Quote from: Shelby Moore

Quote from: hv_ on June 06, 2019, 03:22:48 PM

BSV is the clean code road map that finally removes any dev midlle men - and we will not nee to talk about boring stable protocols from now on

I explained to you upthread that adaptive block size is not trustless, decentralized. Thus neither BCH nor BSV are the original, immutable Bitcoin. And thus with BSV what you get is an exciting, mutable shitcoin akin to silver instead of gold. See the chart below for the horrible valuation of silver versus gold

Quote from: figmentofmyass on June 06, 2019, 07:28:00 PM

why would mining "Satoshis v0.5.3 protocol" be so much more profitable? that requires mining rewards to have value but the value of these mining rewards would plummet to zero. there would be zero market demand and the airdrop to standard address users would be dumped into any existing bids. (if exchanges even listed this shitcoin at all)

You do not understand the mathematically backtested valuation model for Bitcoin. See the links and chart below

The minions are irrelevant. immutability and thus going for the gold, drive Bitcoins valuation.

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 06:32:50 PM

He is talking about miners attempting to steal outputs going back to the P2SH fork in 2012, not just Segwit.

Huh? Incorrect. Actually read the linked Steemit comment post I have provided numerous times in this thread. I no longer think the Satoshi miners will significantly rollback the chain. They will simply take the SegWit addresses that sit in the UTXO at the time of the forced fork off of the Core protocol. When the Satoshi miners start spending the Core addresses to themselves (as they mine blocks), Core protocol miners will fork off and refuse to follow the Satoshi miners block chain. The miners who move their hashrate to the Satoshi protocol chain are enriched with blocks of donated BTC. The miners who stay on the Core protocol chain are impoverished with very slow block period due to the cratered hashrate.

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 06:32:50 PM

Even if we're just talking about hard forking to violate Segwit, 80% of reachable nodes already enforce Segwit at this time. So the fork would simply be ignored by the Bitcoin network.

Lol. Core scammers tell readers that theres no (or not enough) Satoshi protocol full nodes and hashrate, because they dont signal. Signaling means nothing. Bitcoins network is economically driven, not driven by worthless things such as opinions and voting. You observe what happens and learn the lesson the hard way that money talks, bullshit walks".

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

Quote from: fabiorem on June 06, 2019, 03:54:55 AM

This message from Shelby is very interesting. The issue is even more complex than what I believe it was.

No it's not. He seems like a nutjob. It's incredible that anyone is still going on about an "anyone-can-spend" attack. He obviously deeply misunderstands the incentives at work in Bitcoin.

No one cares what miners want; they will simply follow what users want.

Cute witless, bunny rabbits like you will (fall into the woodchipper and) lose all your BTC. And that is how it should be. You idolize poverty, analogous to the snowflakes who idolized POTUS Obama, Ill never have to pay my rent again. No one can sustainably give away for free, that which is not free.

Take some time to actually learn economics and the dominance of the power-law distribution. The popular consensus (aka democracy) controls only 15% of the wealth, and is that wisdom-of-the-masses-mob, broken kleptocracy that Bitcoin was sent here to fix/destroy, not succumb to it.

Actually take some time to read the following two linked posts and understand that the death of the Core shitcoin is 100% economically assured:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@zoidsoft/psa991 <--- @zoidsoft has been a s/w engineer his entire life, read his numeric economic analysis

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/ps965c

I really dont care what you do. But if youre going to advise readers to lose all their BTC, then please do not do that anonymously. Put your real name on your claim, so that when readers lose everything, they can sue you in court. If you are simply stating an opinion and not giving users investment advice, then please put a disclaimer on your allegations that Im a nut job. I have done more research in the past 6 years about crypto than most of all you combined. Enjoy poverty.

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

The lead-up to the Segwit fork proved that much.

There was no humongous dangling carrot SegWit anyone can spend donations booty to provide the Schelling point. Now there is. Read @zoidsofts numbers linked above.

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

If miners switch to a fork where they steal everyone's coins going back 2012, nobody is going to switch to the miner's fork, LOL. Why would they?

Youre not the smartest tool in the shed. The reasons are blatantly obvious.

Everybody who is hodling in legacy addresses will receive both their real, immutable Satoshi v0.5.3 BTC and a free airdrop of the scammer Core shitcoins:

http://trilema.com/2015/if-you-go-on-a-bitcoin-fork-irrespective-which-scammer-proposes-it-you-will-lose-your-bitcoins/

http://trilema.com/2016/to-the-dao-and-the-ethereum-community-fuck-you/

Those hodling Core addresses will only receive Core shitcoins and donate their real BTC to the honest miners who uphold Satoshis immutable protocol defense mechanism. Thus the free airdrop proves Core is forking off from real Bitcoin, not the other way around. And that means all the selling pressure will be coming from the side of those who had legacy addresses, because those who had Core addresses will have no real BTC to sell. How oblivious can you be and not realize that??

Those who sit at the top of the power-law distribution (unless theyre completely clueless idiots) either hodl their BTC in legacy address because they dont want to lose their real BTC, or they signal oppositely (so as to fool the snowflake bunny rabbits like you who really want to believe in the tooth fairy, pixie dust, and Dumbo the Flying Elephant) hodling in Core addresses because they are in Craigs inner circle and will mine their SegWit tokens to themselves.

Anyone who understands where Bitcoins monetary valuation comes from as a replacement for gold (make sure you click and look at the charts!):

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-model

Then understands that without immutability of the protocol, then the 21 million tokens limit cant be assured and thus you will end up with a non-monetary valuation such as silver which is now entirely demonetized:

Not(e) to mention that SegWit and LN makes the blockchain insecure, for reasons I have explained else where and will not repeat again now. If you doubt my technological acumen, then that is your ~~stupid~~[careless] mistake.

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

Clearly these are dishonest miners who are useless in securing a protocol.

Theyre honest and protecting Satoshis invention from scammers who pretend to be Bitcoin. The Core protocol miners are the dishonest scammers.

But no worries because Satoshi anticipated this and put a mechanism in the game theory that insures Core will be destroyed. The economics are undeniable. Only fools will deny it and lose everything.

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

Again, miners follow users, not the other way around.

Miners follow the users who have the most BTC, not the riff-raff mob who are easily hoodwinked into accepting democracy and thus destroying Bitcoin.

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

Without users, there are no transaction fees and no speculative value based on future usage.

You do not understand the economic model of Bitcoin at all. Transaction fees are irrelevant because the valuation grows 5X faster than the halvings:

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@anonymint/secrets-of-bitcoin-s-dystopian-valuation-model

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

Miners will be spending massive amounts mining a completely worthless chain.

Nonsense. They will be enriched with $billions of donations from idiot snowflakes. Bitcoin was not designed to be a medium-of-exchange for the masses. It is to be the worlds impartial (i.e. not fiat) reserve currency asset for the uber wealthy. All the minions will be kicked off chain by the high transaction fees. And LN will not function trustless and permissionless for them either. I explained why in the following post:

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/re-anonymint-lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds-20190520t232135542z

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

Just like they fell in line with Segwit activation, they will quickly migrate back to the "Core" chain where the vast majority of users will be. No, a bit of temporary congestion and slower block times won't cause anyone to fork to a chain where the protocol incentives obviously don't work to keep miners honest.

The enriched miners (who thus can afford to invest in even more hashrate) will never give up the $billions in donations from useless snowflakes. All the important people will still be on the real Bitcoin. And all of us will be enriched by the failure of snowflakes to accept reality.

Note that the hashrate may possibly crater so much on the Core blockchain fork, that the difficulty might possibly never be reset and thus the chain might just die and be impossible to ever transact on again.

Quote from: exstasie on June 06, 2019, 03:54:09 PM

If the attack succeeded (LOL) it would only succeed in destroying trust in all the forks, and all of crypto.

Exactly. All crypto except real, immutable, original, one-and-only Bitcoin.

And that is exactly the way the genius Satoshi planned it to be. And so it shall be. Mark my word.

Quote from: fabiorem on June 06, 2019, 06:12:48 PM

Its interesting in the way that it could lead to a PoS version of bitcoin. If the miners betray the trust of users, and steal funds from Segwit adresses, the devs will fork it, rollback the theft, and use LN to validate blocks, since LN is dependable on Segwit. This would lead to a PoS version of bitcoin.

Thanks for sharing that! Interesting (but mostly incorrect) reasoning in that Reddit post. I (@iamnotback and @anonymint) wrote about similar concepts over the past years to document why LN is not secure, not trustless, not decentralized, not permissionless, is an attack on Bitcoin, will result in fractional reserves with frequent hacking losses, and not liquid without Mt. Box nodes:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5r6l2v/lightning_network_security_concern_and_bitcoin/

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/7sfnw6/lightning_network_itself_is_totally_decentralized/

https://steemit.com/blockchain-scaling/@anonymint/lightning-networks-must-fail-if-it-succeeds

One flaw in the reasoning of the Reddit post you cited, is that Bitcoin is going for the gold and thus the valuation increases exponentially faster than the halvings of the programmed (minted, coinbase) block reward. So the Satoshi protocol miners wont depend on transaction fees until some decades from now when the opportunity cost of some other activity in the general economy is much more attractive than Bitcoin mining. Its that future time when (Satoshi protocol) Bitcoins stability is dubious. But that is probably decades from now at least. I intend to in a future blog analyse the long-term implications, but that is not the highest priority task for me at the moment.

Also note that the competition for transactions between off-chain LN and on-chain Bitcoin is not comparable. Because LN transactions have liquidity limits and cant be spent to any address in the network. And unless the LN users will pay the same rate as on-chain fees, then their transactions arent secure. So LN is not the slamdunk competitor at all. It is a shitcoin system for people who cant afford to be on-chain and secure.

The Reddit post is correct though that LNs Mt. Box hubs will force the chain they remain on to essentially (regardless of what technological form it becomes) a centralized system that is as insecure and trustless as proof-of-stake (which I refer to as proof-of-nothing or proof-of-shitcoin). This might be the fate of Litecoin because it cant go for the gold and so Satoshis game theoretic, economic defense mechanism probably doesnt work on Litecoin.