log☇︎
217 entries in 0.559s
mircea_popescu: exactly the same play. oh, we "buy" bitcoin crash. if it takes, it's good. if it doesn't take, guess what, segwit unroll later.
a111: Logged on 2017-08-10 21:46 edivad: in the case of segwit, this means that trb won't care about segwit blocks and as long as they will complies with the "hard rules" (I really don't know how to explain myself better) they will be accepted?
shinohai: Also, from here onwards you should refer to Segwit as `Segshit`
trinque: cept that eventually miners will defect from the thing, and steal everyone's segwit "transactions", much to the lul of all.
trinque: as currently derped, yep, "segwit" shouldn't mean a damn thing to bitcoin proper.
trinque: edivad: can search the logs first, eh? there's lots in there re: segwit and other failures of folks to diddle the definition of bitcoin
edivad: in the case of segwit, this means that trb won't care about segwit blocks and as long as they will complies with the "hard rules" (I really don't know how to explain myself better) they will be accepted? ☟︎
BingoBoingo: My favortie part is "MP preventing Segwit" when instead the power rangers were compelled to Segwit a certain way leaving Bitcoin alone.
asciilifeform: meanwhile, at the monkey circus, https://archive.is/RiGV4 >> 'Going to be lolz epic when all the SegWit transactions are double-spent, i.e. stolen by miners on The Real Bitcoin (the legacy Satoshi blockchain).' 'Go ahead and continue voting to close and censor this question. It will not change the embarrassment that you will have when it comes true and all the losses that people sustain because you blocked timely disclosure. Your cen
shinohai: http://archive.is/hABGX "in the unlikely event that the 2MB block size increase portion of Segwit2x fails to activate, Bitcoin.com will immediately shift all company resources to supporting Bitcoin Cash exclusively."
BingoBoingo: https://archive.is/VSCw3 lol http://qntra.net/2017/07/miners-signal-segwit-via-bip-91-lock-in-avoiding-user-activated-fork/#comment-105892
ag3nt_zer0: I dont know if there is a risk in transferring NOW seeing as this segwit stuff is going on... is there any kind of chance my coins won't be signed properly or something like this?
deedbot: http://qntra.net/2017/07/miners-signal-segwit-via-bip-91-lock-in-avoiding-user-activated-fork/ << Qntra - Miners Signal Segwit Via BIP 91 "Lock In" Avoiding "User Activated" Fork
BingoBoingo: In other news: Miners signaled for SegWit 'Lock In" UASF averted, network turbulence expected
asciilifeform: 'It's also interesting to note that some miners are signalling to orphan themselves. Antpool, BTC.com, and BTC.top are all signalling for BIP 91 with bit 4, but are not signalling for segwit on bit 1. This means that once BIP 91 activates, if they don't change their version number (and it seems that this is a manual process as most mining pools set the version number manually), they will be orphaning their own blocks under the BIP 91
BingoBoingo: badD00d: TRB now WILL accept segwit blocks, but it will not parse the segwit'd portion as anything other than "anyone can spend"
badD00d: will TRB nodes start rejecting blocks whenever BIP91 or other bologna segwit proposals gain the majority hashing power?
whaack: the idea that segwit is safer because it is a "soft fork" is nonsense. during a hard fork one can vote with their coins. soft forks are a sneak attack to add a new rule on the part of the miners.
user705: but what is your view on just the segwit part?
user705: is your view on the segwit lite that seems to be bandied about as the solution same as segwit2x which is just outright wrong?
shinohai: All signs point to this .... blockchain.info is added as DNS seed for segwit2x in recent commits on shithub
shinohai: https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin/releases <<< the latest it appears from the segwit camp
shinohai: Testbed for fucking segwit atm
deedbot: danielpbarron updated rating of juliatourianski_ from 4 to -4 << Stupid harlot, segwit shill, self-admitted enemy of the republic
shinohai: http://archive.is/oOYD8 <<< Supports segwit, hates scams. Noted.
asciilifeform: 'Buying a cup of coffee is not a micro transaction' 'SegWit and LN and you can buy coffee again. That simple. You are choosing power and politics over coffee.' << lol
pete_dushenski: in other boosts, asicboost is back as the segwit saviour : http://archive.is/1BYAX (gmaxwell)
shinohai: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013981.html <<< Make btc more segwittier ?
shinohai: http://news.clonezone.link/segwit <<< VERified April Fool's lelz
a111: Logged on 2017-03-20 23:27 lulcoinz: my understanding is this group doesn't really support segwit or BU
mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-03-20#1629992 << actually "segwit" is supported, and fully implemented / working without bugs since what, 2015 ? look up deedbot.org ☝︎
ben_vulpes: yeah ~right. segwit, aka "blockchains that don't validate" isn't a thing, and "bitcoin unlimited" wtf is that even
lulcoinz: my understanding is this group doesn't really support segwit or BU ☟︎
lulcoinz: just praying nothing happens and BU along with segwit die
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform recall earlier discussion re "what is segwit" / deedbot ?
BU_lulz: not to say there aren't segwit shillz
mircea_popescu: anyway, irrelevant as it is - currently "bu" is ahead of "segwit" in terms of prbisms.
mircea_popescu: amusingly enough, the whole segwit thing could be best described as "a rather braindamaged attempt to implement half of stan's casks"
trinque: "segwit if whatever amount is tiny" ????
thestringpuller: segwit addys
asciilifeform: in other heathenlulz, http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php
mircea_popescu: this ironically mirrors my impression of segwit.
ben_vulpes: segwit is an assault on bitcoin, no two ways about it.
ben_vulpes: danielpbarron: i'm a bit surprised a segwit stoolie ranks as positive in your book
mircea_popescu: by tallying up the segwit inputs and outputs. well, sure, but it can be verified is the point.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you can deterministically verify that segwit doesn't create coins without accessing their proprietary binary blob.
mircea_popescu: tracing all payments to the coinbase will be useful if/when we decide to not accept "segwit" payments.
asciilifeform: 'The work by Wuille and others on the SegWit proposal, which moved from testing to launch over the course of 2016, has set the stage for what will likely be bitcoin’s critical development arc in 2017. For Wuille and all the other bitcoin developers in the world, 2017 is on course for a defining year.' << lel
yalehasaquestion: am I correct that segwit will be backwards compatible?
a111: 62 results for "segwit", http://btcbase.org/log-search?q=segwit
asciilifeform: !#s segwit
yalehasaquestion: I am trying to understand your views on segwit
asciilifeform: now called 'unlimited' and 'segwit', iirc
shinohai: Gavin voicing support for segwit in attempt to social engineer his way back into r/bitcoin favor: http://archive.is/8gAQw
asciilifeform: 'The Bitcoin community and, especially, miners, now face the most important decision in Bitcoin’s existence. They are to choose between two fundamentally different visions for bitcoin’s future. Segwit, a centralized capacity increase from 1MB to around 1.7MB, or Bitcoin Unlimited, a decentralized mechanism for on-chain scalability decision making. ' << sanity not, according to this thing, on the table ..?
mircea_popescu: it's really just building prb complexity for no benefit. i can directly pay to them, they can't pay to me without adding an intermediate step where they desegwit.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform it's rather simple : i won't upgrade, this means i'm not recognizing segwit txn until they are bridged over.
asciilifeform: 'segwit' scheme
asciilifeform: (and incidentally i suspect that you do not need anything like 51% for demolition of 'segwit' and other 'soft' idiocies, but just enough to feedback 'arse-mouth' and buy moar cycles immediately)
mircea_popescu: amusingly, a 51% attack doesn't even have to skin the lamb. it can just fleece it (respend all the segwit coins up to point x, retroactively invalidating any txn that ever rely on their proceeds) AND THEN agree to "never to process counter txn" for the future.
asciilifeform: (summary: usg's most recent attempt to pound in the cock 'halfway', 'segwit', consists of prb churning out txen that result in 'anyone can spend' from trb pov, but miners are to 'agree never to process counter-softforkian tx', a la 'timelock' etc)
shinohai thinks it is nice to finally read a Bitcoin development conversation that doesn't include the term `Segwit`
adlai: segwit is much worse (or better!) than p2sh in this regard, aiui, you don't even need to find a preimage to spend them
adlai: ok ok ok, the issue was thestringpuller's ambiguous use of "rubble", i assumed he meant the coins themselves, you're interpreting it as the 'innovations'. w/e. it's impossible to 'destroy' coins through layers such as p2sh, segwit, drivechain, etc; it just makes coins less tightly controlled, and more dependent on miner goodwill
mircea_popescu: da fuck is that lol. starting your own segwit altcoin ?
mircea_popescu: but w/e, after the total rout of the gavin forks in 2015 and the political rather than technological defeat of the summer of forks earlier last year the remaining hole - which is also not going to get plugged - is exactly in this vein (segwit is no different), where all comers are more than welcome to define magic versions, script meanings and paralel chains ; which everyone else is more than welcome to ignore.
shinohai: "We propose a soft-fork that defines a new opcode (redefining a NOP opcode) as the OP_COUNT_ACKS using the segwit script versioning system"
mircea_popescu: why didn't it arrive ? segwit ?
mircea_popescu: that they make segwit ; that we make deedbot (the two are not even vaguely dissimilar, by the way, except prb doesn't know how to code cleanly), is really nobody's problem.
asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: the 'segwit' thing is, as i understand, intended as a protocol hardfork - to isolate trb users.
mircea_popescu: the other side of "segwit" is that there will NEVER be a block size increase. period and full stop.
a111: Logged on 2016-08-15 17:53 pete_dushenski: http://btcbase.org/log/2016-08-15#1521781 << this zooko ? the one that failed to launch usg.zcash ? >> http://www.contravex.com/2016/01/25/zcash-will-crash-just-like-gavincoin-garzikcoin-xt-segwit-and-classic-now-you-know/
pete_dushenski: http://btcbase.org/log/2016-08-15#1521781 << this zooko ? the one that failed to launch usg.zcash ? >> http://www.contravex.com/2016/01/25/zcash-will-crash-just-like-gavincoin-garzikcoin-xt-segwit-and-classic-now-you-know/ ☝︎☟︎
asciilifeform: in other lulz, the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/files ('segwit') crapolade is still going strong in prbland.
thestringpuller: I get that. I guess I'd have to do more investigation. Make a bunch of nlocktime transaction and see how to break it. cause it wasn't used until peter todd made OP_CLTV abomination for segwit/ln
shinohai: reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/4r43ps/chinas_major_influence_over_bitcoin/d4yjy7t <<< Butterin "I can't fix Ethereum but this is how I would fix segwit"
shinohai: http://archive.is/tiY2j <<< segwit stole our block propagation idea! LOL
mircea_popescu: segwit is EXACTLY "dao for bitcoin".
BingoBoingo: thestringpuller: From what I understand Segwit to a normal 1xxx adress requires a signature in the blockchain so when segwit stops being miner enforced the recieved transaction would still be, even though it came from freemoneyshitsoup.
mircea_popescu: moreover, there ISNT, in general, and for very good reasons, a way to verify segwit crapolade.
thestringpuller: cause there is no way TRB will ever enforce segwit, so there is no way it can ever truly verify a segwit output was spent "legitimately"
thestringpuller: okay. so lets say Segwitz address starts with 'P00'. you send 1 BTC from a standard address as inputs into the segitz address. the segwitz address now spends back to a standard address. but the way it spends is with non-standard opcodes, so called "bastard unspent outputs". so it spends to a real btc address "1something". When TRB validates it's the chain of tx's it'll encounter the segwit part as NO_OP. Should we just bury these coi
thestringpuller: that is someone pays to segwit address, even if coins leave segwit address and are use normally, they are now "lost forever" cause they've "tainted"
thestringpuller: ah. but with segwit coins TRB should treat coins as if they are burned?
thestringpuller: "For things like CSV and Segwit-- The node doesn't understand the new rules, but it knows it doesn't understand them (due to tx version number for CSV, and the NOP code usage for SW; both explicit soft-fork upgrade mechanisms in the protocol*)... this is already the case today and has been since 2010, you didn't need to upgrade to teach your node what it doesn't know.
thestringpuller: mod6: hey. can we bury segwit transactions?
Bugpowder: segwit merged?
thestringpuller: ascii_deadfiber: for segwitz and multisig output. you can reject payments until outputs are buried under enough blocks.
assbot: 26 results for 'segwit' : http://s.b-a.link/?q=segwit
davout: !s segwit
assbot: Logged on 04-03-2016 23:08:49; shinohai: https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/segwit-forked-unexpectedly-on-testnet-t6111.html <<< top kek
assbot: SegWit forked unexpectedly on testnet - The Bitcoin Forum ... ( http://bit.ly/1Qrhyiv )
shinohai: https://forum.bitcoin.com/bitcoin-discussion/segwit-forked-unexpectedly-on-testnet-t6111.html <<< top kek ☟︎
shinohai: https://github.com/indutny/bcoin#features <<< broken javascript, now with segwit support :D
BingoBoingo: HARD FORK SEGWIT https://archive.is/KMCyW
adlai personally will be slightly amused if LN goes live on SegwitCoin, and sees zero volume because nobody who spends btc actually needs micropayments
adlai: correct, same as how extension block (adam back's original name for what morphed into the "segwit softfork") payments don't /count/ until you withdraw them to cold, hard, bitcoin
deedbot-: [Contravex: A blog by Pete Dushenski » Contravex: A blog by Pete Dushenski] Zcash will crash just like Gavincoin, Garzikcoin, XT, SegWit, and Classic. Now you know. - http://www.contravex.com/2016/01/25/zcash-will-crash-just-like-gavincoin-garzikcoin-xt-segwit-and-classic-now-you-know/
copypaste: the funny thing is, to hear them describe it (luke jr, wuille, antonopolous, and so on) "segwit" (cute name) has no problems whatsoever and softforks are perfectly safe so everyone should start throwing their coins into segwit transactions so as to make the overall "capacity" of the network go up
assbot: Logged on 10-01-2016 12:45:13; adlai: if you run a full node which has no recognition of segwit, you can still operate normally. segwit is dangerous for a) users of non-full nodes who think they have "SPV security" (whatever that may mean), and b) everybody, if enough utxos use segwit that miner defection becomes a real risk