← | Results 251 ... 419 found in all logged channels for 'segwit'
(trilema) shinohai: It's some sort of segwit spam floating around chans .... says "Stop using non-segwit wallets"
(trilema) BingoBoingo: Still that's every address that starts with 3, so likely some no segwit turds in there
(trilema) whaack: doesn't mean much, that was just the recent block. also not necessarily segwit
(trilema) mircea_popescu: !!rate whaack 2 computed total segwit impact on bitcoin ecosystem. turned out to be less than 1 parts per thousand.
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) a111: Logged on 2017-11-21 14:32 asciilifeform: 'the first SegWit address whose funds were recovered'
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) asciilifeform: 'the first SegWit address whose funds were recovered'
(trilema) shinohai: Appears on r/buttcoin this morning someone sent 500k in btcrash to a segwit addy by accident.
(trilema) concernedscaling: Segwit is on the real bitcoin, no?
(trilema) concernedscaling: Ok, does Segwit exist?
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) a111: Logged on 2017-11-08 17:30 davout: so apparently the segwit2x derps finally yielded https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) a111: Logged on 2017-11-08 17:30 davout: so apparently the segwit2x derps finally yielded https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-November/000685.html
(trilema) felipelalli: !#s "SegWit"
(trilema) 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
(trilema) deedbot: http://www.contravex.com/2017/09/22/segwit-toljaso/ << » Contravex: A blog by Pete Dushenski - SegWit toljaso
(trilema) rothbart: anyone, at any point, can claim all segwit outputs - all they need to do is solve the 80bit hash or whatever?
(trilema) rothbart: does the attacker just build upon the main chain, then; sending all the segwit outputs to himself?
(trilema) rothbart: wouldn't he have to redo all that PoW since segwit wen't active on his fork?
(trilema) rothbart: as in, the attacker would be doing a chain rewrite in order to keep the segwit outputs on his fork?
(trilema) mircea_popescu: whole fucking point of segwit is to try and take pow away.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: there is no pow in segwit.
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) shinohai: Seems to be the Peter Wuille and lukejr show these days .... the segwit(less) saviors
(trilema) shinohai: WE TOTALLY NEED SEGWIT!!!111 https://oxt.me/charts
(trilema) shinohai: "if BCH earns highest proof of work and highest market cap over time, it will become Bitcoin in my opinion. Same with Bitcoin Core. Same with Btc1." https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-August/000286.html
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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"
(trilema) mircea_popescu: um. how would trb see the tx anyway ? it dun interpret segwit
(trilema) mircea_popescu: just ignore the segwitolade, let them figure it out.
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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
(trilema) mircea_popescu: just don't accept "segwit" payments, and don't use their scamware, you'll be fine.
(trilema) 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)
(trilema) runsegshet: I want to take action to safe keep my bitcoin, but dont know technicals to not be segwit tokens
(trilema) BingoBoingo: They set themselves up the segwit bomb. Now it's 2x that Sillybert wants to shill.
(trilema) 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
(trilema) mircea_popescu: BingoBoingo don't you just love how the tards went straight on from "bitcoin cash" to "segwit" without skipping a beat ?
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) ben_vulpes: isn't the practicality of reorg a function of segwitolade sum?
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) shinohai: Also, from here onwards you should refer to Segwit as `Segshit`
(trilema) trinque: cept that eventually miners will defect from the thing, and steal everyone's segwit "transactions", much to the lul of all.
(trilema) trinque: as currently derped, yep, "segwit" shouldn't mean a damn thing to bitcoin proper.
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) BingoBoingo: My favortie part is "MP preventing Segwit" when instead the power rangers were compelled to Segwit a certain way leaving Bitcoin alone.
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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."
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) 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
(trilema) BingoBoingo: In other news: Miners signaled for SegWit 'Lock In" UASF averted, network turbulence expected
(trilema) 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
(trilema) BingoBoingo: badD00d: TRB now WILL accept segwit blocks, but it will not parse the segwit'd portion as anything other than "anyone can spend"
(trilema) badD00d: will TRB nodes start rejecting blocks whenever BIP91 or other bologna segwit proposals gain the majority hashing power?
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) user705: but what is your view on just the segwit part?
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) shinohai: All signs point to this .... blockchain.info is added as DNS seed for segwit2x in recent commits on shithub
(trilema) shinohai: https://github.com/UASF/bitcoin/releases <<< the latest it appears from the segwit camp
(trilema) shinohai: Testbed for fucking segwit atm
(trilema) deedbot: danielpbarron updated rating of juliatourianski_ from 4 to -4 << Stupid harlot, segwit shill, self-admitted enemy of the republic
(trilema) shinohai: http://archive.is/oOYD8 <<< Supports segwit, hates scams. Noted.
(trilema) 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
(trilema) pete_dushenski: in other boosts, asicboost is back as the segwit saviour : http://archive.is/1BYAX (gmaxwell)
(trilema) a111: Logged on 2017-03-20 23:27 lulcoinz: my understanding is this group doesn't really support segwit or BU
(trilema) 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
(trilema) ben_vulpes: yeah ~right. segwit, aka "blockchains that don't validate" isn't a thing, and "bitcoin unlimited" wtf is that even
(trilema) lulcoinz: my understanding is this group doesn't really support segwit or BU
(trilema) lulcoinz: just praying nothing happens and BU along with segwit die
(trilema) mircea_popescu: asciilifeform recall earlier discussion re "what is segwit" / deedbot ?
(trilema) BU_lulz: not to say there aren't segwit shillz
(trilema) mircea_popescu: anyway, irrelevant as it is - currently "bu" is ahead of "segwit" in terms of prbisms.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: amusingly enough, the whole segwit thing could be best described as "a rather braindamaged attempt to implement half of stan's casks"
(trilema) trinque: "segwit if whatever amount is tiny" ????
(trilema) mircea_popescu: this ironically mirrors my impression of segwit.
(trilema) ben_vulpes: segwit is an assault on bitcoin, no two ways about it.
(trilema) ben_vulpes: danielpbarron: i'm a bit surprised a segwit stoolie ranks as positive in your book
(trilema) mircea_popescu: by tallying up the segwit inputs and outputs. well, sure, but it can be verified is the point.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: asciilifeform you can deterministically verify that segwit doesn't create coins without accessing their proprietary binary blob.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: tracing all payments to the coinbase will be useful if/when we decide to not accept "segwit" payments.
(trilema) 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
(trilema) yalehasaquestion: am I correct that segwit will be backwards compatible?
(trilema) yalehasaquestion: I am trying to understand your views on segwit
(trilema) asciilifeform: now called 'unlimited' and 'segwit', iirc
(trilema) shinohai: Gavin voicing support for segwit in attempt to social engineer his way back into r/bitcoin favor: http://archive.is/8gAQw
(trilema) 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 ..?
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: asciilifeform it's rather simple : i won't upgrade, this means i'm not recognizing segwit txn until they are bridged over.
(trilema) asciilifeform: 'segwit' scheme
(trilema) 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)
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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)
(trilema) shinohai thinks it is nice to finally read a Bitcoin development conversation that doesn't include the term `Segwit`
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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
(trilema) mircea_popescu: da fuck is that lol. starting your own segwit altcoin ?
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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"
(trilema) mircea_popescu: why didn't it arrive ? segwit ?
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) asciilifeform: mircea_popescu: the 'segwit' thing is, as i understand, intended as a protocol hardfork - to isolate trb users.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: the other side of "segwit" is that there will NEVER be a block size increase. period and full stop.
(trilema) asciilifeform: in other lulz, the https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910/files ('segwit') crapolade is still going strong in prbland.
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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"
(trilema) shinohai: http://archive.is/tiY2j <<< segwit stole our block propagation idea! LOL
(trilema) mircea_popescu: segwit is EXACTLY "dao for bitcoin".
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: moreover, there ISNT, in general, and for very good reasons, a way to verify segwit crapolade.
(trilema) 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"
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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"
(trilema) thestringpuller: ah. but with segwit coins TRB should treat coins as if they are burned?
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) thestringpuller: mod6: hey. can we bury segwit transactions?
(trilema) Bugpowder: segwit merged?
(trilema) thestringpuller: ascii_deadfiber: for segwitz and multisig output. you can reject payments until outputs are buried under enough blocks.
(trilema) davout: !s segwit
(trilema) assbot: SegWit forked unexpectedly on testnet - The Bitcoin Forum ... ( http://bit.ly/1Qrhyiv )
(trilema) shinohai: https://github.com/indutny/bcoin#features <<< broken javascript, now with segwit support :D
(trilema) adlai personally will be slightly amused if LN goes live on SegwitCoin, and sees zero volume because nobody who spends btc actually needs micropayments
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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/
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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
(trilema) adlai: what happens with segwit is that people who do opt-in, have significantly less security in the face of miner defection
(trilema) adlai: copypaste: you may want to read https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012014.html as well, it explains possible failure modes for people who don't recognize softforks such as segwit
(trilema) 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
(trilema) shinohai: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3zu8bh/til_in_2016_you_cannot_prevent_soft_forks_in/cyqn13n <<< "I haven't yet heard one person against SegWit, no matter their stance on raising the block size cap." LOLOLOL
(trilema) shinohai: No official trb thread on bitcointalk, all this XT, bigger blocks, and segwit nonsense there too. :/
(trilema) BingoBoingo: Quent: Nah, the special segwit transactions are noise until proven otherwise
(trilema) ben_vulpes: ;;later tell adlai that post predated my ever hearing about segwit
(trilema) BingoBoingo: "I believe that soft-fork segwit can help us out of this deadlock and get us going again." - A Negative https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/012090.html
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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
(trilema) BingoBoingo: Thermos: "No, it basically already has consensus from dev/expert community because it solves so many problems in one go and is pretty simple to understand if you know how Bitcoin works. There are no reasonable objections to SegWit AFAIK." https://archive.is/Q60SC#selection-2433.0-2433.227
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) adlai: as far as i can tell, the only person who mentions hardforking segwit after this idea is your favorite costume artist
(trilema) 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
(trilema) adlai: a properly done segwit softfork could actually result in a blocksize decrease for the non-segwit blockchain
← |
Download hourly DB snapshot | Get Source Code