Quote from: JayJuanGee on August 01, 2017, 03:28:07 AM

Quote from: jbreher on August 01, 2017, 02:54:35 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on August 01, 2017, 12:31:33 AM

Quote from: jbreher on July 31, 2017, 03:31:22 PM

Issue in a nutshell:
- On a network where miners do not honor SegWit, all segwit transactions are 'anyone can spend' transactions
- On such a network, each successful miner can spend any 'anyone can spend' transaction to himself
- As segwit is used (e.g., on a segwit-honoring network), more value gets locked up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions
- As more value is built up in segwit/'anyone can spend' transactions, this increases the incentive for miners to flip the network from segwit-honoring to non-segwit
- This pressure increases with increasing use of segwit. Even if initially stable, the system tends further toward instability.
The net is that smallblockers need to trust the miners -- whom they seem to already believe to be evil -- to not steal their segwit transactions.

Of course, one can convert a segwit coin back to a bitcoin by spending it to yourself in a non-segwit transaction. But that also mandates a second transaction, thereby nullifying and even reversing segwit's so-called capacity increase.

Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.

No. Just No.

Please employ proper logic. Every bulleted item above is a factual statement. Would you like to challenge any of these factual statements on their own merit?

Whether or not those steps get chained together in reality is currently a matter of speculation, yes. But I made no such claim. A set of factual statements is not "speculative and hypothetical". Any speculation as to the consequences of the above has been left to the reader.

That is nonsense. I can make all kinds of factual statements, and then there is no consequence unless you can describe some kind of logical connection.

For example:

1) The sky is clear (meaning no clouds) today

2) Billy bob drives a Toyota Prius

3) That window is dangerous because it slams down without any restraints

4) The goat eats a lot of grass, especially for its size.

5) The Iphone will be damaged if you drop it in the toilet, because it is an Iphone 4

6) If any one of those lightbulbs burn out, then the whole chain does not work,

7) e = mc squared

No matter the string of facts, the jbreher Conclusion is: Segwit is going to be a disaster for bitcoin because it is too complicated, and even though segwit is a done deal, I am going to continue to whine about it and assert that we should employ a more simple and straight forward solution of increasing to 2mb block limits. Roll Eyes

The problem here is that you can and you will find flaws for all solutions, and you can just repeat same phrases from you against SW like this

A: SW is tested and safe lets do it
B :Sounds very speculative and hypothetical to me.
A: No things are different in production compared to testnets, because miners dont cheat there....
.....

This type of discussion will never end since there are just no proper assesments behind and mathematical logic applied, missing probabilities for the desasters to happen.

What process do we need to agree upon a final logical assesment that anyone accepts as a proof?