[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 34 KB, 730x730, SegWit.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16747998 No.16747998 [Reply] [Original]

Imagine thinking SegWit Coin (BTC) is Bitcoin just because 'they' managed to nab a three letter ticker symbol. Then when Satoshi returns to tell people they're being scammed, they crucify HIM as the scammer. It is literally a rerun of the story of Jesus. It is peak stupidity and peak evil. Don't go down in history as a Judas, join the side which bring light and honesty to the world.
Nour

>> No.16748011

based

>> No.16748013
File: 619 KB, 1340x1628, 1576149407792.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16748013

A segwit bitcoin is worth as much as a cheque without a signature

>> No.16748019
File: 231 KB, 986x452, 1576125266386.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16748019

a hash of a signature is not a signature

>> No.16748031

>>16748019
>>16748013
>>16747998
i am a brainlet i cant get this. if there is a flaw then why can't anyone just steal my bitcorn?

>> No.16748053
File: 58 KB, 960x331, 1576130382013.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16748053

>>16748031
they will

>> No.16748055

>>16747998
Peak stupidity would be buying bsv, which is a proven scam

>> No.16748065

>>16748053
kek, at least it's entertaining

>> No.16748079

>>16748031
it's a legal flaw. Miners can legally spend your coins

>> No.16748128
File: 48 KB, 720x717, very_nice.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16748128

>>16748079
thanks just bought 100k bsv then. fuck i was holding a coin that miners could withdraw instantly, like can you believe lol.

>> No.16748146

>>16748055
and segwit/lightning is over-engineered garbage

>> No.16748148

Segwit and UASF was the worst thing to ever happen to bitcoin, and will furthermore leave it susceptible to many attack vectors that dont exist in the original version that uses the 1 address space

>> No.16748173

why do i feel like some shiller writes with different IDs every time? i was even taking my pills at the right time.

>> No.16748191
File: 405 KB, 596x450, 1577491350316.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16748191

>>16748173
bsv is the official coin of the Indian army

>> No.16748212
File: 107 KB, 768x1024, 1577844555297.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16748212

>>16748191
OWO

>> No.16748238

>>16748019
The whole security model of blockchain a is based on hashing. Each block stores the hash of the previous block. It is impossible to forge a hash with a secondary input, practically speaking, and excluding SHA-1 which is not relevant to BTC.

I think Segwit is terrible for the network, but your argument against it is regarded.

>> No.16748248

>>16748238
Retarded*

>> No.16748275

>>16748238
the security is based on profit. Hashing secures nothing it is used to create difficulty.

Re segwit forging a hash isn't the issue it's that a hash of a signature isn't a signature because you cannot know what key signed a message from a signature of that hash. Segwit makes it so that you have to trust the miner that the transaction they gave you was signed by rightful owner of the utxo.
The function of signatures in bitcoin is ownership, which is a legal system. Read the conclusion>>16748013

>> No.16748302

>>16748275
>message from a signature of that hash
meant to say hash of that signature

>> No.16748307

>>16747998
Uhhh based much

>> No.16748336

>>16748302
>you cannot know what key signed a message from a hash of that signature.
This doesn't make sense

>> No.16748344

>>16748212
Would let shit in my street/10

>> No.16748352

>>16748336
if I sign something and then hash that signature I cannot prove what key made the signature from the hash

a hash of a signature is not a signature

>> No.16748353

>>16747998
It's not bitcoin because of the ticker, it's bitcoin because of the hash rate.

>> No.16748357

>>16748238
For all intents and purposes a hash of a signature cannot replace a signature, especially when we get into legal aspects.

>> No.16748369

>>16748353
So if BitBean had a higher hashrate would that make it Bitcoin?

>> No.16748372

>>16748353
bitcoin = protocol
if you change poker to tetris it's still poker or tetris??

BTC = Segwit coin

>> No.16748402

>>16748353

Big blocks, chain of signatures and person-to-person transactions. That's bitcoin.

>> No.16748412

>>16748372
BCH is dead so I imagine you are here shilling BSV, which is a literal hardfork of a hardfork off of bitcoin's protocol. SegWit wasn't even ahardfork. I'm not defending Blockstream or their shenanigans by the way as Samson is very obviously a cuck, but they won the hash war. Just like Vitalik's DAO-fork coin won the hash war with Ethereum Classic

>> No.16748416

>>16748353
>we define a coin as a chain of electronic signatures
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>> No.16748419

i always pinned csw as more of a joseph smith, treasure hunter type who says things that people cant verify.

>> No.16748422

>>16748238

This is incorrect, hashes do not secure the network. And, hashpower is a signalling mechanism and not security in itself. Economic incentives do. This is why Core failed so hard as they buggered the economic model and therefore the security of the BTC network is basically zero.

>> No.16748436

Can someone give a source that i can read about segwit's flaw?

>> No.16748438

>>16748353

Bitcoin is a protocol that is, as Craig said, "set in stone". And hashrate is not security, in fact, BTC is an extremely dangerous situation as hashrate suddenly moving away from it combined with the braindead combination of segwit and tiny blocks could freeze the whole network.

>> No.16748463

>>16748412
>its not a fork or change of protocol if we call the fork soft

Segwit is just one change in a litany of changes Core has made that alter protocol and ruin what is supposed to be Bitcoin.

>> No.16748477

>>16748352
But can't you (dis)prove that a signature contributed to a given hash by hashing the signature with all the inputs that went into the hash in question and comparing the result?

>> No.16748501

>>16748436
And my other is question is, didn't bitcoin developers know about those "muh flaws"? I am pretty sure they know their job better than some random nigger which is craig.

>> No.16748536

>>16748477
if you have a segwit bitcoin you have no proof the previous owner of it gave it to you. Because a hash of a signature could be a hash of any signature. You have to trust the miner that they received the signature from the respective private key, meaning segwit bitcoin cannot be peer to peer.

if you have a bitcoin you have a transaction signed by the private key of the bitcoins you are receiving you then give that transaction to the miners who are paid to update the utxo set.

>>16748019

>> No.16748581

I’ve been on biz for years now and this cult of creg shit is the most inexplicable thing I’ve seen come out of this shithole

>> No.16748593

>>16748581
I'm sorry you've been on /biz/ for years and still have no clue how Bitcoin works.

>> No.16748604

>>16748536
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/60171/where-is-the-signature-stored-in-a-segwit-transaction

well i checked what you say and those people don't say it. As i got it, only non-segwit nodes wont include the signature. Also as i see, nearly the 100% of the nodes support segwit.

>> No.16748618

>>16748604
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/81727/how-can-segwit-increase-transaction-throughput-if-the-same-amount-of-data-is-sto

also answers of this

>> No.16748623

>>16748593
>>16748536
>>16748438

see >>16748604
>>16748618

>> No.16748627

>>16748581
likewise

>> No.16748640

>>16748536
But isn't all of the information that you could use to check if a particular key signed a transaction that was hashed still present? It seems like you could easily check the hash to make sure all signatures that went into it are "the right ones."

>> No.16748664

>>16748623
Thanks for the nice source

>> No.16748702

https://medium.com/@adam_selene/the-segwit-15-attack-b0ecbb926777

>> No.16748818

>>16748604
>>16748618
imagine posting that mess in favor of segwit.
a segwit transaction is not peer to peer you do not receive a signature from the previous owner.

>> No.16748882
File: 94 KB, 1314x392, Screenshot_20200105_063044.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16748882

>>16748818
what is that "witness" section about then?

>> No.16748920
File: 15 KB, 962x117, Screenshot from 2020-01-04 21-34-27.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16748920

>>16748055
BSV mouthpieces are, literally, criminals

>> No.16748932

>>16748882
its not in the transaction, that's the whole point of segwit

>> No.16748983

>>16747998
BSV is a scam and creg is not satoj

>> No.16748990

>>16748932
No it is. Where the fuck would it be other than it? I have a full node on my rpi 4 and when i check a transaction that includes a segwit address with bitcoin-cli gettransaction and then bitcoin-cli decoderawtransaction i can see that there is a witness section.

>> No.16749117

I am now 100% sure that signatures are still on the blockchain and get checked by the segwit capable (over 95% of the nodes).

Even with a 51% attack no one could create transactions that are invalid. Those transactions wouldnt get confirmed by the nodes.

Well i did a good job not believing blindly to this shit. Also that australian shitposter shouldnt have the right to talk about signatures and shit when he cant even sign with the real satoshi's signature lmao.

>> No.16749126

>>16749117
>Even with a 51% attack no one could create transactions that are invalid.

sorry, anyone can create an invalid transaction but it wont be confirmed by the nodes.

>> No.16749143

>>16747998
>managed to nab
>always was

hmmm

>> No.16749190

>>16749126
now i get everything more clearly. basically the segwit capable nodes (the over 95%) are the same with the previous bitcoin. only the signatures are at the end of the block.

if an attacker that has the 51% of the hashrate confirmed a transaction that is not valid, he would create a hard fork that he has the coins. but the only one cared about the coins would be himself lol. the legit bitcoin nodes wouldnt confirm it and would continue to use bitcoin with no problem. the adversary would be left with the money he spent on his fake fork that no one cares.

Any counter argument?

>> No.16749388

>>16747998
Segwit was developed in 2017.
BTC was used as a ticket back in 2011.

>> No.16749420

>>16747998
Also... BitcoinCashSV was forked from bitcoin cash. Which was the result in a divide on the block size limit. Bitcoin cash changed the protocol and hard forked..... So at the very most, you could argue that bitcoincashSV was the creator of the original bitcoin cash.
But BTC is not BitcoinCashSV. Believing that would make you retarded

>> No.16749453 [DELETED] 

>>16749420

Who cares? 1 MB tiny blocks and high fee will kill BTC.

>> No.16749508
File: 43 KB, 1200x675, D7kUtDGUEAEaubV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16749508

>>16749420

>> No.16749557

>>16749508
Lol imagine believing this shit.
You heard of "Genesis Fork"?
Prepare yourself for one of the biggest failures in crypto history
https://bitcoinsv.io/2019/12/20/bitcoin-sv-genesis-hard-fork-specification/

>> No.16749627
File: 598 KB, 1618x1270, Screen-Shot-2017-07-18-at-8.59.38-PM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16749627

>>16749508
If you didn't understand segwit integration or why bitcoin is still and always was bitcoin... And why others are forks or scams (bitcoincashSV) see pic related

>> No.16750605

>>16748640
whats to prevent conflict of interest of miners? its an economic/game theory problem, not a technical one. segwit is a solution for a non-problem which resulted in less than 5% gain but introduced a fatal inflation bug. this is how (((they))) subvert. you are not cut out for this kind of warfare.

>> No.16750666

>>16748369
>>16748353
yes, it would. the hashrate is the method of voting for what is bitcoin, simple as that.

as much as satoshi would hate segwit, he would still need to convince people to go another direction so that the hashrate overtakes segwit coin.

i wish bsv and the rest would either gain more hashrate or fuck off