[ 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: 17 KB, 487x479, neet.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819292 No.2819292 [Reply] [Original]

I can't speak for everyone, but my main problem with SegWit is that when implemented as a soft-fork, it can be deactivated just as easily as it was activated which would result in miners being able to steal funds.
In order to implement SegWit as a soft-fork, the anyone-can-spend transaction type needed to be repurposed as a SegWit transaction type. This was necessary since a SegWit soft-fork transaction must be still be seen as valid by a non-SegWit wallet/node.

If 51% of miners agree that SegWit should be deactivated (for whatever reason), then SegWit can be deactivated. This means that SegWit transactions change back into anyone-can-spend transactions. All BTC stored inside of a SegWit address will be spendable by anyone. Miners will obviously have first dibs on these so they will reap all of the plunder. This means that not only do miners have the ability to deactivate SegWit, but they also have the incentive. This is a very dangerous combination.

Had SegWit been implemented as a hard-fork, then this transaction type would not have been re-purposed. A new transaction type would have effectively been created for SegWit instead that has all of the wonderful benefits of SegWit (no transaction malleability, Schnorr signatures, linear sighash scaling, etc.).

I think all of the benefits SegWit has are amazing, but it's simply not worth the risk for many people to use.

tl;dr: Using SegWit transactions means you're opening yourself up for stolen funds. A hard-fork version of SegWit will have all of the benefits without the huge risk of theft.

>> No.2819324

Shoo shoo filthy jew

>> No.2819332
File: 45 KB, 519x591, 1499275419437.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819332

>>2819292
>I can't speak for everyone, but my main problem with SegWit is that when implemented as a soft-fork, it can be deactivated just as easily as it was activated which would result in miners being able to steal funds.
bullshit. litecoin has had segwit for a long time now, and nobody has stolen anything from anyone there, despite there being a massively funded bounty address made just for this purpose. now fuck off.

>> No.2819346

>>2819292
I think this may be able to happen if one miner mined 51 percent of blocks. If this was the case if one person mined 51 percent of blocks then that could do a lot more than deactivate segwit. But segwit will stop the monopoly mining in china. So this will be harder to do in the coming weeks

>> No.2819364

>>2819346

segwit doesn't actually require a true 51% attack though. since segwit is being activated at only 80%, the attack can be activated much earlier.

>>2819332

> ltc market cap is 2 bill
> btc market cap is 38 bill

Why take a slice when you can have the whole cake?

>> No.2819380
File: 14 KB, 275x275, 1499726195854.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819380

>>2819364
Take your segwit hate, and shove it up your ass. We all know you're just a big blocker faggot. Well guess what: YOU LOSE.

>> No.2819398

>>2819380

I'm not a nocoiner though, thus I'm not loosing.

I'm just saying I won't be spending any BTC anytime soon until hardfork. I'd rather some miner double spend than steal ma buttercoins.

>> No.2819404

>>2819364
...just to clarify, are you saying you wouldn't take 2 billion because there is a chance you could have 38 billion?

Because that is what I am reading.

>> No.2819415

>>2819292
Mein nigger. I thought that this place was all retards.

Hear out my theory: Jihan Wu has a stealth army of ASIC miners. He is going to use them to 51% BTC after ABC splits off, totally fucking everything over unless people bend over to him.

>> No.2819424

>>2819324
I am sick and tired of seeing antisemitism on this board!

>> No.2819432

>>2819404

What I'm saying is a big entity that has nothing to gain from bitcoin itself, but has a lot to gain from bitcoin crashing would rather cut the head off the dragon.

Why would you attack LTC if it is your proof of concept?

You act as if everyone in the world wants BTC to actually succeed, but you don't think there are bigger forces at hand.

Look, a regular 51% attack just causes double spending. That mining pool would be shutdown without question. A 51% attack that allows an entity to STEAL bitcoins from WALLETS is something completely different.

>> No.2819440

>>2819398
there won't BE a hardfork, you dumbass. your side LOST.

>> No.2819447

>>2819424
Jews were a misteak

>> No.2819456

>>2819440

You're dumb to think there will not be a hardfork after segwit. Actually, I take that back. Human nature says that if it's not broken, don't fix it. Anyways, segwit is only meant to be a temporary fix until something solid comes about. That's how it's suppose to work anyway.

I'm wondering though if you idiots are really alright with a potential 51% attack stealing your shekels? You god damn serious right now?

>> No.2819468
File: 30 KB, 330x330, galia.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2819468

>>2819447
>this complete SEMEN SUCCUBUS bumps up against you in the grocery market
>"oh hey, sorry...wow uh...you're kinda cute, you know"
what do

>> No.2819474

>>2819468

51% pullout

>> No.2819492

>>2819292

Was LTC's implementation of segwit a soft or hard fork? Have they had any issues with stolen funds?