Quote from: thejaytiesto on October 12, 2017, 06:28:15 PM

But isn't "BTCSegWit" and TRB or BTCSatoshi or however we want to call it on the same team effectively? Even if they don't like each other, since both share the legacy chain (and both MP's crew and Core don't want to hardfork the legacy chain, so that is a huge stake against hardforkers because Core devs are pretty loaded too and ready to dump on forks, plus control bitcoin.org which is the highest ranked website for "bitcoin" and warn noobs about hardforks), as long as you are holding BTC in legacy addresses and not segwit addresses, you will not have any BTC stolen in case SegWit ever goes south, and you will keep recieving any further hardfork-coins (like Bitcoin Gold coming soon, 2x or whatever).

How the heck is your average Joe Blow (like me) going to be able to use BTC effectively such as trading on exchanges for altcoins and fiat, if they need to enforce TRB protocol and insure no SegWit booty is in the lineage of their transactions?

I think I read on the Trilema logs in the past some comment about any SegWit in the lineage would be safe after one re-spend mixing it with non-SegWit lineage, but I do not see how that is the case? If SegWit is in the lineage, then all the downstream transactions become invalid when the upstream SegWit transaction is stolen by a mining cartel.

Thus I do not see how BTC can continue in this state of purgatory. There needs to be a resolution of the SegWit trojan horse.

And I doubt very much if Core and this website have even 1/10th of the resources at their disposal as compared the whales who understand that without security and immutability, then Bitcoin is not worthy. They cant even keep this website up against DDoS attacks.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on October 12, 2017, 06:28:15 PM

So I don't see the problem. Just hold BTC in legacy chain in legacy format addresses for max protection against this type of events.

Yes if you obtained BTC that has no pollution in its lineage (or you bought it long ago), but how do you determine if any of the lineage included a BTC spend for BCH trade where in the attacking miners control the private keys for that BTC and can double-spend it. They might have even loaded that BTC into an exchange and will double-spend on the exchange effecting some many people on exchanges (if that aspect of my theory is valid).

I view it as a huge headache and distraction. I am getting exasperated with Bitcoin. Wish they could get their shit together.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on October 12, 2017, 06:28:15 PM

but they should also be working to incentivize miners into keep mining the legacy chain so I predict other miners that signed the NYA will keep mining legacy. What they aren't going to do is support any fork just because it doesn't have segwit.

An attack on SegWit changes the landscape (although that might not come until months from now, if ever). Miners move to where they can earn the most profit.

Political posturing could possibly be only for plausible deniability.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on October 12, 2017, 06:28:15 PM

PS: I didn't dump 100% of my BCH so if it pumps then cool. Left some basically because I know Roger and co have a ton of money too and figured they would try to pump it too eventually. But they may jump ship and join 2x at least temporarily to cause damage on legacy chain and try to market BCH as a safe place, with these guys you never know. In fact this seems to be the case already with Roger saying he will list 2x as BTC on his website:

https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1835#issuecomment-334869248

PS2: The damage of segwit going south would indeed be brutal for the whole ecosystem and yet to be seen if BTC as a whole would survive it if there is a ton of segwit adoption. Let's hope it never happens.

Why you hope it never happens? I hope it happens!

A huge opportunity to buy cheap and get rid of that insecure crap. Who wouldnt want to load up on BTC at $1000 after selling at $5000+ and riding BCH from $100 up to $1000 Huh

Do you hate making money my friend?

Quote from: thejaytiesto on October 12, 2017, 06:28:15 PM

Like I said I will be holding my main stack on legacy format so im not worried, but the price crash would be obvious and pretty much everyone on Core would be on suicide watch after a such a fuck up.

Lol. Great. Couldnt happen to nicer group of Hitlers who hijacked Bitcoin with deception. Why didnt they just go create their own altcoin like the rest of us are doing? Because they are special Hitlers.

Quote from: thejaytiesto on October 12, 2017, 06:28:15 PM

As a non programmer, I never understood why all these people which are supposed to be super smart, would all gamble with the project they've put endless hours at, their entire careers, and potentially their lives because there would be a lot of pissed off people at them if it happens. So I assumed the chances of segwit fucking up are unrealistic, otherwise I just fail to understand it. Why would they all be for segwit if the fuck up is a realistic scenario?

One of the many reasons I think of is that Gregory Maxwell is presumably of German ancestry (but note I do too but mixed with French, Welsh, and native American). I wasnt the only person who noticed this schizophrenic, wolf-in-sheepskin wannabe-overlord mentality (some Redditard threads about it). On a less personal analysis, I think they did not have other options other than making an altcoin which they felt was beneath them. And because I think they thought their goals were to find clever (over engineered! not K.I.S.S. principle) ways to side-step Bitcoins transaction volume scaling issue. Mix all those factors together and apparently we get Frankenchain (although some may try to argue that SegWit is wonderful and safe). Again a rule-of-thumb in software engineering is complexity kills. And the founder of Trilema had a scalding thread on BCT explaining his anger about how the Core devs were incompetent, adding unnecessary complexity, and not developing a specification (the code was the only specification) formalism. He was pointing out that getting the foundation perfected and clean was a higher priority than attaching bells & whistle experiments.

Quote from: MPOE-PR on March 08, 2013, 08:42:54 PM

Code:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

The approach proposed is fundamentally flawed in multiple places.

First and foremost, the only reasonable authority in Bitcoin is derived through the working of
contracts. Put another way this states that the power of "a collective", ie a group of users no
matter how large to dispose for the future is nil. Put in yet another way, Bitcoin is not a
democracy, but a republic.

Consequently, to propose that MPEx breach its contract with SatoshiDICE because you would like
me to is a waste of breath : you are not a party to that contract, and consequently you have no
standing whatsoever in that relationship. The contract specifies clearly how it works, and it
will work as such.

Secondly, and just as importantly : the current codebase is broken beyond belief. As explained
in an earlier Trilema article, the main problems Bitcoin faces currently come from the general
inability and ineptitude of the de facto dev team. These problems are a. that users can not
create arbitrary size transactions up to the size of one full block ; b. that the client does
not correctly select the best possible combination of available inputs to feed a list of
arbitrary outputs. More generally speaking the codebase is replete with magic numbers, which is
no way to code. The fact that a 7Gb download takes an hour if we're talking a movie and a week
if we're talking the blockchain - especially considering that the average torrent rarely has
over 100 seeders and the Bitcoin blockchain rarely has under 1k - is further testament to the
utter inability of the core team.

Consequently, the correct approach is for these people to either fix the codebase - which will
require serious work - or else step down and let other people do it. The early enthusiasm of
"everyone's welcome and we're glad to have you" may have bridged us between Bitcoin being worth
nothing and Bitcoin being worth 1/10`000th of a pizza, but we are now playing in the grown-up
league and as such we need grown-up code. It is certainly not acceptable to proceed as proposed,
from a "this is what the codebase can do, we will pretend to limit usage of Bitcoin to that"
perspective, as is contemplated here. The only acceptable and the only correct approach is,
"this is how Bitcoin can be used, therefore this is how Bitcoin should be used, therefore this
is what our code must accomodate, let's get to work on it."

The fact that a number of people - such as Luke-jr, Gmaxwell, Mike Hearn etc - feel inclined to
compensate for their modest technical ability with a disproportionate and unwarranted political
preocupation is of course to be expected : the marginal and the stupid have tried to propel
themselves in the position of populist "leaders" for as long as humanity existed. This will not
work in Bitcoin, because that is not how Bitcoin works. It is specifically designed to foil the
very common alliance between the stupid but lazy and the ambitious but inept that regularly
wrecks fiat ventures of all sorts, from small business to entire countries. It will work as
intended for that purpose.

Please you idiots, fix the codebase. If you can't do that, go away.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)
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=THL3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

I replied to your post at the poll thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2259054.msg22930821#msg22930821

EDIT: it should be pointed out that miners have an incentive to support a non-segwit chain even if there is no chain reorganization, because they can attempt to take that ongoing SegWit value for themselves, because as viewed from Satoshis protocol, this is a pay to anyone transaction. A chain reorganization is a way to capture historic booty and lock miners into the fork with the incentive of the booty to jumpstart the consensus around taking SegWit for the miners. So it is not quite accurate to state that SegWit requires a contentious fork. It merely requires that miners act in their best interests to protect Satoshis protocol and the immutability and security of Bitcoin for the maximum long-term value of their hardware investment, as well as maximizing their profit in the short-term. SegWit supporters argue that this is an attack on the community, but rather SegWit enemies argue it a protection against the SegWit attack on Bitcoin.

Another very important factor to consider is that I explained why the miners are owned by the whales and others explained that mining is a horrible business to be in unless you have a plan for world domination. Tie that together with my exposition on why proof-of-work has to become run by a mining oligarchy else it fails to converge as transaction fees increase. Then you can analyse who is into mining and why. Wink