Segwit is a 51% attack on Bitcoin
Bitcoin Forum
August 21, 2018, 03:30:59 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Segwit is a 51% attack on Bitcoin  (Read 706 times)
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 750


Help! Ive got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
December 21, 2017, 03:05:24 AM
#61

Charlie lee has been warning against this for sometime already

I trust him

What the hell are you talking about?  Due to all the idiots trying to stop Segwit in Bitcoin, Litecoin activated Segwit before Bitcoin did.

Litecoins Charlie Lee is strongly pro-Segwit; so if you trust him, trust him on this:

Quote from: Charlie Lee
Youve probably seen that I recently started advocating for SegWit to activate on Litecoin and Bitcoin. [...]

So you may wonder why Im pushing for SegWit. Litecoin does not have a block size problem. Thats right, and SegWit is not just a block scaling solution. I would even say block scaling is just a side benefit of SegWit. The main fix is transaction malleability, which would allow Lightning Networks (LN) to be built on top of Litecoin. And there are a bunch more nice features of SegWit.



So what is the net effect if all non-mining full nodes ignore a block they think is invalid and no longer acknowledge blocks from that IP address?  It would just be as if those nodes no longer exist, and as I've said before, bitcoin worked before anyone ever invented the "non-mining full node".  Unless you can stop other miners mining on the block you think is invalid, you have no power.  Or you actually mine and win the next block, then what you say matters.

No, you have it backwards:  It would be just as if the miners who are mining invalid blocks did not exist.

Any miner building further upon an invalid block would mining on invalid chain, and thus similarly would be ignored.

When you say nonsensical gibberish such as bitcoin worked before anyone ever invented the non-mining full node, you clearly demonstrate that you have not even the slightest inkling of how Bitcoin ever worked.  Nodes run the network, and always have.  Miners are employees paid handsomely to provide Byzantine fault-tolerant transaction ordering.  Do you even care what that means?  I ask rhetorically.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1534865460
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534865460

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534865460
Reply with quote  #2

1534865460
Report to moderator
1534865460
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1534865460

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1534865460
Reply with quote  #2

1534865460
Report to moderator
ir.hn
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 20

Blockchain is a Digital Constitution


View Profile
December 21, 2017, 03:11:38 AM
#62


No, you have it backwards:  It would be just as if the miners who are mining invalid blocks did not exist.

Any miner building further upon an invalid block would mining on invalid chain, and thus similarly would be ignored.


Bitcoin is decentralized.  This means that no one has the authority to declare a block invalid.  The only person who has this authority is drawn at random according to their demonstration of Proof of Work.

Make sense now?

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 750


Help! Ive got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
December 21, 2017, 03:27:15 AM
#63


No, you have it backwards:  It would be just as if the miners who are mining invalid blocks did not exist.

Any miner building further upon an invalid block would mining on invalid chain, and thus similarly would be ignored.


Bitcoin is decentralized.  This means that no one has the authority to declare a block invalid.  The only person who has this authority is drawn at random according to their demonstration of Proof of Work.

Make sense now?

Bitcoin is decentralized.  This means that no one has the authority to force full nodes to accept invalid blocks.  Miners have no such authority, drawn at random or otherwise.

Make sense now?

Matias
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
December 21, 2017, 07:22:02 AM
#64

Miners don't have blockchain. They only process individual blocks. As full nodes maintain blockchain invalid blocks would eventually disappear, as they would never be put to blockchain. When those invalid blocks would not be in blockchain, miners reward would not be in blockchain so miner would not get paid. Does this sound like incentive?
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1007


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
December 21, 2017, 08:00:18 AM
#65


No, you have it backwards:  It would be just as if the miners who are mining invalid blocks did not exist.

Any miner building further upon an invalid block would mining on invalid chain, and thus similarly would be ignored.


Bitcoin is decentralized.  This means that no one has the authority to declare a block invalid.  The only person who has this authority is drawn at random according to their demonstration of Proof of Work.

Make sense now?

If nobody can declare a block invalid, then why can't I mine a block that pays myself 1,000,000 bitcoins?

JavaLove
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


Streamity Decentralized cryptocurrency exchange


View Profile
December 21, 2017, 08:12:01 AM
#66

The risk of 51% is always on the line, but it's less possible and almost irrelevant for small holders like me with just few btc.

I'm much more worried about the Ver-BCH attack at the moment. They are doing bad to the whole community.

                ▄▄  ▄▄                 
            ██  ▀▀  ▀▀   ██           
        ██                   ██
       
                ██  ██  ▄▄             
     ██    ██           ▀▀  ▄▄        
                  ███       ▀▀         
   ██    ██   ███      ███     ██     
                          ███         
  ██   ██   ██    ███ ███    ▄▄   ██   
               ███           ▀▀       
  ██   ██  ███           ███  ██   ██ 
                     ███               
    ▄▄  ██    ███ ███     ▄▄  ██   ██ 
    ▀▀    ▄▄              ▀▀           
      ▄▄  ▀▀          ███    ██   ██   
      ▀▀      ██  ███                 
         ██              ███    ███   
             ██  ██  ███              
       ██                    ██       
           ███  ▄▄▄  ▄▄  ███           
                ▀▀▀  ▀▀               
 
STREAMITY
 

 

  Twitter
Facebook
Instagram
  Telegram
LinkedIn
Medium
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 750


Help! Ive got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
December 21, 2017, 08:48:01 AM
#67

If nobody can declare a block invalid, then why can't I mine a block that pays myself 1,000,000 bitcoins?

Because Segwit removes signatures from the blockchain!!  Bitcoin Jesus told me so, in a vision.

(There is a problem with ir.hn having spread this garbage across multiple threads, then pretty much completely ignored the substance of all intelligent responses.  P.S., thanks for your intelligent response.)

A question you should ponder:  Why dont miners skip verifying all signatures, altogether?  That could be really profitable.  That way, they could seize and spend Satoshis coins!

Oh, wait:  They couldnt do that, because the resulting blocks would be rejected by nodes as invalid.

But according to you, nothing whatsoever could stop them.  A miner could simply seize Satoshis coins with a consensus-invalid transaction, and other miners could build on that chain, and full nodes would be forced to follow along because they have no hashpowerright?

Segwit makes absolutely no difference whatsoever, in this regard.  The signatures are still there; they just got moved around a little bit.  Verification of the signatures is still required by consensus rules.  No substantive change has been made as to the security properties of Bitcoins signature verification.



The risk of 51% is always on the line, but it's less possible and almost irrelevant for small holders like me with just few btc.

I'm much more worried about the Ver-BCH attack at the moment. They are doing bad to the whole community.


Segwit sinner, dare ye blaspheme Bitcoin Jesus?  If you squint at it hard enough, you can see a 666 in the Segwit logo.  It is hidden and double-crossed inside itself within an ancient Satanic symbol called the Iron Knot of Thermopylae:


And if you play the Segwit jingle backwards, you can hear it say, Hail Satan!

The number 51 is also clearly a reference to Area 51.  If Segwit is a 51% attack against Bitcoin, as OP so cogently explained, then how could the grey aliens not be involved!?  Try explaining that away, Segwit shill.

I know this is all true, because I read it on /r/btc.

But thats not the worst.  There is a frightening secret to Segwit; but I cant tell you about it, because theymos would ban me.

pebwindkraft
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 242
Merit: 183


View Profile
December 21, 2017, 10:38:36 AM
#68

ugh, my soul has been stolen.

probably the best post to terminate this unbelievable dumb thread here  Grin Cheesy
realr0ach
Full Member
***
Online Online

Activity: 378
Merit: 190


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
December 23, 2017, 05:44:22 AM
#69

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1007


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
December 23, 2017, 05:16:09 PM
#70

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.
Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 750


Help! Ive got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
December 23, 2017, 06:34:23 PM
#71

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

BIP 16 was an evil attempt to subvert the blockchain.  All versions of Core have been corrupted since version 0.6.  Now, I made my own fork of the Bitcoin with Satoshis original vision.  No P2SH!  To disinfect the chain, I helpfully added a transaction which spends to me all anyone-can-spend P2SH outputs since P2SH activation on 2012-02-15, Block #105571.

Also, to scale up and stop ripping off users with fees, I increased the blocksize to 32MB and decreased the block generation target to 30 seconds.  That scales up to 640x the tps of Blockstream bitcoin.  To avoid exploding UTXO growth and solve the problem of lost/burned coins, I added a consensus rule of coin aging; it consolidates all outputs more than 1 year old, and sends them to me for safekeeping.  This will be the fastest, cheapest Bitcoin ever.

Anybody want to join my chain?  Soon, I will post my fork code (it is taking awhile to make this, since I fired Core).  Download that, and connect to 198.51.100.127:8333 or dw7xvnkm4qsv5ikz.onion:8333.  Soon, we will kill off the legacy chain of P2SH-infected Blockstream bitcoin which is non-fungible and has cooties.  All will be flippening over to this chain.  I call my fork.lol Bitcoin Pyrite.



P.S., thanks, pebwindkraft.  I didnt reply to you before, because I thought youre probably right.  Sorry to seem rude.  Too bad SMF has no like button.

realr0ach
Full Member
***
Online Online

Activity: 378
Merit: 190


#TheGoyimKnow


View Profile
December 23, 2017, 09:14:26 PM
#72

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.
Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.
Taras
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1007


Please do not PM me loan requests!


View Profile WWW
December 23, 2017, 10:06:25 PM
#73

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.
Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

How isn't bitcoin fungible? 1 BTC is 1 BTC, whether it's in p2pkh, p2sh or segwit. Bitcoins sent to segwit addresses can be sent to legacy addresses and vice versa.

nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 750


Help! Ive got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
December 23, 2017, 10:25:53 PM
#74

[...]

Username checks out.



Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.
Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

How isn't bitcoin fungible? 1 BTC is 1 BTC, whether it's in p2pkh, p2sh or segwit. Bitcoins sent to segwit addresses can be sent to legacy addresses and vice versa.

I quoted at length, to illustrate a point:  The truthfully named realr0ach is using textbook smear tactics, combining imaginary problems with real-but-irrelevant problems in an ever-shifting argument.  You properly answered the nonsense about anyone-can-spend; so realr0ach ignored what you said, and moved the goalposts (plus made a bizarre, groundless accusation about your stance).  As such, trying to squash realr0achs arguments will be like trying to exterminate real roaches by squishing them one at a time.

Of course, Bitcoin fungibility is a problem (with various ad hoc, but sometimes fun and creative fixes).  And of course, Bitcoin fungibility is not decreased in any way whatsoever by Segwit.  Actually, by introducing the script version system, Segwit opens the way for new features (such as Schnorr signatures) which will assist or enhance fungibility solutions.

Meanwhile, youre arguing with a self-identified disgusting insect.  Squish.

Crypto Capital
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 133
Merit: 15

🔥3.5% a Month🔥Loans bit.ly/2JRWesw


View Profile
December 23, 2017, 11:52:47 PM
#75

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.
Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

If you would just create a new address for each transaction as was the original intention it would be fungible would it not?

├   Crypto Capital   ─  「Loans」─「Brokerage」─「BTC sales」 ╡
⊷  E-mail  ⊶ ● ⊷  Telegram  ⊶
nullius
Copper Member
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168
Merit: 750


Help! Ive got the Pleurodelinaemia! @nym.zone


View Profile WWW
December 24, 2017, 12:43:30 AM
#76

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.
Segwit is not a hard fork, and a 51% attack is not a hard fork. Segwit is a soft fork. You can choose to not use segwit.

The anyone-can-spend vector is complete nonsense. Did you know that pay-to-script-hash was the same way? To old nodes, P2SH was "anyone-can-spend". Today there are individual P2SH addresses holding over a billion dollars worth of bitcoins by themselves. Sounds pretty solid to me. Stop the FUD! It's not helping anyone, segwit has already been activated (and that's a good thing).

You completely disregarded the issue of fungibility.  Bitcoin is not fungible from the start, so people just ignore further issues that add to that problem, but it doesn't mean I'm not right.  Your stance is that fungibility doesn't matter at all.  Newsflash:  it's not money in the first place unless it's fungible.  If it's not fungible money, then all it is is a govt tracking and enslavement system.

If you would just create a new address for each transaction as was the original intention it would be fungible would it not?

As illustrated above, you are replying to somebody who misapplied the fungibility issue to FUD Segwit.  Thats a totally nonsensical non sequitur, like saying that gold will crash because I have a headache.  (It is true that I currently have a headache, brought on by too much FUD.)  Segwit transactions are equally secure as to old-style transactionsactually, before confirmation, more secure due to Segwits tx malleability bugfix.  The only people ascribing taint to Segwit transactions are BCH shills, most of whom dont own any Bitcoin anyway.

To describe the fungibility issue in itself, and answer your question:  You can create a new address for each transactionyou should do that; and it helps with, but does not solve the problem.  What is really needed is strong transaction unlinkability, so that nobody can consider a coin to have taint based on its prior history.  By analogy, consider a $100 bill being passed hand to hand:  Your bank cant close your account and blacklist you if you deposit a $20 bill which, unbeknownst to you, passed through the hands of a drug dealer, who gambled it with a bookie, who used it to hire a plumber, who bought a widget from you.  Whereas some services such as Coinbase will do exactly that.  (Quick solution:  Dont use Coinbase.)

Things like CoinJoin reduce the problem, by introducing confusion about which coins passed through whose hands.  Confidential Transactions will really help.  A sidechain with zerocoins would be great for fungibility.  I also expect Lightning Network to substantially increase fungibility:  On Lightning, coins will rapidly pass through many different hands without ever leaving a mark on the blockchain; on a mass scale, this will break up the transactional links which some people use to taint coins.  N.b. that Lightning is enabled by Segwit, depends on Segwit, and cannot be implemented by any forkcoin which lacks Segwit.  CoinJoin will also get a big boost from Schnorr signatures, an upcoming technology which will be implemented viayou guessed it, Segwit!

Thus as you can see, the lying little insect self-identified as realr0ach was building a pernicious half-truth out of a problem which is real, but here irrelevant.  Nobody is tainting Segwit coins.  Nobody has any reason to, except for Roger, Jihan, and their idiotic sycophants.

Disclosure of interests:  I am a privacy activist, and I lost a painful amount of money on a perfectly unlinkable, thus fungible altcoin; I cant very well be accused of not caring about fungibility.

carlisle1
Hero Member
*****
Online Online

Activity: 868
Merit: 502


★YoBit.Net★ 350+ Coins Exchange & Dice


View Profile
December 24, 2017, 02:52:12 PM
#77

That was 2 1/2 years ago. Have you looked at the stats today?

What makes you think that pools would tell you if they are working together, or even if they are run by the same person?

How do you know that life isn't just a dream and one day you will wake up? Conspiracy theories are good for nothing. Once they are confirmed it is too late. Prep now and sell your bitcoin.  

I'm prepping by buying bitcoin.  Currently we are inside a pump and dump by china.  Know the indicators to when china will dump and you will be safe to ride the wave.  In terms of the 51% attack, they will only target zombie bitcoins in order to protect their investment.  But in the long term, bitcoin is in shambles.

Pray tell the indicators.

China unviels the CryptoYuan.  China says that they will give citizens CY in exchange for their bitcoins.
who is china after all?you speaks as if the chinese governments speaking
for this issues.and if chine really want to do those hearsays they will do it without
 this long notice because power is in their hands.so better not to engaged with
those nonsense issues.

hv_
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 924
Merit: 531

Remove The Middlemen


View Profile WWW
December 24, 2017, 02:57:49 PM
#78

Segwit is a 51% attack (aka a hard fork) solely because segwit coins have a different attack vector profile than non-segwit coins, making segwit coins non-fungible with regular bitcoins.  Unless you can somehow objectively prove segwit coins are equally or more secure, but if you did it objectively, the result would probably be that the attack vector on segwit coins is higher, such as miners turning them to anyone can spend.

Yep. Your best post ever.

Carpe diem  -  cut the down side  -  be anti-fragile - don't dillute Bitcoin!
Memo: 1AHUYNJKPfY7PjVK1hNQFo5LrdGixuiybw
The simple way is the genius way - in Moore and Satoshi we trust.
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!