armchair arguments?

That is why the mining system should be redesigned completely. Maybe some captcha system, requiring manual labor, or some capped mining system that lets 1 ip address get reward only once a week or something.

There can be a dozen of ways to prevent mining centralization, just do a brainstorm, and find out intelligent people comin up with good ideas.


Didnt you read what I posted above:

Double Hash instead of HMAC.
Key generation not quantum resistant.
SHA2 should be replaced with SHA3
The mining algo is a mess, that centralizes mining power
Nodes are not incentivized
Block size only 1 MB
TX fees should be 0 until the minting process is on (why have 2 taxes, have inflation until 21m coins are mined, and demurrage by TX fees after that)
Nodes should individually censor people who are doing evil things (botnet, ddos, spam, etc)


In short, BTC is a mess, and none of the Segwit code addresses anything that I have wrote above, because these are the biggest issues.

Evidence?

i think DooMAD meant BITCOIN asics didnt exist in 2008.
but im sure satoshi knew whatever he chose could be abused / done efficiently. so just chose the lessor of the 2 evils

PoS is just allowing the richer guy to sign. because they have above X stake. thus the whole rich vs poor paradigm would have played out far sooner than the asic one, which didnt really begin until 2013

ASICs were around long before Satoshi.  ASICs were here way before 1980.  Mining ASICs came after bitcoin launch, the the poster above was thinking Satoshi failed to image that ASICs would be configured to mine. 

Its a good point.  Centralization by just a handful of minors would never have materialized if we had 20,000 CPU miners running now.  But, the financial incentive got unexpectedly large and the mega-miner arose from that. 

It was an effect that Satoshi probably did not imagine.  To much incentive caused mining to get out of control and now the entire network turns on just about 8 - 10 people.

if something needs a cpu. no matter what it is..
someone can make a chip thats only sole purpose is a single function. so that its more efficient.
and then make a mainboard of multiple chips to multiply that efficiency.

no matter what hash or method he could ever think off there will be many people finding ways to do it more efficiently and then find the loop hole
to increase their 'luck'

EG 1 node one signature... where 400 people are signing. each person has a 0.25% chance

loophole= run 200 nodes
600 signing.. but one person has 33% chance

Satoshi was pretty sloppy and made many mistakes not just 1:

• Satoshi coded the first softwares, and they were very buggy
• Satoshi chose hashcash instead of HMAC, so he was bad in cryptography too
• Satoshi should have known that SHA256 can be ASIC solved, so he could not plan the future
• Satoshi did predict the blocksize increase, but he suggested waiting until resource costs go down (bad thing, they should have increased the block size back in 2012, because now there is just too much drama)
• Satoshi did choose well the Elliptic Curve Secp256k1 , because the R curve was proven to be very weak
• However he choose too low security key gen algorithm, that is not quantum resistant

So yes, for every good point, he has 2 bad points, he made so many mistakes, I dont even see how can people like him.

Bitcoin is like a frankeinstein monster now, with full of bandages, hacks and patches on in.

Segwit is the latest one. Instead of writing a clean code with well thought out programming and cryptography, the devs just choose to "patch and hack" it further.

Very disappointing.

To be precise, Satoshi couldn't "forget" about ASICs because they weren't a thing yet when Satoshi was still around.  There's a distinct line between being visionary and having godlike powers to predict the future, heh.  People tried to make the same point about GPU mining and the propagation of mining pools, but again, these things weren't eventualities that could be easily predicted in advance.



People might be suspicious and have concerns over who funds what, but there's no evidence of wrongdoing or unethical practice on the part of Blockstream yet that I've seen.  Such a claim would need to be substantiated.  Literally all of the misdeeds I've witnessed have been ordinary members of the community:

• DDoS attacks against people running Bitcoin nodes that conflict with their personal visions of the future
• Ad hominem attacks on members of the community that hold different views
• Running a modified client to spoof the client version and manipulate the figures
• Impersonating satoshi to discredit a fork proposal
• Dismissing fork proposals as an altcoin