Results 1 ... 81 found in all logged channels for 'anyone can spend'

(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: segshitness transactions are seen as 'anyone can spend'.
(asciilifeform) signpost: note that every such innovation piles up more coin behind these "anyone-can-spend" transactions.
(asciilifeform) punkman: pete_rizzo_: from trb perspective, segwit transactions are "anyone can spend" and have no signatures
(asciilifeform) cgra: asciilifeform: anyone-can-spends apparently also throw off prioritization, assuming fee/byte ordering was used
(asciilifeform) dulapbot: Logged on 2021-07-23 08:28:12 raw_avocado: whaack: while on the topic of anyone can spend https://b10c.me/blog/007-spending-p2tr-pre-activation/
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: punkman: we talking about maleability and how can have 2 valid sigs on each side of Oy, and this started from the convo of softforks and taproot and anyone can spend outputs.
(asciilifeform) raw_avocado: So taproot its just version 1 SegWith(the 1st one being 0) so that explains the anyone can spend
(asciilifeform) signpost: iirc it's the same kind of "looks like anyone can spend to classical btc"
(asciilifeform) whaack: but i guess in retrospect satoshi should not have allowed the anyonecanspend option and should have instead designed bitcoin to prevent itself from being 'upgradeable' as much as possible
(asciilifeform) whaack: asciilifeform: is idjits putting their coins in anyonecanspend addresses hypothetical problems?
(asciilifeform) vex: I don't understand anyonecanspend, is it possible to test with a few nodes?
(asciilifeform) billymg: punkman: you may be right that this is how it would be perceived at a social level (i.e. buterin eth is ETH while real ETH is ETC), but on a technical level spending the anyone can spend coins is not something that would cause a fork, no?
(asciilifeform) punkman: there are in fact no "anyone can spend" coins right now
(asciilifeform) whaack: if anything the 'kill switch' is now the 5mil coins held in anyone can spend
(asciilifeform) billymg: why would any country want the presence of an anyone-can-spend loophole unless they're the only nation that can exploit it
(asciilifeform) whaack: PLUS, the evil idiots who created this scam in the first place may be already trying to steal the coins they convinced people to put in anyone-can-spend addresses
(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: 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) asciilifeform: http://logs.nosuchlabs.com/log/asciilifeform/2021-07-07#1043590 << key is 'went'. they have to ~no longer be in~ an anyone-can-spend to count as genuine btc per asciilifeform's pov
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: shinohai: i very rarely think about prb nowadays; when happen to, is usually re: the conundrum of 'is it possible to induce miner cartel into claiminig the anyone-can-spend outputs'
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: shinohai: seems like yet-another anyone-can-spend crapola
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform interested in related q's also, e.g. when did 'anyone-can-spend' outputs begin to appear en masse; how many unspent such are there atm; and various.
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: fghj: segshit produces blox that are compatible (in the non-forking sense) w/ trb. simply shows up as 'anyone can spend' tx.
(asciilifeform) adlai: here, I strongly disagree. I can spend arbitrarily long drafting an email responding to a bunch of different points, without the risk of a draft earning me responses of anyone other than, perhaps, an overzealous advertisement vendor, if I save the drafts with e.g. Google;
(therealbitcoin) adlai is referring specifically to "find 'which end to grab'" of contracts that become anyonecanspend, relative to trb (and other clients') logic, were miners to arbitrarily cease enforcing specific softforks.
(therealbitcoin) asciilifeform: shinohai: iirc yet-another anyone-can-spend tx variant ?
(agriculturalsupremacy) thimbronion: jfw - ok I can see those two main points - no warning about upgrade, completely ignoring the security flaws of segshit - which is namely that anyone can spend it
(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
(asciilifeform) asciilifeform: tangentially, mp never Officially backpedalled re his claim that 'no serious miner sits on prb' -- but evidently false, given that segshitness etc. 'anyone-can-spend' nonsense still not unwound
(ossasepia) BingoBoingo: NOTd41r: They are indeed "anyone can spend" transactions.
(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) ossabot: Logged on 2019-12-10 10:22:55 whaack: RubenSomsen: I would not sleep well at night if my bitcoins were in an 'anyone-can-spend' address and I was relying on the mercy of the miner's enforcing some soft rule to keep them there.
(ossasepia) whaack: RubenSomsen: I would not sleep well at night if my bitcoins were in an 'anyone-can-spend' address and I was relying on the mercy of the miner's enforcing some soft rule to keep them there.
(trilema) snsabot: Logged on 2019-10-05 05:23:04 mp_en_viaje: atm i dunno i'd trust anyone from russia or recommend anyone move there. the one time this happened it blowed up in such a sickly manner, i absolutely don't want to spend the significant resources involved in dealing with the clean-up. as far as anyone knows, moscow's bogon-radioactive
(trilema) mp_en_viaje: atm i dunno i'd trust anyone from russia or recommend anyone move there. the one time this happened it blowed up in such a sickly manner, i absolutely don't want to spend the significant resources involved in dealing with the clean-up. as far as anyone knows, moscow's bogon-radioactive
(trilema) mp_en_viaje: how the fuck can you spend 50 hrs/month calling is anyone's guess, i'm not sure i spent that long on the phone since i was born
(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) asciilifeform: ben_vulpes: trb is happy to ~eat~ anyonecanspendolade, just won't shit it
(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 17:52 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 2017-11-21 15:34 asciilifeform: incidentally, anybody bother lately to add up how much anyonecanspendolade in typical block ?
(trilema) a111: Logged on 2017-11-21 15:34 asciilifeform: incidentally, anybody bother lately to add up how much anyonecanspendolade in typical block ?
(trilema) asciilifeform: incidentally, anybody bother lately to add up how much anyonecanspendolade in typical block ?
(trilema) asciilifeform: it ain't 'to black hole', it's an 'anyonecanspend'
(trilema) asciilifeform: 'anyonecanspend' offers easy fracturing points for 'unwinders' tho
(trilema) asciilifeform: recall, 'anyonecanspend', so it got spent, possibly a block or however many in the past
(trilema) asciilifeform: ( gotta walk the tx upstream by hand and look for anyonecanspendolade )
(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) 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) phf: (and until you do its nature as a wallet can be debated philosophically. i think majority of tmsr is platonists, so there exists an infinitive number of wallets to which you can spend whether or not anyone has possession of them. you can though discover a wallet through the process of key generation)
(trilema) asciilifeform: BingoBoingo: let the anyonecanspendolade bloom? what does it do to actual btc users
(trilema) asciilifeform: iirc prb already is written to reject blocks that attempt to 'illicitly' spend the perfectly legitimately anyonecanspendolade
(trilema) asciilifeform: mircea_popescu or anybody ever so far bothered to count the total coin presently sitting in 'anyonecanspend' ?
(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) asciilifeform: the finding i keep bashing my head against, is the realization that the current scheme ('anyone can make any number of valid tx they want, and everyone else must spend cpu cycles again and again and again testing it') has no future.
(trilema) a111: Logged on 2016-11-20 03:29 pete_dushenski: mircea_popescu: the difference between eyes and electronic sensors on cars, ofc, is that you know when eyes stop working before it's too late. either way, if trumpenreich is to restore full employment to amerika, abolishing the minimum wage will make a full-time chauffeur affordable to anyone who can also spend $100k on a tesla or equiv.
(trilema) pete_dushenski: mircea_popescu: the difference between eyes and electronic sensors on cars, ofc, is that you know when eyes stop working before it's too late. either way, if trumpenreich is to restore full employment to amerika, abolishing the minimum wage will make a full-time chauffeur affordable to anyone who can also spend $100k on a tesla or equiv.
(trilema) asciilifeform: (no moar mining of tx containing actual signature, vs 'anyone-can-spend' crapolade.)
(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) asciilifeform: it's a nonsense. miners can induce pretty much anyone to 'doublespend' by failing, for long enough, to mine a tx
(trilema) a111: Logged on 2016-09-28 14:40 mircea_popescu: anyone willing to spend 1mn can have ~10k us registered businesses by friday sort of thing.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: anyone willing to spend 1mn can have ~10k us registered businesses by friday sort of thing.
(trilema) adlai: ;;later tell copypaste fwiw, I'm fully in favor of segregated witness being implemented and available for those who see fit to use it. the main problem is one of education; users need to understand that there's bitcoin, and there's anyonecanspend-witcoin
(trilema) asciilifeform: if 'ANYONECANSPEND', what exactly prevents an uncastrated node from... spending it ?
(trilema) punkman: It's ANYONECANSPEND. In a soft-fork, we can add a new rule that restricts what's valid. We can add a rule like, whenever we see, we could say it's a new type of script that is able to instead of updating its inputs from the signature field, it takes it from the witness instead. The witness becomes a third part of the transaction in addition to the inputs and outputs of a transaction. For
(trilema) punkman: actual output that requires a signature. Instead, the outputs do not push these scripts that we required to be satisfied, they would be encapsulated, it would be pushed as a piece of data. This allows us to, this effectively to every node, and every node not using this system, it's an ANYONECANSPEND. It's just an output that pushes data on the stack, the output doesn't do anything else.
(trilema) BingoBoingo: asciilifeform: "softfork" uses "anyone can spend" non-sense
(trilema) punkman: "if the spend amount has a lot of trailing zeros, eg, 2.34000000 BTC, then have change outputs that also have the same amount of trailing zeros. Otherwise, it's obvious which one is the spend." << anyone can explain this?
(trilema) mircea_popescu: remember ? people can spend the dust ? so you or anyone knows what address proves any claim ?
(trilema) mircea_popescu: there's literally nothing anyone can do to force the president to spend money, a bias that actually comes from the olden days that's never been challenged, ever.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: that's the whole idea, anyone can spend the sum on the basis of the notarized documents.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: "Anyone who plans to waste the shareholders' money can undercut the competition. The easiest thing in the world is to charge too little, it is just as easy as spending too much of other people's money. Customers will flock to those who do because they are giving away some, if not all, of the value for free. Somebody may even pick up the underpriced goods and sell them at a profit when the stupid company ceases to ex
(trilema) mircea_popescu: HECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY can be used to create outputs that are provably spendable by anyone (thus to mining fees assuming miners behave optimally and rationally) but only at a time sufficiently far into the future that large miners profitably can't sell the sacrifices at a discount.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: i wonder if the fucktard "justice" warriors realise that their constant if innefectual nipping at the heels means that anyone involved who can afford it will in fact spend the money and clobber everyone in range.
(trilema) BingoBoingo: Can anyone else see qntra this morning or is every one else seeing our page as suspended by the host?
(trilema) mircea_popescu: because anyone can spend the something, and in so doing super-prove the whole charade.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: jurov: and if situation gets interesting, mp can pull asks, leaving me unable to add something to other side << i shouldn't be the only person in that market. provided anyone gives a shit about the derps themselves or their general market, enough to actually spend the usd they CLAIM to have received in investment, then that market should easily compete with s.mpoe.
(trilema) mircea_popescu: b) that while neobee spends a lot of time executing, it's so far failed to actually come up with a business plan. anyone can buy advertising, and overpay for it.