protocol - Is this "transaction malleability" really an ...

WARNING: Bitcoin Cash May Introduce Fatal Errors

Hi All,
I am long-term Bitcoin enthusiast and a core developer of PascalCoin, an infinitely scalable and completely original cryptocurrency (https://www.pascalcoin.org). I am also the developer of BlockchainSQL.io, an SQL-backend for Bitcoin.
I have been involved in Bitcoin community for a long time, and was a big supporter of hard-forking on Aug 1 2017 (https://redd.it/6i5qt1).
Due to the recent alarming proposals and the method which they are being pushed, I feel I have a moral duty to speak out to warn against what could be fatal technical errors for BCH.
As a full-time core developer at PascalCoin for last 18 months, I have dealt with DoS attacks, 51% attacks, timewarp attacks, mining centralisation attacks, out-of-consensus bugs, high-orphan rates and various other issues. Suffice to say, Layer-1 cryptocurrency development is hard and you don't really appreciate how fragile everything this until you work on a cryptocurrency codebase and manage a live mainnet (disclaimer: Albert Molina is main genius here, but it is a team effort).
Infinite Block Size: I know there has been much discussion here about the safety of "big blocks", and I generally agree with those arguments. However, the analysis I've seen always assumes the attackers are economically rational actors. On that basis, yes, the laws of economics will incentivise miners to naturally regulate the size of minted blocks. However, this does not include "economically irrational actors" such as competing coins, governments, banks, etc.
Allowing the natural limit of 32mb I think was a sensible move, but adding changes to the network protocol to allow 128mb blocks and then more, does not seem appropriate right now since:
It makes much more sense to leave the blocksize at 32mb until blocks reach ~16mb at which point the technical, security and reliability issues can be better understood and a more informed decision can be made by the BCH community.
Re-Enabling Opcodes: It's important to remember that these opcodes were disabled by Satoshi Nakamoto himself early on in the project due to ongoing bugs and instability arising out of the scripting engine (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures).
Later as the scripts became standardized, this issue was forgotten/abandoned since it would require a hard-fork to reactivate them and Core developers were against HF's. Personally, I think it's a good idea to re-enable them, but only after:
Infinite Script Size: One of the proposals I've seen that compliments re-enabling opcodes is to enable unbounded script sizes. From local discussions I've had with people promoting this idea, the "belief" is that miners will auto-regulate these as well. However, this is unproven.
Unbounded script-size introduce signficant attack-vectors in the areas of denial of service and stack/memory overflow (especially with all opcodes). One attack I can foresee here is the introduction of quadratic-hashing attack but inside a single transaction!
You have to understand that Ethereum had this problem from the onset and this is why they introduced the concept of "GAS". CPU power is a limited resource and if you don't pay for it, it will be completely abused. From what I've seen, there is no equivalent to GAS inside this proposal.
To understand the seriousness of this issue, think back to Ethereum's network instability before the DAO hacker. It went through many periods of DoS attacks as hackers cleverly found oversights in their opcode/EVM engine. This is a serious, proven and real-world attack-vector and not one to be "solved later". The BCH network could be brought to a grinding halt and easily with unbounded script sizes that do not pay any gas.
Voting/Signaling/Testnet: Even at PascalCoin, we go through a process of voting to enable all changes (https://www.pascalcoin.org/voting). We are barely a 10mill mcap coin and yet show more discipline with Voting, well-defined PIP design guidelines and Testnet releases. There is no excuse for BCH! It is a multi-billion dollar network and changes of this magnitude cannot be released so recklessly in such short time-frames.
I hope these comments are considered by stakeholders of BCH and the community at large. I am not a maximalist and support BCH, but the last week has revealed there is a serious technical void in BCH! The Bitcoin Core devs may not know much about economics, but they did know some things about security & reliability of cryptocurrency software.
PLEASE REMEMBER THERE ARE EXTREMELY TALENTED AND VICIOUS ATTACKERS OUT THERE and you need to be very careful with changes of this magnitude.
submitted by HermanSchoenfeld to btc [link] [comments]

A lengthy explanation on why BS really limited the blocksize

I found this explanation in the comments about BS's argument against raising the blocksize which doesn't get much focus here:
In my understanding, allowing Luke to run his node is not the reason, but only an excuse that Blockstream has been using to deny any actual block size limit increase. The actual reason, I guess, is that Greg wants to see his "fee market" working. It all started on Feb/2013. Greg posted to bitcointalk his conclusion that Satoshi's design with unlimited blocks was fatally flawed, because, when the block reward dwindled, miners would undercut each other's transaction fees until they all went bakrupt. But he had a solution: a "layer 2" network that would carry the actual bitcoin payments, with Satoshi's network being only used for large sporadic settlements between elements of that "layer 2".
(At the time, Greg assumed that the layer 2 would consist of another invention of his, "pegged sidechains" -- altcoins that would be backed by bitcoin, with some cryptomagic mechanism to lock the bitcoins in the main blockchain while they were in use by the sidechain. A couple of years later, people concluded that sidechains would not work as a layer 2. Fortunately for him, Poon and Dryja came up with the Lightning Network idea, that could serve as layer 2 instead.)
The layer 1 settlement transactions, being relatively rare and high-valued, supposedly could pay the high fees needed to sustain the miners. Those fees would be imposed by keeping the block sizes limited, so that the layer-1 users woudl have to compete for space by raising their fees. Greg assumed that a "fee market" would develop where users could choose to pay higher fees in exchange of faster confirmation.
Gavin and Mike, who were at the time in control of the Core implementation, dismissed Greg's claims and plans. In fact there were many things wrong with them, technical and economical. Unfortunately, in 2014 Blockstream was created, with 30 M (later 70 M) of venture capital -- which gave Greg the means to hire the key Core developers, push Gavin and Mike out of the way, and make his 2-layer design the official roadmap for the Core project.
Greg never provided any concrete justification, by analysis or simulation, for his claims of eventual hashpower collapse in Satoshi's design or the feasibility of his 2-layer design.
On the other hand, Mike showed, with both means, that Greg's "fee market" would not work. And, indeed, instead of the stable backlog with well-defined fee x delay schedule, that Greg assumed, there is a sequence of huge backlogs separated by periods with no backlog.
During the backlogs, the fees and delays are completely unpredictable, and a large fraction of the transactions are inevitably delayed by days or weeks. During the intemezzos, there is no "fee market' because any transaction that pays the minimum fee (a few cents) gets confirmed in the next block.
That is what Mike predicted, by theory and simulations -- and has been going on since Jan/2016, when the incoming non-spam traffic first hit the 1 MB limit. However, Greg stubbornly insists that it is just a temporary situation, and, as soon as good fee estimators are developed and widely used, the "fee market" will stabilize. He simply ignores all arguments of why fee estimation is a provably unsolvable problem and a stable backlog just cannot exist. He desperately needs his stable "fee market" to appear -- because, if it doesn't, then his entire two-layer redesign collapses.
That, as best as I can understand, is the real reason why Greg -- and hence Blockstream and Core -- cannot absolutely allow the block size limit to be raised. And also why he cannot just raise the minimum fee, which would be a very simple way to reduce frivolous use without the delays and unpredictability of the "fee market". Before the incoming traffic hit the 1 MB limit, it was growing 50-100% per year. Greg already had to accept, grudgingly, the 70% increase that would be a side effect of SegWit. Raising the limit, even to a miser 2 MB, would have delayed his "stable fee market" by another year or two. And, of course, if he allowed a 2 MB increase, others would soon follow.
Hence his insistence that bigger blocks would force the closure of non-mining relays like Luke's, which (he incorrectly claims) are responsible for the security of the network, And he had to convince everybody that hard forks -- needed to increase the limit -- are more dangerous than plutonium contaminated with ebola.
SegWit is another messy imbroglio that resulted from that pile of lies. The "malleability bug" is a flaw of the protocol that lets a third party make cosmetic changes to a transaction ("malleate" it), as it is on its way to the miners, without changing its actual effect.
The malleability bug (MLB) does not bother anyone at present, actually. Its only serious consequence is that it may break chains of unconfirmed transactions, Say, Alice issues T1 to pay Bob and then immediately issues T2 that spends the return change of T1 to pay Carol. If a hacker (or Bob, or Alice) then malleates T1 to T1m, and gets T1m confirmed instead of T1, then T2 will fail.
However, Alice should not be doing those chained unconfirmed transactions anyway, because T1 could fail to be confirmed for several other reasons -- especially if there is a backlog.
On the other hand, the LN depends on chains of the so-called bidirectional payment channels, and these essentially depend on chained unconfirmed transactions. Thus, given the (false but politically necessary) claim that the LN is ready to be deployed, fixing the MB became a urgent goal for Blockstream.
There is a simple and straightforward fix for the MLB, that would require only a few changes to Core and other blockchain software. That fix would require a simple hard fork, that (like raising the limit) would be a non-event if programmed well in advance of its activation.
But Greg could not allow hard forks, for the above reason. If he allowed a hard fork to fix the MLB, he would lose his best excuse for not raising the limit. Fortunately for him, Pieter Wuille and Luke found a convoluted hack -- SegWit -- that would fix the MLB without any hated hard fork.
Hence Blockstream's desperation to get SegWit deployed and activated. If SegWit passes, the big-blockers will lose a strong argument to do hard forks. If it fails to pass, it would be impossible to stop a hard fork with a real limit increase.
On the other hand, SegWit needed to offer a discount in the fee charged for the signatures ("witnesses"). The purpose of that discount seems to be to convince clients to adopt SegWit (since, being a soft fork, clients are not strictly required to use it). Or maybe the discount was motivated by another of Greg's inventions, Confidential Transactions (CT) -- a mixing service that is supposed to be safer and more opaque than the usual mixers. It seems that CT uses larger signatures, so it would especially benefit from the SegWit discount.
Anyway, because of that discount and of the heuristic that the Core miner uses to fill blocks, it was also necessary to increase the effective block size, by counting signatures as 1/4 of their actual size when checking the 1 MB limit. Given today's typical usage, that change means that about 1.7 MB of transactions will fit in a "1 MB" block. If it wasn't for the above political/technical reasons, I bet that Greg woudl have firmly opposed that 70% increase as well.
If SegWit is an engineering aberration, SegWit2X is much worse. Since it includes an increase in the limit from 1 MB to 2 MB, it will be a hard fork. But if it is going to be a hard fork, there is no justification to use SegWit to fix the MLB: that bug could be fixed by the much simpler method mentioned above.
And, anyway, there is no urgency to fix the MLB -- since the LN has not reached the vaporware stage yet, and has yet to be shown to work at all.
I'd like to thank u/iwannabeacypherpunk for pointing this out to me.
submitted by unitedstatian to btc [link] [comments]

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Long-run favors BTC over BCH, here's why...

There are many reasons why BTC will remain the gold standard and not BCH.
BTC Advantages over BCH:
BCH has:
I have been watching Bitcoin for a long time, and the main thing I've learned is don't overreact to flashes in the pan, weak hands, and anytime a "panic" is happening. What really pays in the long-run is sticking with things that have a proven track record, a high quality set of software engineers and computer scientists, and a critical mass of ecosystem. Nothing compares to Bitcoin in these regards!!
Bitcoin has a very bright future ahead!
submitted by fortunative to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.

Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
Summary
Like many people, I initially loved SegWit - until I found out more about it.
I'm proud of my open-mindedness and my initial - albeit short-lived - support of SegWit - because this shows that I judge software on its merits, instead of being some kind of knee-jerk "hater".
SegWit's idea of "refactoring" the code to separate out the validation stuff made sense, and the phrase "soft fork" sounded cool - for a while.
But then we all learned that:
And we also got much better solutions: such as market-based blocksize with Bitcoin Unlimited - way better than SegWit's arbitrary, random centrally-planned, too-little-too-late 1.7MB "max blocksize".
This is why more and more people are rejecting SegWit - and instead installing Bitcoin Unlimited.
In my case, as I gradually learned about the disastrous consequences which SegWit-as-a-soft-fork-hack would have, my intial single OP in December 2015 expressing outspoken support for SegWit soon turned to an avalanche of outspoken opposition to SegWit.
Details
Core / Blockstream lost my support on SegWit - and it's all their fault.
How did Core / Blockstream turn me from an outspoken SegWit supporter to an outspoken SegWit opponent?
It was simple: They made the totally unnecessary (and dangerous) decision to program SegWit as a messy and dangerous soft-fork which would:
  • create a massive new threat vector by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend";
  • force yet-another random / arbitrary / centrally planned "max blocksize" on everyone (previously 1 MB, now 1.7MB - still pathetically small and hard-coded!).
Meanwhile, new, independent dev teams which are smaller and much better than the corrupt, fiat-financed Core / Blockstream are offering simpler and safer solutions which are much better than SegWit:
  • For blocksize governance, we now have market-based blocksize based on emergent consensus, provided by Bitcoin Unlimited.
  • For malleability and quadratic hashing time (plus a future-proof, tag-based language similar to JSON or XML supporting much cleaner upgrades long-term), we now have Flexible Transactions (FlexTrans).
This is why We Reject SegWit because "SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history".
My rapid evolution on SegWit - as I discovered its dangers (and as we got much better alternatives, like Bitcoin Unlimited + FlexTrans):
Initially, I was one of the most outspoken supporters of SegWit - raving about it in the following OP which I posted (on Monday, December 7, 2015) immediately after seeing a presentation about it on YouTube by Pieter Wuille at one of the early Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3vt1ov/pieter_wuilles_segregated_witness_and_fraud/
Pieter Wuille's Segregated Witness and Fraud Proofs (via Soft-Fork!) is a major improvement for scaling and security (and upgrading!)
I am very proud of that initial pro-SegWit post of mine - because it shows that I have always been totally unbiased and impartial and objective about the ideas behind SegWit - and I have always evaluated it purely on its merits (and demerits).
So, I was one of the first people to recognize the positive impact which the ideas behind SegWit could have had (ie, "segregating" the signature information from the sender / receiver / amount information) - if SegWit had been implemented by an honest dev team that supports the interests of the Bitcoin community.
However, we've learned a lot since December 2015. Now we know that Core / Blockstream is actively working against the interests of the Bitcoin community, by:
  • trying to force their political and economic viewpoints onto everyone else by "hard-coding" / "bundling" some random / arbitrary / centrally-planned 1.7MB "max blocksize" (?!?) into our code;
  • trying to take away our right to vote via a clean and safe "hard fork";
  • trying to cripple our code with dangerous "technical debt" - eg their radical and irresponsible proposal to make all transactions "anyone-can-spend".
This is the mess of SegWit - which we all learned about over the past year.
So, Core / Blockstream blew it - bigtime - losing my support for SegWit, and the support of many others in the community.
We might have continued to support SegWit if Core / Blockstream had not implemented it as a dangerous and dirty soft fork.
But Core / Blockstream lost our support - by attempting to implement SegWit as a dangerous, anti-democratic soft fork.
The lesson here for Core/Blockstream is clear:
Bitcoin users are not stupid.
Many of us are programmers ourselves, and we know the difference between a simple & safe hard fork and a messy & dangerous soft fork.
And we also don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to take away our right to vote.
And finally, we don't like it when Core / Blockstream attempts to steal functionality away from nodes while using misleading terminology - as u/chinawat has repeatedly been pointing out lately.
We know a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack when we see it - and SegWit is a messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack.
If Core/Blockstream attempts to foce messy and dangerous code like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork on the community, we can and should and we will reject SegWit - to protect our billions of dollars of investment in Bitcoin (which could turn into trillions of dollars someday - if we continue to protect our code from poison pills and trojans like SegWit).
Too bad you lost my support (and the support of many, many other Bitcoin users), Core / Blockstream! But it's your own fault for releasing shitty code.
Below are some earlier comments from me showing how I quickly turned from one of the most outspoken supporters of Segwit (in that single OP I wrote the day I saw Pieter Wuille's presentation on YouTube) - into one of most outspoken opponents of SegWit:
I also think Pieter Wuille is a great programmer and I was one of the first people to support SegWit after it was announced at a congress a few months ago.
But then Blockstream went and distorted SegWit to fit it into their corporate interests (maintaining their position as the dominant centralized dev team - which requires avoiding hard-forks). And Blockstream's corporate interests don't always align with Bitcoin's interests.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
As noted in the link in the section title above, I myself was an outspoken supporter championing SegWit on the day when I first the YouTube of Pieter Wuille explaining it at one of the early "Scaling Bitcoin" conferences.
Then I found out that doing it as a soft fork would add unnecessary "spaghetti code" - and I became one of the most outspoken opponents of SegWit.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Pieter Wuille's SegWit would be a great refactoring and clean-up of the code (if we don't let Luke-Jr poison it by packaging it as a soft-fork)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/
Probably the only prominent Core/Blockstream dev who does understand this kind of stuff like the Robustness Principle or its equivalent reformulation in terms of covariant and contravariant types is someone like Pieter Wuille – since he’s a guy who’s done a lot of work in functional languages like Haskell – instead of being a myopic C-tard like most of the rest of the Core/Blockstream devs. He’s a smart guy, and his work on SegWit is really important stuff (but too bad that, yet again, it’s being misdelivered as a “soft-fork,” again due to the cluelessness of someone like Luke-Jr, whose grasp of syntax and semantics – not to mention society – is so glaringly lacking that he should have been recognized for the toxic influence that he is and shunned long ago).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k6tke/the_tragedy_of/
The damage which would be caused by SegWit (at the financial, software, and governance level) would be massive:
  • Millions of lines of other Bitcoin code would have to be rewritten (in wallets, on exchanges, at businesses) in order to become compatible with all the messy non-standard kludges and workarounds which Blockstream was forced into adding to the code (the famous "technical debt") in order to get SegWit to work as a soft fork.
  • SegWit was originally sold to us as a "code clean-up". Heck, even I intially fell for it when I saw an early presentation by Pieter Wuille on YouTube from one of Blockstream's many, censored Bitcoin scaling stalling conferences)
  • But as we all later all discovered, SegWit is just a messy hack.
  • Probably the most dangerous aspect of SegWit is that it changes all transactions into "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" without SegWit - all because of the messy workarounds necessary to do SegWit as a soft-fork. The kludges and workarounds involving SegWit's "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" semantics would only work as long as SegWit is still installed.
  • This means that it would be impossible to roll-back SegWit - because all SegWit transactions that get recorded on the blockchain would now be interpreted as "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" - so, SegWit's dangerous and messy "kludges and workarounds and hacks" would have to be made permanent - otherwise, anyone could spend those "ANYONE-CAN-SPEND" SegWit coins!
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=segwit+anyone+can+spend&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5r9cu7/the_real_question_is_how_fast_do_bugs_get_fixed/
Why are more and more people (including me!) rejecting SegWit?
(1) SegWit is the most radical and irresponsible change ever proposed for Bitcoin:
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
"The scaling argument was ridiculous at first, and now it's sinister. Core wants to take transactions away from miners to give to their banking buddies - crippling Bitcoin to only be able to do settlements. They are destroying Satoshi's vision. SegwitCoin is Bankcoin, not Bitcoin" ~ u/ZeroFucksG1v3n
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbug3/the_scaling_argument_was_ridiculous_at_first_and/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
SegWit-as-a-softfork is a hack. Flexible-Transactions-as-a-hard-fork is simpler, safer and more future-proof than SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - trivially solving malleability, while adding a "tag-based" binary data format (like JSON, XML or HTML) for easier, safer future upgrades with less technical debt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5a7husegwitasasoftfork_is_a_hack/
(2) Better solutions than SegWit are now available (Bitcoin Unlimited, FlexTrans):
ViABTC: "Why I support BU: We should give the question of block size to the free market to decide. It will naturally adjust to ever-improving network & technological constraints. Bitcoin Unlimited guarantees that block size will follow what the Bitcoin network is capable of handling safely."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/574g5l/viabtc_why_i_support_bu_we_should_give_the/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u1r2d/bitcoins_specification_eg_excess_blocksize_eb/
The Blockstream/SegWit/LN fork will be worth LESS: SegWit uses 4MB storage/bandwidth to provide a one-time bump to 1.7MB blocksize; messy, less-safe as softfork; LN=vaporware. The BU fork will be worth MORE: single clean safe hardfork solving blocksize forever; on-chain; fix malleability separately.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zjnk/the_blockstreamsegwitln_fork_will_be_worth_less/
(3) Very few miners actually support SegWit. In fact, over half of SegWit signaling comes from just two fiat-funded miners associated with Core / Blockstream: BitFury and BTCC:
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
(4) Hard forks are simpler and safer than soft forks. Hard forks preserve your "right to vote" - so Core / Blockstream is afraid of hard forks a/k/a "full node refendums" - because they know their code would be rejected:
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
"Anything controversial ... is the perfect time for a hard fork. ... Hard forks are the market speaking. Soft forks on any issues where there is controversy are an attempt to smother the market in its sleep. Core's approach is fundamentally anti-market" ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5f4zaa/anything_controversial_is_the_perfect_time_for_a/
As Core / Blockstream collapses and Classic gains momentum, the CEO of Blockstream, Austin Hill, gets caught spreading FUD about the safety of "hard forks", falsely claiming that: "A hard-fork forced-upgrade flag day ... disenfranchises everyone who doesn't upgrade ... causes them to lose funds"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41c8n5/as_core_blockstream_collapses_and_classic_gains/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Blockstream is "just another shitty startup. A 30-second review of their business plan makes it obvious that LN was never going to happen. Due to elasticity of demand, users either go to another coin, or don't use crypto at all. There is no demand for degraded 'off-chain' services." ~ u/jeanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59hcvblockstream_is_just_another_shitty_startup_a/
(5) Core / Blockstream's latest propaganda "talking point" proclaims that "SegWit is a blocksize increase". But we don't want "a" random, arbitrary centrally planned blocksize increase (to a tiny 1.7MB) - we want _market-based blocksizes - now and into the future:_
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
The Bitcoin community is talking. Why isn't Core/Blockstream listening? "Yes, [SegWit] increases the blocksize but BU wants a literal blocksize increase." ~ u/lurker_derp ... "It's pretty clear that they [BU-ers] want Bitcoin, not a BTC fork, to have a bigger blocksize." ~ u/WellSpentTime
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fjh6l/the_bitcoin_community_is_talking_why_isnt/
"The MAJORITY of the community sentiment (be it miners or users / hodlers) is in favour of the manner in which BU handles the scaling conundrum (only a conundrum due to the junta at Core) and SegWit as a hard and not a soft fork." ~ u/pekatete
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/593voi/the_majority_of_the_community_sentiment_be_it/
(6) Core / Blockstream want to radically change Bitcoin to centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize, and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" semantics. The market wants to go to the moon - with Bitcoin's original security model, and Bitcoin's original market-based (miner-decided) blocksize.
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57brcb/bitcoin_unlimited_is_the_real_bitcoin_in_line/
The number of blocks being mined by Bitcoin Unlimited is now getting very close to surpassing the number of blocks being mined by SegWit! More and more people are supporting BU's MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE - because BU avoids needless transaction delays and ultimately increases Bitcoin adoption & price!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdhzh/the_number_of_blocks_being_mined_by_bitcoin/
I have just been banned for from /Bitcoin for posting evidence that there is a moderate/strong inverse correlation between the amount of Bitcoin Core Blocks mined and the Bitcoin Price (meaning that as Core loses market share, Price goes up).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v10zw/i_have_just_been_banned_for_from_rbitcoin_fo
Flipping the Script: It is Core who is proposing a change to Bitcoin, and BU/Classic that is maintaining the status quo.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v36jy/flipping_the_script_it_is_core_who_is_proposing_a/
The main difference between Bitcoin core and BU client is BU developers dont bundle their economic and political opinions with their code
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5v3rt2/the_main_difference_between_bitcoin_core_and_bu/
TL;DR:
You wanted people like me to support you and install your code, Core / Blockstream?
Then you shouldn't have a released messy, dangerous, centrally planned hack like SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - with its random, arbitrary, centrally planned, ridiculously tiny 1.7MB blocksize - and its dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics.
Now it's too late. The market will reject SegWit - and it's all Core / Blockstream's fault.
The market prefers simpler, safer, future-proof, market-based solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Your Daily Moon Math - 2018-01-03

Go to http://MoonMath.Win for Bitcoin Rainbow charts and the full Moon Math table.
Sometimes I get asked what I mean when I say "good hunting." Sometimes I get asked how to hunt. I’m usually silent. Today, that changes a little.
I’m not sure everyone around here will believe me if I say that I want everyone who follows this sub to be good at “hunting” and to have good hunts. I don’t kind of mean that, I really mean it. It’s why I post these charts and write all this stuff for you to consume. But specifically, I mean a lot of other things when I say “good hunting,” too. Today I'm going to share a little more about what that means.
You'll notice that I never say "good luck." "Good luck" is for assholes and gamblers. That's not what we're doing. Instead, we're trying to figure out how to find the best available opportunities. We’re going to have method in the way we do that and we’re going to be sporting about it. We’re going to hunt.
And then, out of nowhere comes all this XRP shit.
This, the alt surge last summer and the present alt surge, all made sense when it was happening with Eth. That's not a full endorsement of Eth as an investment. It just means that it's a project that doesn't have its head up its own ass. Some people say Bitcoin has its head up its ass for various reasons... but it's simple for me to argue against them and it should be for you, too.
Today, many users basically asked "Why all the hate on alts." Simply put, security, and it's just not "good hunting" when you win because you got lucky and made a good pick. That's just good luck and it makes you an asshole. So, shut the fuck up about your good luck. Nobody cares, and that's not what we do around here. It’s not good for the game, and its’ not good for your mind. Take your winnings and go to the beach, but don’t hang around here and bitch at us because we don’t want to talk about your lucky pick with you.
If you're smart, and I know you are, then you're still asking, "but why?"
I'll digress.

Why?

Scenario 1

Let's talk about Bitcoin Barbra (BB). BB likes money and cracking. BB is good at it, too. To BB, Bitcoin, the protocol and the wallets that contain large sums of bitcoin, are a giant honey pot. BB doesn't have to work, because she already has a lot of bitcoin, and mining hardware. All the money just flows in, and she can do whatever she wants. Some time ago, though, BB noticed that she wasn't making any progress using her resources to crack open bitcoin. So, she decided it would be more fun and profitable to go after projects that don't know as much about what they're doing.

Scenario 2

While BB is cracking away on a recent litecoin fork Jamie Diamon (JD) is evaluating the blockchain for possible use at his bank. JD mulls over the technology and decides that he can create his own implementation that handles international transactions more efficiently and securely than the current banking model.
When JD goes to his IT security guys with this one of them mentions his friend BB, who would love to snatch transactions from CHASE and pwn JD.
JD thinks about it and says he'll "just hire the best people in the industry to pwn BB." Then the ITSec guys all say that those guys are already working on Bitcoin and Ethereum, and that those people all hate him. BB hates him too. Everyone hates JD, even his own ITSec guys.
JD decides that Bitcoin is "fucking stupid" and bitches about it whenever someone brings it up.

How?

Security is maintained by the hash rate and the development teams that commit changes to the project. There aren't a lot of those resources to go around and they stay focused on the best most profitable options.

In Conclusion

Basically, when you buy alts, you're being an uniformed JD, in almost all cases. At least JD knows to ask his ITSec guys and to stay the fuck out of it. There are some good projects out there, but you must be relatively informed to see past the marketing and BS.
The alt that surges next will always be a gamble, but when the reckoning comes for it there will be a storm that will never resolve itself. Research the DAO... and that's Ethereum, which I do think is a good project. None of the other alts even come close.
That DAO shit will never happen to Bitcoin. know why? because it's best in class, by far. Bitcoin Core doesn't fuck up. It just doesn't. Last fuckup happened just after Satoshi disappeared, and that was the last one. Nobody but core ever knew enough about it, either.
Transaction malleability bug is probably the last "whoopsie daisy" we'll see from core.
When you bet on other coins you need to recognize all the risks involved. Security is almost always forgotten in that process. Also, consider that as security features are added to bitcoin vulnerabilities are exposed in alts. As this space develops the hacks against alts will increase in intensity and frequency, and the hackers will be using knowledge that has been discovered and proven by Bitcoin Core. Bitcoin doesn't face attackers armed with more knowledge than the team already possess. No other team can be sure of that. Maybe Eth, but that's more of a spectrum issue. The avenues of attack against Eth are much wider and more varied.
Also, it's impossible to know when and which alt will implode/explode. So, just stay the hell out of it.

Principles:

Good hunting
Go to http://moonmath.win for the full update and rainbow charts
Label 7-day Performance 30-day Performance 60-day Performance 90-day Performance 2017 - Present Performance 2016 - Present Performance 2015 - Present Performance 2014 - Present Performance 2013 - Present Performance 2012 - Present Performance 2011 - Present Performance July 2010 - Present Performance
Starting Price USD $15,378.28 $11,616.85 $7,387.00 $4,322.76 $997.69 $434.46 $313.92 $770.44 $13.30 $5.27 $0.30 $0.09
Compounding Daily Periodic Rate -0.23% 0.89% 1.20% 1.40% 0.74% 0.49% 0.35% 0.20% 0.39% 0.36% 0.42% 0.44%
Over $20,000.00 on Never!!! 2018-02-03 2018-01-25 2018-01-22 2018-02-08 2018-02-27 2018-03-20 2018-05-18 2018-03-12 2018-03-16 2018-03-04 2018-02-28
Over $31,622.78 on Never!!! 2018-03-27 2018-03-04 2018-02-23 2018-04-10 2018-06-02 2018-07-28 2018-12-29 2018-07-09 2018-07-20 2018-06-20 2018-06-11
Over $100,000.00 on Never!!! 2018-08-04 2018-06-08 2018-05-17 2018-09-12 2019-01-25 2019-06-19 2020-07-16 2019-05-04 2019-06-02 2019-03-18 2019-02-26
Over $1,000,000.00 on Never!!! 2019-04-21 2018-12-17 2018-10-28 2019-07-19 2020-05-13 2021-03-31 2023-08-20 2020-12-21 2021-02-24 2020-09-11 2020-07-28
nannal 's A+ on NEVER!!! 2018-10-20 2018-07-20 2018-06-17 2019-01-03 2019-12-03 NEVER!!! NEVER!!! 2020-12-20 NEVER!!! 2020-06-15 2020-04-01
http://moonmath.win
submitted by jarederaj to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

The Historical Importance of Litecoin Implementing SegWit on 5/10

I thought I'd write up a brief post on why 5/10 is a big day for Litecoin as a way to reflect and in case you're new. A lot of this is going to briefly cover Bitcoin's history (hopefully somewhat objectively), but there's a reason for that as it will show you the role Litecoin played and the continued role it could continue to play in the future.
---------------------
Today marks the day when Litecoin successfully activated SegWit. This was an important moment for both the Bitcoin and Litecoin communities. In the beginning of 2017, there were 3 main topics of contention in the bitcoin community:
  1. There were rumblings of covert ASIC BOOST mining on the Bitcoin network.
  2. There was also talk about the need for a transaction malleability fix for transaction id's, particularly because this would be needed if 2nd layer solutions like the Lightning Network ever were to transpire. As a side note, transaction malleability is just fancy way of saying that there was more than 1 way to create a tx id. Even though, LTC would be sent to the correct address, accounting was difficult because there could be multiple tx id's for the same transaction which created conflicting pieces of information.
  3. Bitcoin's blocks were getting full and so there were talks of increasing the blocksize to process more transactions.

Segwit: The Possible Solution

Segwit was first proposed by Pieter Wiulle in 2015 in order to address the problem of malleability. Later on, a positive side-effect to SegWit that was discovered was that it could naturally increase the blocksize to just under 4 mb.
However, there was much resistance in the Bitcoin community to hardfork in order to implement this protocol. That's when Luke-jr proposed a soft fork i.e. some nodes are SegWit and others are not. This is why you can currently broadcast to both legacy and segwit transactions from the same wallet. However in order to achieve this, no true segwit addresses were utilized (hence the current need for Bech32 SegWit addresses). Instead, SegWit transactions are nested into a script (a.k.a a smart contract) called a "Pay 2 Script Hash". If you want to learn more, I highly recommend Mastering Bitcoin Chapter 7 by Andreas.
By soft forking, the hope was that SegWit could:
  1. Make covert ASIC BOOST mining negligible if not useless.
  2. Fix Transaction Malleability to set the path towards the Lightning Network.
  3. Increase the blocksize to a hypothetical 4 mb block (2mb average) "weight" as a temporary stop-gap.
However, the method of implementing a SegWit soft-fork through P2SH had never been done before and FUD started circulating around this topic. Some claimed that there was a problem of "anyone could spend" the script that was used to lock up the SegWit transactions. Since there was so much in-fighting between implementing a SegWit softfork and simply just increasing blocksizes in lieu of SegWit, the Bitcoin community was stuck.
They then attempted to settle this debate through miner signaling. This meant miner's would run the client software they supported which would then be recorded in the block that they successfully submit. Turns out the miners responsible for extending the majority of Bitcoin's blockchain wanted a simple blocksize increase instead of SegWit.
This then created another wave of debate as the discussion shifted towards how to exactly determine "consensus." Then bitcoin clients were released that allowed non-mining nodes to "signal" in support of SegWit or a Blocksize increase. This revealed that many users actually believed in SegWit, contrary to what the miners wanted (although even here there is some debate as to the authenticity of these nodes as they can be spoofed). It is from this movement that the phrase "User Activated Soft Fork" (UASF) was born.

How Does Litecoin Fit into All of This?

In the beginning of 2017, Charlie wrote up an article outlining his vision for Litecoin, SegWit, and the Lightning Network. He (along with the Litecoin core team) then worked hard to convince and gain consensus among miners to implement segwit. In fact, they even hosted a "Litecoin Roundtable".
It was out of this agreement that the Litecoin dev team could confidently move forward with soft-forking SegWit onto Litecoin which officially occurred on 5/10/17.
With the success of the soft fork, it showed that it wasn't difficult to implement and that it wouldn't disrupt the network. Even though Bitcoin developers could have tested the implementation on testnet, nothing beats a live main net version to "test" on.
Oh, and Litecoin implementing Segwit also proved that the "anyone can spend" FUD was...well just FUD.

The $1 MM SegWit Bounty

A random redditor (u/throwaway40338210716) created a throwaway account and posted a $1 MM Bounty for anyone who could "steal" the LTC from the P2SH address. This person even provided the raw hex tx for miners to try and steal the funds from:
010000000100a2cc0c0851ea26111ca02c3df8c3aeb4b03a6acabb034630a86fea74ab5f4d0000000017160014a5ad2fd0b2a3d6d41b4bc00feee4fcfd2ff0ebb9ffffffff010000000000000000086a067030776e336400000000
(P.S. u/coblee later revealed he was the person who put up this bounty)
No one was successful in doing so. In fact, the funds were left there for about 4 months...or just a few weeks after Bitcoin activated SegWit.

Litecoin's Value as the Silver to Bitcoin's Gold

Though many Bitcoin maximalists may not admit this, Litecoin was an important part in helping implement SegWit onto Bitcoin:
  1. Litecoin proved it was safe to do so on main net.
  2. The $1 MM Bounty proved P2SH transactions were safe disproved the "anyone can spend" FUD.
In the end, there were many reasons as to why Bitcoin ultimately implemented SegWit...one of it being the SegWit2X NYA agreement. However it is undeniable that Litecoin played its part in squashing the FUD surrounding SegWit thereby removing some of the huge roadblocks Bitcoin faced during these debates.
In light of all this, we now can look forward to an exciting future of layer 2 scaling solutions through the Lightning Network. Suffice it to say, there are many mutual benefits to Litecoin being the silver to Bitcoin's gold (an analogy that highlights the close relationship Litecoin's codebase has to Bitcoin's), two of which we've seen this year alone:
  1. It allows us to be a testbed for Bitcoin. Nothing beats main net implementation with billions of dollars on the line.
  2. It allows BTC protocols and clients to be easily ported onto LTC. This is evidenced by SegWit as well as how the lnd client has both BTC and LTC support.
  3. It offers a secure enough network for those who are building on top of BTC to port their businesses onto LTC for cheaper transactions. This was ultimately why Abra decided to add Litecoin as an underlying asset to its exchange.
Anyways, I hope this was helpful to you all and provided some context to the historical significance behind 5/10 and Litecoin activating SegWit. In many ways, this was the date that Litecoin undeniably proved its worth to both the bitcoin and the cryptocommunity as a whole. I will add UASF to my twitter handle as a way to commemorate it. Join me if you want!
submitted by ecurrencyhodler to litecoin [link] [comments]

The only acceptable "compromise" is SegWit NEVER, bigger blocks NOW. SegWit-as-a-soft-fork involves an "anyone-can-spend" hack - which would give Core/Blockstream/AXA a MONOPOLY on Bitcoin development FOREVER. The goal of SegWit is NOT to help Bitcoin. It is to HURT Bitcoin and HELP Blockstream/AXA.

TL;DR: Adding a poison pill like SegWit to Bitcoin would not be a "compromise" - it would be suicide, because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt, incompetent, toxic dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA, who are only interested in staying in power and helping themselves at all costs - even if they end up hurting Bitcoin.
Most of this post will probably not be new information for many people.
It is being provided mainly as a reminder, to counteract the constant flood of lies and propaganda coming from Core/Blocsktream/AXA in their attempt to force this unwanted SegWit poison pill into Bitcoin - in particular, their latest desperate lie: that there could somehow be some kind of "compromise" involving SegWit.
But adding a poison pill / trojan horse like SegWit to our code would not be some kind of "compromise". It would be simply be suicide.
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is an existential threat to Bitcoin development - because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt / incompetent centralized dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA who are directly to blame for the current mess of Bitcoin's crippled, clogged network and drastically falling market cap.
Furthermore, markets don't even do "compromise". They do "winner-takes-all". Any coin adopting SegWit is going to lose, simply because SegWit is such shitty code:
"Compromise is not part of Honey Badger's vocabulary. Such notions are alien to Bitcoin, as it is a creature of the market with no central levers to compromise over. Bitcoin unhampered by hardcoding a 1MB cap is free to optimize itself perfectly to defeat all competition." ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y7vsi/compromise_is_not_part_of_honey_badgers/
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill / trojan horse for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember: The real goals of Core/Blocsktream/AXA with SegWit are to:
  • permanently supress Bitcoin's price / adoption / network capacity / market cap / growth - via SegWit's too-little, too-late centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize;
  • permanently control Bitcoin development - via SegWit's deadly "anyone-can-spend" hack.
In order to see this, all you need to do is judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their actions (and the results of their actions - and by their shitty code):
Purely coincidental... ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Do not judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their words.
As we have seen, their words have been just an endless stream of lies and propaganda involving changing explanations and shifting goalposts and insane nonsense - including this latest outrageous concept of SegWit as some kind of "compromise" which some people may be "falling for":
Latest Segwit Trickery involves prominent support for "SW Now 2MB Later" which will lead to only half of the deal being honored. Barry Silbert front and center. Of course.
~ u/SouperNerd
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btm5u/latest_segwit_trickery_involves_prominent_support/
The people we are dealing with are the WORST type of manipulators and liars.
There is absolutely NO reason why they should not deliver a 2 MB block size at the same time as SegWit.
This is like a dealer saying "hey gimme that $200 now, I just gotta run home and get your weed, I promise I'll be right back".
~ u/BitAlien
Barry Silbert's "proposal" is just another bait and switch
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btl26/barry_silberts_proposal_is_just_another_bait_and/
Right, so the wording is:
I agree to immediately support the activation of Segregated Witness and commit to effectuate a block size increase to 2MB within 12 months
[Based] on [their] previous performance [in the Hong Kong agreement - which they already broke], they're going to say, "Segregated Witness was a block size increase, to a total of 4MB, so we have delivered our side of the compromise."
~ u/edmundedgar
Barry is an investor in Blockstream. What else needs to be said?
~ u/coinlock
Nothing involving SegWit is a "compromise".
SegWit would basically hijack Bitcoin development forever - giving a permanent monopoly to the centralized, corrupt dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA.
  • SegWit would impose a centrally planned blocksize of 1.7MB right now - too little and too late.
  • Segwit would permanently "cement" Core/Blockstream/AXA as the only people controlling Bitcoin development - forever.
If you are sick and tired of these attempts by Core/Blockstream/AXA to sabotage Bitcoin - then the last thing you should support is SegWit in any way, shape or form - even as some kind of so-called "compromise".
This is because SegWit is not primarily a "malleability fix" or a "capacity increase".
SegWit is a poison pill / trojan horse which would put the idiots and traitors at Core/Blockstream/AXA permanently and exclusively in control of Bitcoin development - forever and ever.
Here are the real problems with SegWit (which Core/Blockstream/AXA is not telling you about):
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
"So, Core wants us to trust miners not to steal Segwit's anyone-can-spends, but will not let them have a say on block size. Weird."~Cornell U Professor and bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/60ac4q/so_core_wants_us_to_trust_miners_not_to_steal/
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
Here is a list (on medium.com) of 13 articles that explain why SegWit would be bad for Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/646kmv/here_is_a_list_on_mediumcom_of_13_articles_that/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly (self.btc)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
As Benjamin Frankline once said: "Given a choice between Liberty (with a few Bugs), and Slavery (with no Bugs), a Free People will choose Liberty every time." Bitcoin Unlimited is liberty: market-based blocksizes. SegWit is slavery: centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize & "anyone-can-spend" transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zievg/as_benjamin_frankline_once_said_given_a_choice/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA is terrified of hard forks:
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
If some bozo dev team proposed what Core/Blockstream is proposing (Let's deploy a malleability fix as a "soft" fork that dangerously overcomplicates the code and breaks non-upgraded nodes so it's de facto HARD! Let's freeze capacity at 1 MB during a capacity crisis!), they'd be ridiculed and ignored
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5944j6/if_some_bozo_dev_team_proposed_what/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA has been trying to choke the Bitcoin network and suppress Bitcoin's price & adoption. (Hint: Blockstream is controlled by central bankers who hate Bitcoin - because they will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds as a major world currency).
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
Double standards: The other sub would go ballistic if Unlimited was funded by AXA. But they are just fine when AXA funds BS-core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62ykv1/double_standards_the_other_sub_would_go_ballistic/
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
Bilderberg Group -> AXA Strategic Ventures -> funds Blockstream -> Blockstream Core Devs. (The chairman of Bilderberg is Henri de Castries. The CEO of AXA Henri de Castries.)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/576ac9/bilderberg_group_axa_strategic_ventures_funds/
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62htv0/why_is_blockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_unullc_trying/
Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/689y1e/coreaxablockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_ceo_adam_back/
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xjkof/im_angry_about_axa_scraping_some_counterfeit/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
Just as a reminder: The main funder of Blockstream is Henri de Castries, chairman of French insurance company AXA, and chairman of the Bilderberg Group!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uw6cc/just_as_a_reminder_the_main_funder_of_blockstream/
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jgkxv/bitcoin_can_go_to_10000_usd_with_4_mb_blocks_so/
And finally, here's one easy way that Bitcoin can massively succeed without SegWit - and even without the need for any other major or controversial changes to the code:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

We should let Segwit go through

All in all, it's better than nothing and all eyes are on Blockstream, they won't be able to profit off Bitcoin anyway.

1.

Smarter people than many of us are for Segwit. For example gavinandresen - Gavin Andresen.
Or shea256 - Ryan Shea, which I quote here:
A few facts on the core developers:
As for SegWit, it is a multi-faceted gold-mine of an update with many, many benefits to scaling, security and efficiency:
  1. It fixes the substantial transaction malleability problem once and for all.
  2. It improves the efficiency of signature-hashing so it scales linearly rather than quadratically.
  3. It 1.7x's the # of single-signature transactions per block and 4x's the # of multi-signature transactions per block.
  4. It enables second-layer scaling solutions like Lightning.
  5. It upgrades pay-to-script-hash transactions from 160-bit hashes to 256-bit hashes.
  6. It makes it safer for hardware wallets to sign transactions by explicitly hashing input values.
  7. It reduces the growth of the system's most burdensome resource: unspent transaction outputs, which are ideally kept in memory.
  8. It introduces versioning for the scripting language to allow for more easy upgradeability.

2.

The trust in the BU development team has faded [1] [2] [3]. (It's more legit if it looks as if it has sources. You know what I'm talking about... the bugs that have been found, the fact that it can't keep up with Core's commits, the fact that Core developers aren't jumping ship to it, the fact that it looks less active even compared to Classic - which has a smaller "market share").

3.

The trust in the reasons for which some miners were supporting BU has faded [1] [2]. I'm guessing that we were all hoping that they hate censorship and manipulation, just like we do, but for Jihan for example - the reasons might be different. I first became suspicious of it when he shared MR_hehe's post, saying this:
If 2nd layer protocols become a reality, many bitcoin transactions will go through 2nd layer networks and not via miners. Miners won't receive transaction fees for them. The mining community obviously feel unhappy about this.
But now we have the bigger sign (quote AgentME):
The covert form of ASICBOOST (where they don't use the version field, the form that was only recently publicly discovered) would only show up as a higher than usual number of empty blocks or blocks with reordered or missing transactions (depending on how the attacker implemented it; it's not necessarily both).
IMO, the long term objectives should be:
etc.
Note that without utility for people and businesses, Bitcoin is just a complex and very effective pyramid scheme. No wonder you're only allowed to post "BUY BUY BUY HOLD!!" in /bitcoin.
Also note that DASH is already doing some of the stuff above. Maybe we should just do a Bitcoin genesis block with DASH's source code lol.
There's little financial interest in my recommendation, as I've already sold most of my Bitcoins for ETH. I'm sure many others from /btc have done the same. But I still want most cryptocurrencies to succeed, not just the ones I'm "invested" in. I want banks to fail.
EDIT: looking at the comments, some people want hard fork SegWit, others want BU, others want soft fork FlexTrans, others want extension blocks... Really, we can't pull in so many different directions. We'll just move slowly somewhere in between, and in the tech word you remain behind when that happens.
submitted by Nabukadnezar to btc [link] [comments]

Do you know what the word malleability means?

The word malleability was picked and used intentionally. Why would you want transaction structure to be modified or adjusted or smudged like clay? You wouldn't right? You'd want to trust in the accuracy of the transaction structure and not let some second-layer or third party, or separate script, confirm trust in transaction validity. Right?
Except that, despite the issue with signature hashes being slightly different being a minor thing, this inability to be malleable is what was targeted as the prime problem with Bitcoin, and that's what lead to segregated witness. Segregated Witness effectively breaks the existing transaction structure in order to create 2 transaction IDs instead of 1, and in order to run new signature scripts - scripts that aren't defined in the original Bitcoin protocol or whitepaper, in the name of expanding Bitcoin because, "Bitcoin doesn't work". "It can't scale" and "It has malleability issues".
When people talk about "the malleability bug" they are referencing signature smudging, as in, when transactions are signed there may be some slight discrepancy regarding the hash before one of the transaction IDs gets cemented into the ledger, for an example as a metaphor: "a capital I might look like a lowercase l" but since it is the signature and not the output data it will still be verified by network nodes before getting added to blocks. What they don't mention is that this doesn't actually have any effect on the transaction output data though, it doesn't result in any problems unless you are reading the data incorrectly. Yep, no effect, money is still transferred just fine. There is no evidence of fraud due to this supposed issue (except for supposedly big one, MtGox). For the vast majority of cases there is no issue. As usual, there is only one transaction that gets cemented into blocks (no doublespends).
Important to note here is that, there is no evidence that this is actually a problem with Bitcoin instead of a problem with second-layer or external services or exchanges such as the MtGox scenario where this "malleability bug" becomes a huge problem because they didn't account for the possibility that this slight variation of transaction ID might be entirely intentional.
This possibly, seemingly intentional, "flaw" that Bitcoin had (before it was modified to have segregated witness) to "fix the bug" is what makes things like lightning network completely unnecessary as is demonstrated daily by Bitcoin Cash users, the transaction structure is important and signature data is important and neither should be modified or adjusted. It was made that way for a reason. In addition, it isn't an issue if some of the signature data can be slightly off, again, the way the system is designed is that only one record becomes cemented into the blockchain. (No doublespend).
Of course, making transaction structure more modifiable was presented as making it easier to expand with future software (such as lightning and schnorr, etc) by Blockstream et al, because it apparently makes it so that there is only ever one definite data tied to one transaction ID, by instead creating TWO transaction IDs and tying them together with a segregated witness script..."A new data structure, witness, is defined. Each transaction will have 2 IDs. " source and the witness ID references the original like a mirror copy, but that also opens up some potentially huge problems later on, and the worst part about it is that these problems would be difficult to prove by a user after they've happened. Why is that? Because if you examine the transaction structure it would appear as though everything is in order even though there may have been an issue (or according to the specification: maybe locked, maybe in a segwit wallet, maybe not yet validated). While there is no proof that money could be stolen if you do not upgrade, there was alarming uncertainty regarding the future of your funds and the future of the network and it does feel like a threat if you do not upgrade.
According to the specification of segwit (and segwit users here often deny) "signature data becomes optional". Signature data, the data that is required and described by Bitcoin as a fundamental building block as part of the process of verifying transaction data as it is propagated to the network. Bitcoin uses something called a Elliptical Curve Digital Signature Algorithm. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_Curve_Digital_Signature_Algorithm - with segwit the signature data is separated out from the transactions: "This BIP defines a new structure called a "witness" that is committed to blocks separately from the transaction merkle tree."
See for yourself: with segwit, "signature data is no longer part of the transaction hash" source.
Segwit is "removing this data from the transaction structure committed to the transaction merkle tree" source.
In its own words: "how the transaction was signed are no longer relevant to transaction identification".
"It allows creation of unconfirmed transaction dependency chains" [... in other words, chains that aren't really Bitcoin ...] "an important feature for offchain protocols such as the Lightning Network".
"Segregated witness fixes the problem of transaction malleability fundamentally" the specification then goes on to basically describe Lightning - but is this really a good thing? Micro-transactions with extremely low fees are happening daily already with Bitcoin Cash with zero issues and Bitcoin Cash now has 32MB blocks (Instead of 1MB/2MB) without an unnecessary change to transaction data or signature scripts.
"Since a version byte is pushed before a witness program, and programs with unknown versions are always considered as anyone-can-spend script, it is possible to introduce any new script system with a soft fork." - so essentially the old chain would be able to become deprecated ... is this really a good thing? was there really a problem to be fixed? do we want any new script system like segwit to define the new blockchain from now on?
Actually this is exactly what this is all about, segregated witness is.... in reality... a covert takeover of the old chain signature scripts (or rules) with the new ones that don't actually disable the old methods and system but also don't allow any devs to go back and work with the old scripts anymore, they're considered completely irrelevant now. This effectively kills Bitcoin as you know it. It forces devs to work with the new segregated witness from now on, or be forgotten. Devs are now forced to use the new segregated witness protocol and any future scripts must run according to the segregated witness procotol that has the wtxid and 2 transaction ID format. Not long from now the original txid will likely be deprecated and everything will move over to just using wtxid... this is fairly obvious because, those old signature scripts are still being used today with no issues by Bitcoin Cash just fine.
submitted by crockscream to btc [link] [comments]

The Problems with Segregated Witness

MORE: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179
... 3. The Problems with Segregated Witness
While it is true that Segregated Witness offers some improvements to the Bitcoin network, we shall now examine why these benefits are not nearly enough to outweigh the dangers of deploying SW as a soft fork.
3.1 SW creates a financial incentive for bloating witness data
SW allows for a theoretical maximum block size limit of ~4 MB. However, this is only true if the entire block was occupied with transactions of a very small ‘base size’ (e.g. P2WPKH with 1 input, 1 output). In practice, based on the average transaction size today and the types of transactions made, the block size limit is expected to have a maximum limit of ~1.7 MB post-SW (Figure 10; assuming all transactions are using SW unspent outputs — a big assumption).
However, the 4 MB theoretical limit creates a key problem. Miners and full node operators need to ensure that their systems can handle the 4 MB limit, even though at best they will only be able to support ~40% of that transaction capacity. Why? Because there exists a financial incentive for malicious actors to design transactions with a small base size but large and complex witness data. This is exacerbated by the fact that witness scripts (i.e. P2SH-P2WSH or P2SH-P2WSH) will have higher script size limits that normal P2SH redeem scripts (i.e., from 520 bytes to 3,600 bytes [policy] or 10,000 bytes [consensus]). These potential problems only worsen as the block size limit is raised in the future, for example a 2 MB maximum base size creates an 8 MB adversarial case. This problem hinders scalability and makes future capacity increases more difficult.
3.2 SW fails to sufficiently address the problems it intends to solve
If SW is activated by soft fork, Bitcoin will effectively have two classes of UTXOs (non-SW vs SW UTXOs), each with different security and economic properties. Linear signature hashing and malleability fixes will only be available to the SW UTXO. Most seriously, there are no enforceable constraints to the growth of the non-SW UTXO. This means that the network (even upgraded nodes) are still vulnerable to transaction malleability and quadratic signature hashing from non-SW outputs that existed before or created after the soft fork.
The lack of enforceability that comes with a soft fork leaves Bitcoin users and developers vulnerable to precisely the type of attacks SW is designed to prevent. While spending non-SW outputs will be comparatively more expensive than SW outputs, this remains a relatively weak disincentive for a motivated attacker.
It is also unclear what proportion of the total number of the legacy UTXO will migrate to SW outputs. Long-term holders of Bitcoin, such as Satoshi Nakamoto (presumed to be in possession of ~1 million Bitcoin), may keep their coins in non-SW outputs (although it would be a significant vote of confidence in SW by Nakamoto if they were to migrate!). This makes future soft or hard forks to Bitcoin more difficult as multiple classes of UTXOs must now be supported to prevent coins from being burned or stolen.
One key concern is that the coexistence of two UTXO types may tempt developers and miners in the future to destroy the non-SW UTXO. Some may view this as an unfounded concern, but the only reason that this is worth mentioning in this article are the comments made by influential individuals associated with Bitcoin Core: Greg Maxwell has postulated that “abandoned UTXO should be forgotten and become unspendable,” and Theymos has claimed “the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation.”
As the security properties of SW outputs are marginally better than non-SW outputs, it may serve as a sufficient rationalization for this type of punitive action.
The existence of two UTXO types with different security and economic properties also deteriorates Bitcoin’s fungibility. Miners and fully validating nodes may decide not to relay, or include in blocks, transactions that spend to one type or the other. While on one hand this is a positive step towards enforceability (i.e. soft enforceability), it is detrimental to unsophisticated Bitcoin users who have funds in old or non-upgraded wallets. Furthermore, it is completely reasonable for projects such as the lightning network to reject forming bidirectional payment channels (i.e. a multisignature P2SH address) using non-SW P2SH outputs due to the possibility of malleability. Fundamentally this means that the face-value of Bitcoin will not be economically treated the same way depending on the type of output it comes from.
It is widely understood in software development that measures which rely on the assumption of users changing their behavior to adopt better security practices are fundamentally doomed to fail; more so when the unpatched vulnerabilities are permitted to persist and grow. An example familiar to most readers would be the introduction and subsequent snail’s pace uptake of HTTPS.
3.3 SW places complex requirements on developers to comply while failing to guarantee any benefits
SW as a soft fork brings with it a mountain of irreversible technical debt, with multiple opportunities for developers to permanently cause the loss of user funds. For example, the creation of P2SH-P2WPKH or P2SH-P2WSH addresses requires the strict use of compressed pubkeys, otherwise funds can be irrevocably lost. Similarly, the use of OP_IF, OP_NOTIF, OP_CHECKSIG, and OP_CHECKMULTISIG must be carefully handled for SW transactions in order to prevent the loss of funds. It is all but certain that some future developers will cause user loss of funds due to an incomplete understanding of the intricacies of SW transaction formats.
In terms of priorities, SW is not a solution to any of the major support ticket issues that are received daily by Bitcoin businesses such as BitPay, Coinbase, Blockchain.info, etc. The activation of SW will not increase the transaction capacity of Bitcoin overnight, but only incrementally as a greater percentage of transactions spend to SW outputs. Moreover, the growing demand for on-chain transactions may very well exceed the one-off capacity increase as demonstrated by the increasing frequency of transaction backlogs.
In contrast to a basic block size increase (BBSI) from a coordinated hard fork, many wallets and SPV clients will immediately benefit from new capacity increases without the need to rewrite their own software as they must do with SW.. With a BBSI, unlike SW, there are no transaction format or signature changes required on the part of Bitcoin-using applications.
Based on previous experience with soft forks in Bitcoin, upgrades tend to roll-out within the ecosystem over some time. At the time of this writing, only 28 out of the 78 business and projects (36%) who have publicly committed to the upgrade are SW-compatible. Any capacity increase that Bitcoin businesses and users of the network desire to ease on-chain fee pressure will unlikely be felt for some time, assuming that transaction volume remains unchanged and does not continue growing. The unpredictability of this capacity increase and the growth of the non-SW UTXO are particularly troubling for Bitcoin businesses from the perspectives of user-growth and security, respectively. Conversely, a BBSI delivers an immediate and predictable capacity increase.
The voluntary nature of SW upgrades is subject to the first-mover game theory problem. With a risky upgrade that moves transaction signatures to a new witness field that is hidden to some nodes, the incentive for the rational actor is to let others take that risk first, while the rational actor sits back, waits, and watches to see if people lose funds or have problems. Moreover, the voluntary SW upgrade also suffers from the free-rider game theory problem. If others upgrade and move their data to the witness field, one can benefit even without upgrading or using SW transactions themselves. These factors further contribute to the unpredictable changes to Bitcoin’s transaction capacity and fees if SW is adopted via a soft fork.
3.4 Economic distortions and price fixing
Segregated Witness as a soft fork alters the economic incentives that regulate access to Bitcoin’s one fundamental good: block-size space. Firstly, it subsidises signature data in large/complex P2WSH transactions (i.e., at ¼ of the cost of transaction/UTXO data). However, the signatures are more expensive to validate than the UTXO, which makes this unjustifiable in terms of computational cost. The discount itself appears to have been determined arbitrarily and not for any scientific or data-backed reasoning.
Secondly, the centralized and top-down planning of one of Bitcoin’s primary economic resources, block space, further disintermediates various market forces from operating without friction. SW as a soft fork is designed to preserve the 1 MB capacity limit for on-chain transactions, which will purposely drive on-chain fees up for all users of Bitcoin. Rising transaction fees, euphemistically called a ‘fee market’, is anything but a market when one side — i.e. supply — is fixed by central economic planners (the developers) who do not pay the costs for Bitcoin’s capacity (the miners). Economic history has long taught us the results of non-market intervention in the supply of goods and services: the costs are externalised to consumers. The adoption of SW as a soft fork creates a bad precedent for further protocol changes that affirm this type of economic planning.
3.5 Soft fork risks
In this section we levy criticisms of soft forks more broadly when they affect the protocol and economic properties of Bitcoin to the extent that SW does. In this case, a soft fork reduces the security of full nodes without the consent of the node operator. The SW soft fork forces node operators either to upgrade, or to unconditionally accept the loss of security by being downgraded to a SPV node.
Non-upgraded nodes further weaken the general security of Bitcoin as a whole through the reduction of the number of fully validating nodes on the network. This is because non-upgraded nodes will only perform the initial check to see if the redeem script hash matches the pubkey script hash of the unspent output. This redeem script may contain an invalid witness program, for P2WSH transactions, that the non-upgraded node doesn’t know how to verify. This node will then blindly relay the invalid transaction across the network.
SW as a soft fork is the opposite of anti-fragile. Even if the community wants the change (i.e., an increase in transaction capacity), soft-forking to achieve these changes means that the miners become the key target of lobbying (and they already are). Soft forks are risky in this context because it becomes relatively easy to change things, which may be desirable if the feature is both minor and widely beneficial. However, it is bad in this case because the users of Bitcoin (i.e. everyone else but the miners) are not given the opportunity to consent or opt-out, despite being affected the most by such a sweeping change. This can be likened to a popular head of state who bends the rules of jurisprudence to bypass slow legal processes to “get things done.” The dangerous precedent of taking legal shortcuts is not of concern the masses until a new, less popular leader takes hold of the reigns, and by then it is too late to reverse. In contrast, activating SW via a hard fork ensures that the entire community, not just the miners, decide on changes made to the protocol. Users who unequivocally disagree with a change being made are given the clear option not to adopt the change — not so with a soft fork.
3.6 Once activated, SW cannot be undone and must remain in Bitcoin codebase forever.
If any critical bugs resulting from SW are discovered down the road, bugs serious enough to contemplate rolling it back, then anyone will be able to spend native SW outputs, leading to a catastrophic loss of funds. ...
...
Conclusion
Segregated Witness is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its eight year history. The push for the SW soft fork puts Bitcoin miners in a difficult and unfair position to the extent that they are pressured into enforcing a complicated and contentious change to the Bitcoin protocol, without community consensus or an honest discussion weighing the benefits against the costs. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial — nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW.
While increasing the transaction capacity of Bitcoin has already been significantly delayed, SW represents an unprofessional and ineffective solution to both transaction malleability and scaling. As a soft fork, SW introduces more technical debt to the protocol and fundamentally fails to achieve its design purpose. As a hard fork, combined with real on-chain scaling, SW can effectively mitigate transaction malleability and quadratic signature hashing. Each of these issues are too important for the future of Bitcoin to gamble on SW as a soft fork and the permanent baggage that comes with it.
As much as the authors of this article desire transaction capacity increases, it is far better to work towards a clean technical solution to malleability and scaling than to further encumber the Bitcoin protocol with permanent technical debt. ...
MORE: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179
submitted by german_bitcoiner to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Q&A: SegWit and transaction malleability Bitcoin Protocol Design: Segregated Witness Revisited What is the transaction malleability flaw in Bitcoin? Bitcoin Q&A: Orphaned blocks and stuck transactions Ripple Cryptographer David Schwartz About Malleability In Bitcoin

Segwit is short for Segregated Witness and was a crypto extension that was launched in 2015, by Peter Wiulle, it basically gives cryptocurrencies that... Mt. Gox points the finger at the Bitcoin Foundation and vice versa as attacks mount and value declines. problem of protecting the Bitcoin distributed contracts against the “malleability” attacks. It is well-known that malleability can pose serious problems in some of those contracts. It concerns mostly the protocols which use a “refund” transaction to withdraw a financial deposit in case the other party interrupts the protocol. Our third ... What the ‘Bitcoin Bug’ Means: A Guide to Transaction Malleability This week, a term emerged that many bitcoiners won’t have heard before: transaction malleability. This has to do with systems, such as Mt.Gox, that rely on unconfirmed transactions. Normal Bitcoin apps don't rely on unconfirmed transactions. The Transaction Malleability issue that Mt.Gox talks about has been around since 2011. It only effects transactions which are not included in a block. Once a block is hashed, you can't change the ...

[index] [15949] [176] [9265] [25819] [38832] [24336] [6913] [18224] [42664] [39388]

Bitcoin Q&A: SegWit and transaction malleability

Green Beret's Ultralight Bug Out Bag with Gear ... Bitcoin Transaction Malleability Theory in Practice - Duration: 48:02 . HackersOnBoard 224 views. 48:02. EB70 – Chainalysis, Surveillance And ... Back in February 2014, MtGox claimed that a flaw in the Bitcoin transaction signing protocol called the "transaction malleability" allowed thieves to make off with 700,000 bitcoins, effectively ... Although it has been activated for about a year and a half now, several nuances of the segregated witness Protocol Design remain hard to follow: -It solves TX malleability, but wasn’t that ... Since February 5th Bitcoin has been hit by a well known, but nevertheless problematic feature of the protocol called "malleability". Even if it doesn't pose a threat to the global distributed ... What is transaction malleability? Can transaction IDs be changed? How does Segregated Witness make the Lightning Network easier to run? When will we have multi-party channel funding and channel ...

#