tmsr - Search: segwit

girlattorney: you still are on a core node, but even if you aren't completely ignoring segwit shit, you aren't touching it directly

mp_en_viaje: then again, i can not name any program published after... uh i dunno, 2005 or so that i actually fucking use. a large part of the advantage in dealing with these idiots is still ye same old : nobody needs aything they "did" for anything. much like i have no use for "all the advances" in bitcoin (what, segwit ? bwahahaha) i also don't have any use for "all th

girlattorney: btw i'm very grateful that still exist a client without segwit and without other useless crap. so glad to be able to almost sync it

mp_en_viaje: largely the early soviet revolutionary thing was a long chain reorg. a tenuous if long coming interpretation of "wealth" got segwit 'ed out of existence.

a111: Logged on 2019-05-28 16:22 nocredit: another question: if i run core without using segwit features (so sticking with the 1 starting addresses) am i actually protected from an eventual attack on segwit? I know that here is not core support, but there is a way to tell core to dump the segwit part?

diana_coman: nocredit: since you have nothing to do with segwit, you are immune to attacks on segwit, not as much protected as entirely immune by definition, no?

nocredit: another question: if i run core without using segwit features (so sticking with the 1 starting addresses) am i actually protected from an eventual attack on segwit? I know that here is not core support, but there is a way to tell core to dump the segwit part? ☟︎

mp_en_viaje: but yes. lotta what is protocol is promise. starting with "segwit" bs, i won't unearth the threads.

mircea_popescu: i'm personally waiting for the return of the meni rosenfeld / jonathan ryan owens lulzpair. bitdaytrade, segwit, cash-whatever... what the fuck's the difference.

a111: Logged on 2017-08-24 14:23 mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-08-24#1702759 << eventually this will necessarily happen, yes. "segwit" transactions are stored on the bitcoin network as "anyone can spend", so eventually miners will unroll the segwit chain. how soon is not easily predicted (which is why the idea is stupid/usg-like, introduces impredictability in the currency)

mircea_popescu: segwit was always a matter of "hipsters & doofuses community chests, someone takes it all sometime"

asciilifeform: even politically. they have option of unwinding segwit, say.

BingoBoingo: steel: The way weird brokenshit like segwit and other turds that live in addresses that start with 3 work is that real nodes see them as "spend to any"

mircea_popescu: a) have you read http://trilema.com/2013/digging-through-archives-yields-gold/ ? not like it's the first time the pantsuit empire is trying to ruin sanity ; b) have you read http://btcbase.org/log-search?q=segwit ?

BingoBoingo: And Segwit can't in the form the Power Rangers settled on arbitrarily slice shit off of transactions or blocks. Segwit is an opt-in evil. It can only tickle your butthole if you let it in.

BingoBoingo: Segwit nodes usually have been bricked to the point of not successfully connecting to the Bitcoin network

avgjoe: so the trusted nodes list is more useful on the initial startup when there are a lot of blocks to download and it'd be easier to just have nodes that doesn't send unnecessary info (like segwit payload)?

avgjoe: ok i understand, so i shouldn't worry if for instance i connect to a segwit node, my node will try to chop off the irrelevant parts of what it receive, correct?

trinque: here's the other sad thing; these cunts are taking the coin and throwing them into 3-addys and segwit, even.

mircea_popescu: specifically being able to say, "oh, yeah, segwit, whatever, the power ranger's version of deedbot's !!pay, right ?" is a tmsr-wide benefit.

a111: Logged on 2018-04-12 18:58 mircea_popescu: avgjoe it's exactly equivalent to "segwit" except much less expensive.

mircea_popescu: avgjoe it's exactly equivalent to "segwit" except much less expensive. ☟︎

a111: Logged on 2018-04-11 08:11 avgjoe: Basically segwit it could be reprhased as the "i'm a good politician that will enforce the ---good--- policy but to enforce this i'll need to take some of your sovereignty (keys), but bear with me, hashrate is gonna protect you"

avgjoe: Basically segwit it could be reprhased as the "i'm a good politician that will enforce the ---good--- policy but to enforce this i'll need to take some of your sovereignty (keys), but bear with me, hashrate is gonna protect you" ☟︎

a111: Logged on 2017-08-11 17:52 mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes the substantial weakness segwit adds to bitcoin chain security is that witout it, one needs the power to unwind the chain AND the keys of old txn to steal bitcoin. whereas with it, one only needs the hash power, as anyone can spend the segwit shit.

avgjoe: thanks for the segwit discussion, i have just looked in the logs for "bech32" and it outputs very little

mircea_popescu: all segwit coins are going to be eventually unwound. this is again intentional, and not likely to change.

mircea_popescu: anyway, there's a lot for you to read wrt to why specifically segwit is a usg-driven attack against bitcoin, and not supported by the bitcoin foundation. perhaps the recent http://btcbase.org/log/2018-04-11#1795944 is a good starting point ; but generally the logs are your friends, search them. ☝︎

a111: Logged on 2017-08-11 17:49 mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes and block depth. if you make segwit tx a to me at height 1 and i put it into a normal tx at block 2, i can spend it from block 3 as my bitcoin, the segwitnmess is gone out of it. to steal it from me, one has to rewind all the way to block 1 again. which is possible, but expensive as the chain builds.

shinohai: Also was a strong voice behind "Hey you Bitcoiners are gonna miss out if you don't integrate segwit" shit.

shinohai: It's some sort of segwit spam floating around chans .... says "Stop using non-segwit wallets"

BingoBoingo: Still that's every address that starts with 3, so likely some no segwit turds in there

mircea_popescu: !!rate whaack 2 computed total segwit impact on bitcoin ecosystem. turned out to be less than 1 parts per thousand.

whaack: Ultimately what I want to build is a tool to determine how much a miner can obtain by "defecting" from segwit from the current mempool

whaack: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-21#1741626 << From my cursory understanding of the segwit system there's no way to know if coins are in a segwit address until it is spent. It is effectively of the nature where you must know x in h(x) for the coins to be spent, so a miner cannot snag the coins until the segwitter tries to spend. ☝︎

a111: Logged on 2017-11-21 14:32 asciilifeform: 'the first SegWit address whose funds were recovered'

a111: Logged on 2017-09-12 21:08 rothbart: I've been trying to grok the segwit "theft" incentive - as the bounty grows, so does the PoW defending it - doesn't this keep the segwit outputs safe?

a111: Logged on 2017-11-21 13:51 shinohai: Appears on r/buttcoin this morning someone sent 500k in btcrash to a segwit addy by accident.

asciilifeform: 'the first SegWit address whose funds were recovered' ☟︎

shinohai: Appears on r/buttcoin this morning someone sent 500k in btcrash to a segwit addy by accident. ☟︎

concernedscaling: Thanks. I guess I am just trying to make sense of all of this, and couldnt find it in the logs. Instead of bcash forking from bitcoin, what was stopping them from just mining and rejecting segwit transactions on the the real BTC?

concernedscaling: g it was a fork (it's like Litecoin in my mind, which "scales" as well). But even more concerning is Bitcoin with segwit, and my current BTC on this upgraded protocol. I have not seen much talk about these issues in here lately, is there a reason for this? It seems like most are underestimating the threat of this fake bcash and segwit.

mircea_popescu: and all this "forking" and "bitcoin cash" and "segwit" and "protocols" and "agreements" bullshit readily brings to mind the old age discussion of all the "alt" bitcoin flavours, back when the item was called doge and the idiots with delusions of self importance were called jackson palmer, kevin rose etc : http://trilema.com/2014/why-dogecoin-is-a-scam-why-the-people-pushing-it-are-assholes-why-business-insider-is-a-contemptib

deedbot: http://www.contravex.com/2017/09/22/segwit-toljaso/ << » Contravex: A blog by Pete Dushenski - SegWit toljaso

rothbart: anyone, at any point, can claim all segwit outputs - all they need to do is solve the 80bit hash or whatever?

rothbart: does the attacker just build upon the main chain, then; sending all the segwit outputs to himself?

rothbart: as in, the attacker would be doing a chain rewrite in order to keep the segwit outputs on his fork?

rothbart: I've been trying to grok the segwit "theft" incentive - as the bounty grows, so does the PoW defending it - doesn't this keep the segwit outputs safe? ☟︎

shinohai: Seems to be the Peter Wuille and lukejr show these days .... the segwit(less) saviors

mircea_popescu is not entirely convinced the ~implementation~ of segwit as executed by the power rangers will even work. because that's what they do, it woul;dn't be the first time. or the second. it'd be like the 5th time, which is how many soft forks they did.

mircea_popescu: at time t1, via tx2, address 1a spends coin chunk on segwit chain. this appears to you and me as "1a sent coins to black hole"

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-08-24#1702779 << core hasn't yet hardforked from trb. their "segwit" thing is a "soft fork". basically they intend to make everyone's transactions be blockchain messages instead of actual transactions. ☝︎

a111: Logged on 2017-08-24 12:42 runsegshet: I want to take action to safe keep my bitcoin, but dont know technicals to not be segwit tokens

mircea_popescu: just don't accept "segwit" payments, and don't use their scamware, you'll be fine.

mircea_popescu: http://btcbase.org/log/2017-08-24#1702759 << eventually this will necessarily happen, yes. "segwit" transactions are stored on the bitcoin network as "anyone can spend", so eventually miners will unroll the segwit chain. how soon is not easily predicted (which is why the idea is stupid/usg-like, introduces impredictability in the currency) ☝︎☟︎

runsegshet: I want to take action to safe keep my bitcoin, but dont know technicals to not be segwit tokens ☟︎

BingoBoingo: They set themselves up the segwit bomb. Now it's 2x that Sillybert wants to shill.

BingoBoingo: <mircea_popescu> BingoBoingo don't you just love how the tards went straight on from "bitcoin cash" to "segwit" without skipping a beat ? << Well, they soft forked segwit. Their new hill is TWO mb blocks

mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo don't you just love how the tards went straight on from "bitcoin cash" to "segwit" without skipping a beat ?

mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes the substantial weakness segwit adds to bitcoin chain security is that witout it, one needs the power to unwind the chain AND the keys of old txn to steal bitcoin. whereas with it, one only needs the hash power, as anyone can spend the segwit shit. ☟︎☟︎

mircea_popescu: ben_vulpes and block depth. if you make segwit tx a to me at height 1 and i put it into a normal tx at block 2, i can spend it from block 3 as my bitcoin, the segwitnmess is gone out of it. to steal it from me, one has to rewind all the way to block 1 again. which is possible, but expensive as the chain builds. ☟︎

mircea_popescu: now, if this is the plan it's not a very good one (you can bury a segwit tx into legitimate spending which is deep enough to not be practically reorg-able) but anyway

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?

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

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?

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