Quote from: Millionero on December 28, 2019, 03:57:56 PM

Quote from: pereira4 on December 28, 2019, 03:27:46 AM

Quote from: Biodom on December 28, 2019, 02:36:20 AM

Quote from: pereira4 on December 28, 2019, 01:54:05 AM

So apparently, CSWcoin is going to hardfork in the near future. Said hardfork includes the fantastic idea of basically stealing people's unclaimed BTC, which means, if you didn't claim your BSV, those coins will be "confiscated" by CSW-Ayre's mining operation (which I presume are the only people mining the thing). This also includes that satoshi's "1 million" coins will be stolen. According to raw calculations, they'll get $85million. I mean, it's not a lot, but still, this has to be a joke right? am I taking crazy pills? How is people unironically supporting such thing at this point?

I assume most here didn't even bother claiming the coins. I mean, it's such a pain claiming a forked coins, you have to do much for so little, but I don't appreciate CSW getting free money, but still, I may just don't bother.

If this is not the case, correct me if im wrong on the whole thing, but that is what I extracted from what I've read.

Can you link to highlighted, please?
Apart from rumors, i haven' seen anything solid, as it would be very weird.

Gmaxwell did address this on bsv subreddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/bsv/comments/edr0av/massive_replay_theft_coming_to_a_scamchain_near/

And official bsv page says:

https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/12/23/bitcoin-sv-blocking-potential-p2sh-replay-attack-after-genesis-hard-fork/

Quote

Mitigation

In response, the Bitcoin SV Node team will update the Genesis hard fork specification by upgrading the rule rejecting the P2SH script pattern from a policy rule to a consensus rule. That is the specific script template OP_HASH160 OP_EQUAL will not be allowed in new outputs and this rule will be directly implemented in the Bitcoin SV Node software. Whilst unfortunate to restrict the usage of a particular script pattern, we note that the same effect can be achieved using variations of the script pattern e.g. OP_SHA256 OP_RIPEMD160 OP_EQUAL.

This change closes the attack vector and mitigates the need for honest miners to forcibly reject blocks containing theft transactions. Whilst this could have triggered a valuable demonstration of the principle of honest miners acting punitively against dishonest miners, the public disclosure by Mr. Maxwell raises the potential cost to those miners to an unacceptable level.

Note: The theory is that it is argued if there were any "mistakes" here, and stealing funds was always part of the plan, they just got caught by gmaxwell.

I don't understand any of this. I read the subreddit linked above. Which coins might be stolen if the worst happens? What does it mean for those of us who have bitcoins stored in segwit addresses and "compatibile" (starting with 3) addresses?

Trying to make any sense out of this clusterfuck. So apparently (and I forgot about this) Bitcoin SV did fork from Bitcoin Cash. Now, on BCH addresses:

Quote

When Bitcoin Cash (BCH) was created, it shared the same address format as bitcoin. In an effort to alleviate any confusion for users of both digital currencies, BCH developers later proposed a new unique format for BCH addresses called CashAddr. This new address format will help users more easily distinguish between bitcoin and BCH addresses. The updated format only changes how BCH addresses are displayed, not the underlying private and public keys.

Each BCH address also has a legacy address, which is its corresponding bitcoin address. Going forward, the Blockchain wallet will only display the corresponding CashAddr addresses. Users can continue to send and receive using legacy BCH addresses, but we recommend using the new format for an optimal user experience.

So the way I see it is that, people affected by this, will be the ones that had unclaimed BCH which remained in legacy addresses, but only the amounts that be sitting on p2sh... so to put it simple, any unclaimed amounts sitting on addresses that don't begin with 1 can be stolen. This proves in practice, an scenario in which the schelling point to hold your coins is addresses that begin with 1, and nothing else. Nobody will ever be stupid enough to break backwards-compatibility with addresses that begin with 1 (the original format) so seems reasonable to hold your coins in such format.

Now, if you bother with the clusterfuck that is claiming coins from a fork, then go for it, but a lot of people may simply don't even care they lose those coins all things considered. I mean, I would hate giving those guys "free money", but at this point I can't be fucking bothered with any of this nonsense, im trying to relax and enjoy the holidays, last thing on my mind is having to deal with this insanity to be frank. Remember that it requires that you move the entirety of your holdings, then download some dodgy software, then have to sync the entire blockchain of said altcoin, copy the empty wallet after you've moved your funds in there, and finally dump the damn thing. All of this without screwing up in the process.