Results 1 ... 250 found in all logged channels for 'segwit' | →
(pest) billymg[asciilifeform]: maybe that's why they have segwit, so that if somebody 'steals' their coins, can reverse it and claim Rule of Law™ prevails!
(asciilifeform) Vex: how do these segwit busting blocks work asciilifeform ? if i isolate 2 nodes, then set the clocks to whenever diff = 1, is it demonstratable? what's the prize?
(pest) billymg[asciilifeform]: block spam switch got flipped back on last night after the halving, fees were up to over $200 for a basic non-segwit transaction
(pest) signpost[asciilifeform]: looks like segwit happened around the time the "congestion" died down, which is to say fees taking over for block reward was thwarted.
(pest) billymg[cgra|asciilifeform]: signpost: i was thinking it would be the perfect opportunity for a pro-trb / anti-segwit propaganda push
(pest) billymg[cgra|asciilifeform] will look again to see if i can find where it said that this new scheme stores data on the actual (segwit) blockchain and that the size is unrestricted
(pest) billymg[asciilifeform|cgra]: i haven't bothered to look, but seem to remember seeing somewhere how they're loading arbitrary data (jpegs in this case) into the part of a segwit transaction reserved for the wit, and apparently this part has no space constraint?
(pest) signpost[asciilifeform]: whaack: isn't clear that waiting 10min for an in-person transation will ever work. something approximating lightning isn't even a bad idea, though there's no reason it had to rely upon segwit.
(pest) whaack[asciilifeform]: they have segwit/lightning network setup in the farmers market as well as the more popular restaraunts there. i paid for pretty much all my food with 'bitcoin' while i was there
(pest) whaack[asciilifeform]: i.e. 'segshit not suppported, see results from heathen browser: blockstream.info/segwitaddressyoujustsearched/'
(asciilifeform) whaack: so in the trb-addy vs. segwit war i see it as p2pkh vs. (0x00 addresses + p2sh addresses)
(asciilifeform) whaack: well billymg it'd be interesting to see if there were any coins in those types of addresses presegwit
(asciilifeform) billymg: i actually just ran that query for the fun of it but then killed it when i realized it's still in 2015, no segwit yet
(asciilifeform) adlai: pete_rizzo_: in my experience discussing soft forks (and segwit in particular), everyone acknowledges these issues, most of them simply don't make a big deal out of advertising them
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: pete_rizzo_: suppose the 'soft' fork were made 'hard' today. how and why will result differ from bch ? (was effectively same thing as a 'hardened' segwit)
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-10-11 13:36:39 punkman: pete_rizzo_: from trb perspective, segwit transactions are "anyone can spend" and have no signatures
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: ( if not, see e.g. whaack's piece re subj )
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: pete_rizzo_: are you familiar with the mechanics of 'segwit' ?
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: pete_rizzo_: there isn't a two-sided forkwar featuring segwit yet.
(asciilifeform) pete_rizzo_: right. that part i understand. But the main core implementation has changed. specifically in two forks that with different rules now upheld by "majority hashpower" (segwit + taproot). So, assuming that some other implementation is "protected by the majority hashpower" what is exactly is that protection you don't have. What added costs (wallet,
(asciilifeform) whaack links to heathen explorer because his own has no support for segwit and the address consequently does not display
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: the 1 afaik promising proposal to shock-therapy such sufferers is whaack's. but reqs over9000btc for the detonator.
(asciilifeform) whaack: random tx lotto hit a segwit :(
(asciilifeform) whaack: i think i'm going to exclude segwit from the genesis, and save it for a separate vpatch, looks like it's a bit of a headache (different base encoding for bech32, whole other can of worms to deal with)
(asciilifeform) whaack: no, i'm just saying that 25% or so of coins are in segwit addresses, which is a (perhaps poor) guesstimator of how many coins are controlled by enemy
(asciilifeform) whaack: although, of course, maybe coinbase doesn't even keep their own coldwallets with segwit addresses.
(asciilifeform) whaack: well as much as i'd like to believe that coinbase is on thin ice with fractional reserve coins, if the % in segwit address meter is any indictator, they have a lot of fucking reserves.
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2022-01-11 11:52:17 whaack: http://logs.bitdash.io/asciilifeform/2022-01-11#1072415 <<-- when the miners decide to take the segwit coins trb will likely be the only type of node tracking the actual bitcoin chain.
(asciilifeform) signpost: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2022-01-14#1073030 << lightning's not all wrong on this, just implemented atop segwit for no good reason.
(asciilifeform) whaack: asciilifeform: right. one design goal is to have ZERO use for using heathen block explorers, (apart from heathen-specific interaction, i.e. dealing with segwit addresses)
(asciilifeform) whaack: http://logs.bitdash.io/asciilifeform/2022-01-11#1072415 <<-- when the miners decide to take the segwit coins trb will likely be the only type of node tracking the actual bitcoin chain.
(asciilifeform) pete_rizzo_: right that didn't make much sense to me as TRB doesn't recognize segwit
(asciilifeform) billymg: segwit is the 25% savings ones or whatever
(pest) signpost[billymg]: yup, I'm making no defense of lightning, though there are ideas in it that aren't casually dismissable, could in principle exist atop trb too, without segwit.
(pest) billymg: re: lightning on top of segwit, yeah, it's unfortunate, but i figure it can be used the way one carries cash in their wallet, i.e. never more than what they would feel comfortable losing
(pest) signpost[billymg]: something *like* lightning doesn't even seem like a bad thing, just didn't need to be built atop segwit.
(asciilifeform) punkman: at least if they are empty, or don't contain segwit txs without the witness data
(asciilifeform) signpost: (and btc lost much too, see: segwit)
(asciilifeform) punkman: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-10-11#1061089 << I think it's more that "old code" and "doesn't have 1000 eyes on it that would find the bugs" , rather than the segwit stuff
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-10-11 13:29:12 pete_rizzo_: you still have to download the extra data from segwit blocks though?
(asciilifeform) BingoBoingo: pete_rizzo: No issues with segwit nor downloads of segwit data. trb just works. Send/Receive works perfectly with trb. As long as the segwit address starts with 3 like a normal pay to script hash address sending to segwit is fine. Receiving from segwit is also fine.
(asciilifeform) signpost: I assume this refers to the fact that if the whole network ran trb, "segwit" funds could be moved by anyone. I don't see why I should give a fuck about that; they lost the block-size wars and are pleading otherwise.
(asciilifeform) punkman: pete_rizzo_: from trb perspective, segwit transactions are "anyone can spend" and have no signatures
(asciilifeform) pete_rizzo_: you still have to download the extra data from segwit blocks though?
(asciilifeform) shinohai: Yep works fine, I have 0 issues because 99% of time I don't need segwit/lightning/whatever .... if I do I can use an app and sweep funds back to a legacy address I control.
(asciilifeform) pete_rizzo_: user-activated soft fork was the line in the sand against Jihan and the big blockers. It was a piece of code that would have had a certain subset of nodes just implement segwit
(asciilifeform) cgra: whaack: btw, does segwit-bomb tx make it any easier to bake large (byte-wise) transactions? i so far didn't look into your experiments in detail (or whole segwit), so would't know
(asciilifeform) punkman: https://bitcoinops.org/en/compatibility/ seems like most exchanges support outgoing segwit tx. notably binance and bitmex still not using segwit for receiving.
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: whaack: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-23#1048350 << it seems that this function was used since SegWit, not necesary a Taproot thing
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-23 05:06:11 punkman26: https://archive.fo/UfVoC vintage segwit objections
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-26 04:12:32 mats: to elaborate a little, there's too many participants to do everything behind closed doors, cooperation against segwit spends is probably done out in the open
(asciilifeform) whaack: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-26#1048590 <-- not sure exactly what you mean here, are you saying that transactions uncompliant with segwit are blocked (partly) via deleting them from the memorypool?
(asciilifeform) mats: to elaborate a little, there's too many participants to do everything behind closed doors, cooperation against segwit spends is probably done out in the open
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: the orthodox church(es) lead(s) to hell << we are the TRB bruv, you guys are SegWit, mkay?
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: adlai: miners are arguably the participants least strongly incentivised towards defection after they have activated a softfork such as segwit, or even the original p2sh softfork << so that means incentive alignment worx?
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: The taproot addrs start with "bc1p" as oposed to SegWith ver0 that start with "bc1q". Why? Because in this address format thats how the versioning number is used.
(asciilifeform) adlai: miners are arguably the participants least strongly incentivised towards defection after they have activated a softfork such as segwit, or even the original p2sh softfork
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: So taproot its just version 1 SegWith(the 1st one being 0) so that explains the anyone can spend
(asciilifeform) punkman: if the miners do a segwit-lift, might as well do a satoshi-old-coinbase-lift, or mp-lift or whatever
(asciilifeform) whaack: punkman: in the eyes of segwit users, yes
(asciilifeform) whaack: in other words, it's more economically dangerous for trb users to dump on the segwit chain than it was for them to dump on the bitcoin cash chain
(asciilifeform) whaack: but anytime the non-fucked segwit chain takes the lead in POW the fork dissapears
(asciilifeform) punkman: asciilifeform: so must admit that hypothetical fucked-segwit chain is Bitcoin Cash 2: Electric Boogaloo
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: Well yeah, as the more restrictive one is the segwith chain, bot trb.
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: whaack: the hypothetical fucked-segwit chain aint a valid segwit chain tho.
(asciilifeform) whaack: asciilifeform and punkman: a key difference with bitcoin cash and this hypothetical segwit fork is the segwit chain is a valid trb chain while the bch chain is not a valid trb chain
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-22 18:41:27 whaack: there could still be economic powerhouses that, while not actively maintaing nodes, are on the side of trb, and would dump on a segwit fork, but this is fantasy wishful thinking
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-22#1047984 << i am sure there is a lot of economic activity hiding behind TRB, but thats not enough, you still need to convience the other nodes that SegWit bad :P
(asciilifeform) whaack: punkman: this is another point to consider, there is no infrastructure in place for a trb-segwit exchange
(asciilifeform) punkman: which market is this market they will dump previously-known-as-segwit-coin on?
(asciilifeform) whaack: there could still be economic powerhouses that, while not actively maintaing nodes, are on the side of trb, and would dump on a segwit fork, but this is fantasy wishful thinking
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: From where my understanding is now(may change) is that in order for this catastrophic steal SegWit thing to hapen there are a lot of &s and some very strong asumptions were made.
(asciilifeform) whaack: because while trb chains are not necessarily vaild segwit chains, segwit chains are necessarily valid trb chains (at least in theory)
(asciilifeform) whaack: it's important to note, however, that if the segwit chain ever becomes the longest chain again, then the segwit and trb chain become the same chain and trb goes through a potentially large reorganization
(asciilifeform) whaack: now the trb whale has isolated his bitcoins on both chains, he sells on the segwit chain and keeps his bitcoins on the trb chain.
(asciilifeform) whaack: hypothetical trb whale has all his coins in UTXO A. UTXO A exists on both trb chain and segwit chain. He makes 2 txns which are conflicting, sending the coins to addresss B and sending the same coins to address C. He broadcasts 1 txn to the trb miners and the other to the segwit miners.
(asciilifeform) whaack: how it happens: 51%+ of the hashing power goes back to trb, whose chain has txns where miners are taking from the segwit piggy and thus does not enforce segwit rules, so segwit continues on a separate chain
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: s0z re: if segwit forks off then there's an opportunity to close one's bitcoin position while keeping trb coins
(asciilifeform) whaack: if segwit forks off then there's an opportunity to close one's bitcoin position while keeping trb coins
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-22 18:26:14 whaack: raw_avocado: it's not clear that it is irrational for the miner to do so, they also get the huge number of btc stored in the segwit addresses
(asciilifeform) whaack: raw_avocado: it's not clear that it is irrational for the miner to do so, they also get the huge number of btc stored in the segwit addresses
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: Also fi the attack dosent go through they miss on guaranteeed revenue from mining the segwit TXs and getting payed.
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: But if miners lets say decide to run TRB and "steal" SegWit coins, dont see how the other node will consider that to be valid? And unless they are SPV then what matters is the longes-valid pow chain, no?
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: whaack: after reading http://ztkfg.com/2021/07/warning-bitcoins-stored-in-segwit-addresses-are-not-safe/ i have a few thins that are not clear regarding a drainage scenario
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-22 16:59:51 whaack: Although I wonder if I'll have to make some segwit-but-not-taproot compliant txn, which would take some extra work studying prb.
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-22 16:57:54 dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-20 21:12:34 signpost: whaack: segwit's pretty buried in the chain atm. have you considered pissing on "taproot" instead?
(asciilifeform) whaack: Although I wonder if I'll have to make some segwit-but-not-taproot compliant txn, which would take some extra work studying prb.
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-20 21:12:34 signpost: whaack: segwit's pretty buried in the chain atm. have you considered pissing on "taproot" instead?
(asciilifeform) thimbronion: otoh, if one believes that segwit will blow up someday, it will take lightning with it.
(asciilifeform) signpost: whaack: segwit's pretty buried in the chain atm. have you considered pissing on "taproot" instead?
(asciilifeform) whaack: this is just anecdotal data, bclicking through heathen blockexplorers, i notice that the "spent" link is active way more often when its next to a segwit address
(asciilifeform) whaack: asciilifeform: the idea is to dump bitcoin holdings on the segwit 'thats not faiiiiir' fork while keeping actual bitcoin safe
(asciilifeform) whaack: so you pay a couple million to mine a block that snags 100k segwit coins?
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-19 12:15:48 whaack: it's easier than i originally anticipated, since apparently many segwit coins are not even hidden behind a p2sh
(asciilifeform) whaack: (this is still true for many segwit addresses)
(asciilifeform) whaack: original thought was that you had to have a process observing the mempool, waiting for a segwit user to spend the coin, so you knew the solution for x in h(x) = y, and then you could quickly try to double spend the txn with a higher fee or something
(asciilifeform) whaack: it's easier than i originally anticipated, since apparently many segwit coins are not even hidden behind a p2sh
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: punkman: was speaking of the hypothetical 'segwit lift'
(asciilifeform) billymg: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-18#1046643 << ok, just to work out the details of this scenario. if this happened, in a hypothetical segwitocalypse fork, there would still be a 21M cap on freedom bitcoin, no? and freedom bitcoin holders wouldn't necessarily be any poorer right out of the gate either, as they have coins on both chains now...
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-18 16:24:47 signpost: as mats says, draining the segwitcoins would extinguish bitcoin, and some other network would take its place.
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-18 14:55:00 mats: the miners that inappropriately spend segwit coin see their transactions unwound, and if they can't cooperate to do that, maybe that's the end of btc
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-18 14:49:55 mats: in a showdown between trbcoin and segwitcoin, trb loses
(asciilifeform) signpost: it may be the case already that bitcoin cannot exist without destroying the state, but if not, the liquidation of the segwit stash would make that the case.
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-18 10:39:24 billymg: punkman: my understanding is that because segwit was implemented via "soft fork" defecting and refusing to enforce it would not result in a hard fork of the network (new coin). though i don't doubt that the "community" would at least attempt to fork to restore the coins, but they'd be the ones forking then, not the defecting miners
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-18 03:50:03 punkman: wonders how much sense does it make to hypothesize about "future segwit fork" when this has already happened and it's called "Bitcoin Cash"
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-18 02:11:36 punkman: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-17#1046279 << I think it's more likely they stop enforcing 21million limit than segwit
(asciilifeform) whaack: btw, does anyone in channel run a full prb node with all the segwit data included? thimbronion?
(asciilifeform) whaack: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-18#1046482 < The difference is trb users have funds on both segwit-coin and trb, while segwit users have funds on only 1 of the 2 forks
(asciilifeform) billymg: i meant suicide for bitcoin, the economic phenomenon (if segwit piggy broken)
(asciilifeform) punkman: but that would require the segwit coins to be moved back to normal addresses
(asciilifeform) punkman: at best, I can see a future fork that deprecates segwit or whatever "innovation" the power rangers come up with
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-18 16:34:29 signpost: if you want the economic phenomenon called bitcoin to proceed, you'd better hope the segwit piggy is *not* cracked open.
(asciilifeform) whaack: whereas those losing their coins in a segwit swoop may be self-righteous about 'having done their due diligence' or something
(asciilifeform) whaack: no hope, i guess, of getting a mass movement off of segwit - i.e. convincing all the well meanining bitcoiners without the werewithal to see the dangers of segwit to move their coins to a safe address while the current mining cartel is enforcing the new rule
(asciilifeform) whaack: i admit that the thought that bitcoin depends on the miner's continuing to enforce the softfork of segwit is so daunting that i may just have trouble swallowing that idea
(asciilifeform) signpost: if you want the economic phenomenon called bitcoin to proceed, you'd better hope the segwit piggy is *not* cracked open.
(asciilifeform) whaack: segwit users will say 'bitcoin is broken! it was hacked!' and trb users will say 'nah, just download this client'
(asciilifeform) whaack: so for the 98% of the world not involved in bitcoin, but have heard the term, trb users have a product to sell and segwit users do not
(asciilifeform) whaack: my point in saying that trb has a 'massive technical advantage' is that if segwit coins get drained, trb still has an accounting system, whereas segwit users do not
(asciilifeform) signpost: as mats says, draining the segwitcoins would extinguish bitcoin, and some other network would take its place.
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-18 14:28:09 whaack: So the segwit users hard fork, then bitcoin users again get free options, they sell on the segwit hardfork and buyback on the bitcoin network as explained here http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/
(asciilifeform) whaack: so they spend a lot to unwind the 'unauthorized' segwit txn, things go back to the current status quo, and the 'attack vector' remains
(asciilifeform) mats: the miners that inappropriately spend segwit coin see their transactions unwound, and if they can't cooperate to do that, maybe that's the end of btc
(asciilifeform) billymg: unless they add in some "authorized miners only" in which case even the mouthbreathing users will realize that segwit coin is centralized coin
(asciilifeform) billymg: mats: how? if they keep running segwit coin then the miners can keep draining their addresses
(asciilifeform) mats: in a showdown between trbcoin and segwitcoin, trb loses
(asciilifeform) billymg: mats: in that case i guess we're all just waiting around for an "authorized" use of anyone-can-spend. i.e. "ransomware hacker" parks coins in a segwit address, UN orders miners to move them over to a UN address, the prb community cheers because it's authorized, and for "justice"
(asciilifeform) whaack: So the segwit users hard fork, then bitcoin users again get free options, they sell on the segwit hardfork and buyback on the bitcoin network as explained here http://qntra.net/2015/01/the-hard-fork-missile-crisis/
(asciilifeform) whaack: So this transaciton uses as an input some sorta segwit bs, i guess, since the scriptsig is empty
(asciilifeform) whaack: I've spoken to some segwit people on this and they seem to think that this cataclysmic event is the end of bitcoin since a majority of exchanges are using segwit and bech32 etc. But I don't think that's the case anymore than Mtgox was the end of bitcoin.
(asciilifeform) whaack: punkman: The bar for swooping the coins is low. The miners just have to...run trb. And afaik no one's node is going to stop (not even prb's, seeing as they don't seem to validate anything anyways). Segwit users are just going to see their balances go to zero as the 'anyone can spend' coins are moved to addresses where you need to provide a signature to spend the coins.
(asciilifeform) whaack: punkman: billymg is right. Atm some people have added a new rule (segwit) to bitcoin that trb and actual bitcoin users have no obligation to enforce. As asciilifeform once said beautifully, ~ "they are like the people in India who ride ontop of a train. They are "on the train" for as long as the train does not pass through a tunnel.
(asciilifeform) billymg: punkman: my understanding is that because segwit was implemented via "soft fork" defecting and refusing to enforce it would not result in a hard fork of the network (new coin). though i don't doubt that the "community" would at least attempt to fork to restore the coins, but they'd be the ones forking then, not the defecting miners
(asciilifeform) punkman wonders how much sense does it make to hypothesize about "future segwit fork" when this has already happened and it's called "Bitcoin Cash"
(asciilifeform) punkman: btw you can even wrap segwit tx in "normal" P2SH tx
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-17 17:15:43 whaack: the day of reckoning can come when miners stop enforcing the segwit rule and loads of "bitcoin" users have their coins wiped out from under their feet
(asciilifeform) punkman: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-17#1046279 << I think it's more likely they stop enforcing 21million limit than segwit
(asciilifeform) whaack: billymg: That's not possible afaik, because segwit addresses are hidden behind a script and only at the time of spending can you retroactively discover that it was a segwit address
(asciilifeform) billymg: whaack: have you totaled up the balance sitting in all segwit addresses yet?
(asciilifeform) whaack: the day of reckoning can come when miners stop enforcing the segwit rule and loads of "bitcoin" users have their coins wiped out from under their feet
(asciilifeform) whaack: I have a grim feeling about the health of the network, given the alleged widespread use of segwit
(asciilifeform) mats: they make use of things like spv, segwit, multisig, with plans for taproot and drivechain, so thats not good
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-07 16:23:16 davout: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-07#1043526 <<< why? coins that went through segwit adresses have the exact same properties as normal coins when sitting in normal addresses, what would there be to wash?
(asciilifeform) davout: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-07#1043526 <<< why? coins that went through segwit adresses have the exact same properties as normal coins when sitting in normal addresses, what would there be to wash?
(asciilifeform) snsabot: Logged on 2021-06-10 11:24:51 whaack: Nothing is preventing one from monitoring the mempool and broadcasting these segwit snagging transactions as the ones intended with prb rules come in, you could even split the loot by adding a hefty miner fee
(asciilifeform) snsabot: Logged on 2021-06-10 11:22:17 whaack: It doesn't make so much sense to me how one would have the noggin to get the hardware infrastructure setup for actually winning blocks but simultaneously not be able to construct a segwit-snagging transaction
(asciilifeform) whaack: Nothing is preventing one from monitoring the mempool and broadcasting these segwit snagging transactions as the ones intended with prb rules come in, you could even split the loot by adding a hefty miner fee
(asciilifeform) whaack: It doesn't make so much sense to me how one would have the noggin to get the hardware infrastructure setup for actually winning blocks but simultaneously not be able to construct a segwit-snagging transaction
(asciilifeform) trinque: while taking w/e segwit funds would be hilarious, it'd likely also crash the paper exchanges they dump into
(asciilifeform) snsabot: Logged on 2020-06-06 09:31:31 shinohai: In "run moar segwit" news: https://archive.is/QIfLW
(asciilifeform) shinohai: I explained to joerodgers earlier on Telegram that trb contains no p2sh or segwit addys, etc.
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: ^ trb nodes. (by no means all, simply the ones asciilifeform's nodes peer with.) none of'em support, or will ever support, 'ln', 'segwit', etc.
(ossasepia) BingoBoingo: It turns out that while I've been in my bubble, this same bullshit, segwit in its worst possible construction, is being pushed without the toxic Gavin Assassinen brand.
(ossasepia) BingoBoingo: This bech32 thing the power rangers are pushing is longer though case insensitive addresses, but they tie it to their segwit bullshit, though not segwit as the CIA's original Gavin pushed it.
(asciilifeform) feedbot: http://qntra.net/2020/03/bitstamp-plays-with-novelty-segwit-only-bech32-addresses/ << Qntra -- Bitstamp Plays With Novelty Segwit Only Bech32 Addresses
(trilema) feedbot: http://qntra.net/2020/03/bitstamp-plays-with-novelty-segwit-only-bech32-addresses/ << Qntra -- Bitstamp Plays With Novelty Segwit Only Bech32 Addresses
(spyked) feedbot: http://qntra.net/2020/03/bitstamp-plays-with-novelty-segwit-only-bech32-addresses/ << Qntra -- Bitstamp Plays With Novelty Segwit Only Bech32 Addresses
(ossasepia) whaack: I agree, jfw's article is gold, it's a new development in the ongoing story of "people" storing "their" bitcoin in anyone can spend addresses. qntra should milk the segwit line until the miners finally take the coins that are laying on the table for them. If qntra ran a piece that explained the manner in which coins are taken from someone storing their coins in segwit the article would be like
(ossasepia) BingoBoingo has this sort of soft, squishy hypothesis that too many folks setting their version string at 99999 and not enough trb nodes set at lower 50400 to 70001 versions strings leaves the network vulnerable to getting congested with oversized segwit blocks from out of WoT nodes.
(asciilifeform) curiousd0g: oh, you mean segwitcoin
(ossasepia) NOTd41r: since bch doesn't have full support for all the segwit bs, I suppose that some trb instances must be running
(ossasepia) NOTd41r: therefore... mmm... what happens if someone using trb tries to spend a segwit utxo?
(ossasepia) NOTd41r: as far as i understand, segwit transactions are considered "all can spend" by older implementations
(ossasepia) ossabot: Logged on 2020-02-05 16:39:07 BingoBoingo: c0ncord: Experience suggests that the massive PR support encryption "for anonymity" and "deniability" enjoys in the mainstream isn't really that different from the marketing push towards "Segwit"
(ossasepia) BingoBoingo: c0ncord: Experience suggests that the massive PR support encryption "for anonymity" and "deniability" enjoys in the mainstream isn't really that different from the marketing push towards "Segwit"
(ossasepia) ossabot: Logged on 2020-02-05 14:57:57 c0ncord: how did i find? well, it was long ago, i don't quite remember, but this time, today, i was looking for a SegWit-free bitcoin implementation
(ossasepia) c0ncord: how did i find? well, it was long ago, i don't quite remember, but this time, today, i was looking for a SegWit-free bitcoin implementation
(ossasepia) BingoBoingo remembers Gavin proposing segwit as a "this is how the protocol works now, sigs will be cleaved off of all transactions" but very quickly that proposal was buried and replaced with the current thing where it only damages those opting in to it.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: RubenSomsen: why not make yourself your own blog and write there why exactly you think segwit is a good decision, anyway?
(ossasepia) diana_coman: but no, the fact that it can't take over (that's what you are saying there with "can coexist") is not "part of segwit", no.
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: Well, people are free to make bad decisions. But personally I don't think segwit is a bad decision (assuming people did their homework and know what they're signing up for, blind faith is not good)
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: It's opt-in, nobody has to use it, nobody gets hurt by those who do use it. This is how segwit and non-segwit users can coexist.
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: I'd say the fact that you can ignore segwit is even an integral part of it
(ossasepia) diana_coman: RubenSomsen: for one thing I don't tend to receive btc just from anyone so there is that double layer of ignoring (ie I ignore also people-on-segwit really, not just segwit, I suppose).
(ossasepia) whaack: RubenSomsen: From my understanding to someone that ignores segwit that question translates to: would you be okay with receiving coins from an anyone-can-spend address? The coins should be safe in their new home, so why not? Maybe you will want more confirmations since anyone could replace the txn sent to you with a txn w/ a higher free for the miners.
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: You can of course ignore it, but what I meant is some of your coin history will be "tainted" by segwit, which is theoretically less secure if you think those are anyone-can-spend outputs.
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: There are some downsides such as higher fees and less fungibility, but I take your point that non-segwit outputs are more widely recognized by both old and new nodes.
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: OK, so the first then I guess. You can't fully ignore it because coins you receive may have a history with segwit.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: RubenSomsen: in a nutshell, I fully ignore segwit.
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: diana_coman: I'm not entirely sure what your view on segwit is. Do you want to hold non-segwit UTXOs only? Do you only want coins that don't have a history that involves a segwit output? Do you only follow a hard fork that does not contain segwit such as BCH?
(ossasepia) ossabot: Logged on 2019-12-11 13:21:25 RubenSomsen: whaack: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2019-12-10#1012399 <<Soft forks are not safe when they are only enforced by miners. You need the vast majority of nodes to enforce them as well. I would not have vouched for segwit if that wasn't the case. I do take the general point that old UTXOs are more safe.
(ossasepia) diana_coman: RubenSomsen: yes but do you see the link with your earlier statement re vouching for segwit ?
(ossasepia) ossabot: Logged on 2019-12-11 13:21:25 RubenSomsen: whaack: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2019-12-10#1012399 <<Soft forks are not safe when they are only enforced by miners. You need the vast majority of nodes to enforce them as well. I would not have vouched for segwit if that wasn't the case. I do take the general point that old UTXOs are more safe.
(ossasepia) whaack: RubenSomsen: From my experience 'the majority' that use segwit have their bitcoin client on auto-update to whatever the mods on /r/bitcoin or the owners of some github repo push out. From my experience if you probe a 'segwit user' with questions about segwit you'll quickly find they have absolutely no idea what segwit is about.
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: whaack: http://logs.ossasepia.com/log/ossasepia/2019-12-10#1012399 <<Soft forks are not safe when they are only enforced by miners. You need the vast majority of nodes to enforce them as well. I would not have vouched for segwit if that wasn't the case. I do take the general point that old UTXOs are more safe.
(ossasepia) ossabot: Logged on 2019-12-10 10:20:59 BingoBoingo: Bitcoin today works fine without segwit. It works very well on clients that don't use levelDB, etc
(ossasepia) BingoBoingo: Bitcoin today works fine without segwit. It works very well on clients that don't use levelDB, etc
(ossasepia) RubenSomsen: and your comment regarding segwit made me wonder whether there's some dissatisfaction with the direction that Bitcoin took
(ossasepia) diana_coman: RubenSomsen: from those links you gave, I get the impression that you are very much in with the popular crowd, segwit and all that; correct?
(ossasepia) dorion: i shouldn't say that they're not reading, cause I don't know. but I ask why was erik pushing segwit 2x in 2017 instead of linking to trilema and being present in the forum ?
(ossasepia) ossabot: Logged on 2019-09-11 21:09:59 whaack: diana_coman: so my previous work is a just few qntra articles http://qntra.net/author/whaack/ . I started to do research on how many coins are in the segwit ecosystem but did not finish. http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-21#1741793 Stan mentioned from that thread that a sha256 in CL was needed, perhaps that is still an open task? http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-23#1742513
(ossasepia) whaack: diana_coman: so my previous work is a just few qntra articles http://qntra.net/author/whaack/ . I started to do research on how many coins are in the segwit ecosystem but did not finish. http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-21#1741793 Stan mentioned from that thread that a sha256 in CL was needed, perhaps that is still an open task? http://btcbase.org/log/2017-11-23#1742513
(trilema) girlattorney: you still are on a core node, but even if you aren't completely ignoring segwit shit, you aren't touching it directly
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) BingoBoingo: The Gavin or some other shitgnome early on tried to push a "mandatory" segwitting, but that proposal died quickly and they all now pretend that never happened.
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) BingoBoingo: nocredit: Segwit and all the other core weird happens on 3 addresses
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) mp_en_viaje: but yes. lotta what is protocol is promise. starting with "segwit" bs, i won't unearth the threads.
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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)
(trilema) mircea_popescu: segwit was always a matter of "hipsters & doofuses community chests, someone takes it all sometime"
(trilema) asciilifeform: even politically. they have option of unwinding segwit, say.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: but it goes to show what seems to me actually an intrinsic failure of the ssh key format : the fact that it isn't self-signed (rather more generally, the fact that it "segwits" the metadata, having the whole authority mechanism separated from the actual key [and generally implemented as "this key has authority because $user emailed it to me"]) makes it very vulnerable to any failure outside of itself, and impossible to evalua
(trilema) BingoBoingo: Thusly segwit rollback does not mean rewinding blocks
(trilema) 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"
(trilema) trinque: > buy segwits
(trilema) 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 ?
(trilema) steel: Everywhere to exchange my fiat paper to Bitcoin, is Segwit tainted
(trilema) steel: Now I am forced to buy Segwits being sold as Bitcoin
(trilema) steel: Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Segwit, Bitcoin Lite, unlimited Bitcoin X's
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) BingoBoingo: Segwit nodes usually have been bricked to the point of not successfully connecting to the Bitcoin network
(trilema) 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)?
(trilema) 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?
(trilema) mimisbrunnr: Logged on 2018-04-18 23:14 adlai: for the record: deedbot ate segwit dust.
(trilema) mimisbrunnr: Logged on 2018-04-18 23:14 adlai: for the record: deedbot ate segwit dust.
(trilema) trinque: here's the other sad thing; these cunts are taking the coin and throwing them into 3-addys and segwit, even.
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) a111: Logged on 2018-04-12 18:58 mircea_popescu: avgjoe it's exactly equivalent to "segwit" except much less expensive.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: avgjoe it's exactly equivalent to "segwit" except much less expensive.
(trilema) 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"
(trilema) 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"
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) avgjoe: thanks for the segwit discussion, i have just looked in the logs for "bech32" and it outputs very little
(trilema) mircea_popescu: all segwit coins are going to be eventually unwound. this is again intentional, and not likely to change.
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) 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.
(trilema) ben_vulpes: trinque: i think the 3 is 'segwit'
(trilema) shinohai: http://archive.is/2nfBZ <<< Conbase + Segwit - what could go wrong?
(trilema) shinohai: Also was a strong voice behind "Hey you Bitcoiners are gonna miss out if you don't integrate segwit" shit.
(trilema) shinohai: I suppose "stop using non-segwit wallets or I'll burn your church down"
| →
Download hourly DB snapshot | Get Source Code