Quote from: nullius on December 20, 2017, 10:41:21 PM

Quote from: ir.hn on December 20, 2017, 07:15:40 PM

Quote from: achow101 on December 20, 2017, 06:22:44 PM

Please stop spreading misinformation. This "attack" is not just limited to segwit; miners could have chosen to not verify signatures anyways before segwit activated. Regardless of whether segwit is activated, if a miner produces an invalid block because it contains a transaction that does not have a valid signature (again, regardless of segwit or not), other non-mining full nodes on the network will reject that block and the miner will be wasting his time and electricity.

Lets say all the non-mining full nodes reject the block. Why would the miners care? the miners are the one creating the blockchain. You can cry foul all day long but unless you can vote with your hashpower on which chain is correct, you are yelling to the wind.

ir.hn: You have no idea how Bitcoin works. You have no idea how Segwit works. Or at least, you are feigning gross ignorance. In this thread and others, intelligent and well-informed people have attempted to educate you. You shoot back with bare assertions and blatant misinformation. Enough.

General point: There is a common misconception about the role of miners. Miners have one, only one, and exactly one job: To provide the ordering of transactions in a Byzantine fault-tolerant manner (which in turn prevents double-spends). Thats what miners do. That is all miners do. Granted, it is an important and resource-intensive job; thats why miners get paid for it. But that is the one and only security function of miners.

Of course, miners must validate each block they produce; if they didnt, they would be unable to reliably produce valid blocks. But miners are not the parties responsible for enforcing validation on the network. Full nodes do that. Each individual full node does that, so as to provide better security for its owner; and all full nodes collectively do that, thus providing validation security for the whole network. Observe how here as everywhere, Bitcoin precisely aligns the individuals selfish interest with the common good.

Full nodes do not blindly follow the longest chain. They follow the chain independently validated by them which has the highest total POW. A miner who produced invalid blocks would be wasting his hashrate, and likely risking widespread blacklisting of his IP address. It doesnt matter if the invalid blocks steal money from Segwit transactions, steal money from old-style transactions, create 21 billion new coins, or are filled with gibberish from /dev/random. An invalid block is an invalid block, and shall be promptly discarded by all full nodesperiod.

ir.hn is creating nonsensical non-arguments by exploiting the aforesaid misconception about the role of miners. After all the attempts others have made to explain on this and other points, I cannot but conclude that ir.hn is maliciously spreading misinformation. I write this post for the benefit of others. I am uninterested in arguing with somebody who is a deliberate liar and/or so manifestly ineducable as to appear braindead.

Full nodes can have their ledger of blocks that they verified. But who is using a non-mining node's ledger to mine on? Miners mine on the last block that is in the blockchain. The only way to get a block into the blockchain is to win the block by mining. If you are not mining you simply cannot vote on what blocks make it into the actual blockchain. The only person who's vote counts is the person who actually mined the block. So even if you have 99% of the hashpower but are so unlucky that you never win a block, you never actually have any say as to what makes it into the blockchain. the only way transactions are confirmed, is if they make it into the actual blockchain. thus the only people who "verify" transactions and actually have authority to enforce their verification, are miners.