you do realise that its not actually an anyonecanspend script. and as soon as someone without segwit tried to spend it in an anyonecanspend.. it wont get accepted by legit ethical pools...
Yes, I know. Maybe I wasn't clear, but I meant BEFORE segwit's deployment. Right now, you can create a transaction that has a segwit output. Right now that output is an anyonecanspend output.
Pools would not accept an attempt to spend a segwit output as anyonecanspend AFTER segwit's deployment.
blindly passing it on..
They do not blindly pass on segwit transactions because those are considered non-standard and thus rejected.
not because it actually is an anyonecanspend. otherwise thats another way of breaking bitcoin.. by old clients spending segwit transactions.(which u think is possible)
See above.
only a malicious miner can bend their rules and accept a malicious transaction into their block, to be treated as funky by everyone else blindly accepting it as funky. but if USERS tries to make a transaction and pushed it to a pool. unless the pool was malicious and wanted strangers to spend their previous tx, then it wouldnt get in a new block. so people cant spend the funky tx...
AFTER segwit's activation, such malicious transactions spending segwit outputs as anyonecanspend are invalid.
this is why i have used the word funky instead of anyonecanspend. because the anyonecanspend was for analogical reasons not technical
Anyonecanspend is technical, not analogical. An OLD node validates segwit outputs as anyonecanspend because under the old rules they are anyonecanspend.
my scenario is about the block creation by a malicious pool. not the user creating transactions (which pools would dump)
Miners won't mine an an invalid block.
maybe time you re-read it.
remember NON-segwit clients do not change. so all your fluffing around saying things will change means that you are assuming that old clients will some how understand things differently.. please think about that..
again. let this settle in
non upgraded clients do not change. they treat the transaction the same now as they would in a month. and so if you are saying that old clients can spend segwits now then you are saying that they can spend them later too... but they dont change..
my reading is that segwit transactions ARE NOT!!!! i repeat.. ARE NOT anyonecanspends. they would fail the test of anyonecanspend. HOWEVER for ONLY analogy purposes people say segwit transactions added to a block will be blindly accepted
just like anyonecanspends are blindly accepted by old clients.
now onto the separate issue you keep meandering to..
please do not confuse the issue of block confirmed transactions with the relay of unconfirmed transactions.
so one more time
A POOL (not a user) a
POOL adds a segwit transaction to its block, but because segwit is not activated by other POOLS the malicious pool can grab any input and pretend it is theirs becasue it knows the network wont be checking signatures yet. so it doesnt need to sign the input... and then give the the destination as a real privkey owned by them..
because the other pools dont understand segwit. they will blindly accept the block because they cannot check the signature of the input. and so it gets confirmed and the network accepts it. a confirmed transaction in a block where the originating funds do not belong.. but cannot be validated because the pools dont know what they are handling.
2000 blocks later. when segwit is activated the malicious pool can use the malicious block transaction as a valid input because it has 2000 confirmations and because the pool has the privkey to now sign (what was the old destination) as a new input for a new transaction to then send it out as a legitimate transaction to all the ethical pools