197 entries in 0.6s
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: 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
a111: Logged on 2017-03-20 23:27 lulcoinz: my understanding is this group doesn't really support
segwit or BU
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" ????
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.
mircea_popescu: asciilifeform it's rather simple : i won't upgrade, this means i'm not recognizing
segwit txn until they are bridged over.
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.
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: 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.
mircea_popescu: the other side of "
segwit" is that there will NEVER be a block size increase. period and full stop.
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"
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.
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
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
adlai: what happens with
segwit is that people who do opt-in, have significantly less security in the face of miner defection
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
☟︎ shinohai: No official trb thread on bitcointalk, all this XT, bigger blocks, and
segwit nonsense there too. :/
BingoBoingo: Quent: Nah, the special
segwit transactions are noise until proven otherwise
ben_vulpes: ;;later tell adlai that post predated my ever hearing about
segwit assbot: Logged on 19-12-2015 23:49:50; punkman: the basic idea of
segwit is not bad, should have been there from the start, without the "softfork" complexity, no ANYONECANPAY-looking crap, without making another merkle tree, without blocksize discounts and enlargements, without planning to use it as a vehicle for future "painless" shitgnovation
punkman: the basic idea of
segwit is not bad, should have been there from the start, without the "softfork" complexity, no ANYONECANPAY-looking crap, without making another merkle tree, without blocksize discounts and enlargements, without planning to use it as a vehicle for future "painless" shitgnovation
☟︎ BingoBoingo: <pete_dushenski> ;;later tell BingoBoingo so chuck lee makes it an entire thousand words without sounding like a complete momo, only to finish with "P.S. I’m currently in favor of scaling Bitcoin via 2–4–8,
SegWit, and LN." like, wtf. << But he also took the castle analogy from a contravex it seems
pete_dushenski: ;;later tell BingoBoingo so chuck lee makes it an entire thousand words without sounding like a complete momo, only to finish with "P.S. I’m currently in favor of scaling Bitcoin via 2–4–8,
SegWit, and LN." like, wtf.
adlai: as far as i can tell, the only person who mentions hardforking
segwit after this idea is your favorite costume artist
assbot: Logged on 11-12-2015 08:41:57; adlai: a properly done
segwit softfork could actually result in a blocksize decrease for the non-
segwit blockchain
adlai: a properly done
segwit softfork could actually result in a blocksize decrease for the non-
segwit blockchain
☟︎