RE: Secrets of Bitcoin’s Dystopian Valuation Model
Elaboration on why I am so confident the SegWit booty will be taken as donations by Bitcoin miners
I'm having trouble visualizing how the transactions embedded in the blockchain (splitting the 3's from the 1's in the hashed strings) can be split off without violating the hashes against previous UTXO's.
The Satoshi v0.5.3 protocol views those P2SH addresses as scripts without any public key (i.e. no signature required to spend them), so they can be spent by anyone. Essentially SegWit transactions as interpreted by the Satoshi protocol, before Core unilaterally decided to softfork the protocol, to be transactions sent to some script that has no protection against anyone spending them. So currently the miners who are following the Core protocol softfork wouldn’t allow those SegWit outputs to be spent by anyone. I actually forgot the precise technical details, but I assure you that last year I checked it in detail. Thus when the Satoshi v0.5.3 miners decide to force Core to fork-off, they will start spending those to themselves when they win a block and the Core miners will fork-off and the Satoshi miners will not fork off. Everyone likes to claim that there are no Satoshi miners, but that is because they’re idiots who do not understand economics.
If I could see it in code, I think this would make more sense to me.
I had a thread on bitcointalk.org that explained the technical points in detail but the mod @mprep deleted everything. Gregory Maxwell, Theymos, and Core supporters collude to hide the truth from everyone.
Will there simply be two competing histories and one that becomes worthless?
Correct. Everyone who has their BTC stored in addresses that begin with 1 will receive a free airdrop of Core tokens when Core is forced to fuck-off (ahem I mean fork-off, lol), in addition to their Satoshi BTC tokens. So then they can sell those Core shitcoins to buy moar real Satoshi BTC. Those who ignorantly hodl their “BTC” in addresses that begin with 3 will have their Satoshi protocol BTC taken by the miners and they will only keep their soon-to-be-worthless Core shitcoins.
The miners who received a booty for mining the Satoshi chain will of course not sell their booty to buy more Core shitcoins because then they would fight against the validity of the Satoshi chain and potentially devalue the booty.
Not familiar enough with how the segwit data being off chain could be used to spend.
Don’t conflate the above with the Lightning Networks flaw I pointed out. Separate issues.
SegWit is achieved on-chain by using P2SH to encode the public key that owns the output. But Satoshi’s protocol just sees those as a hash that lacks any public key to protect against spending. So they're spendable by anyone. I actually forgot the precise details, but I assure you that last year I checked it in detail.
Here's a list of the top most wealthy bitcoin addresses. The top five are all Segwit addresses and only 3 are of the original header on chain type.
That could be meaningless, put there to trick people. Because the miner that will taking those large outputs may be the one who owns the outputs. Easy to fool people in the cryptocurrency arena because people do not consider all the technological possibilities.
At what point does it make mathematical sense to seize the "pay to anyone" segwit?
Did you not read my explanation of the economics in my prior post? I wrote:
Contrary to conventional and popular thought, the taking of the SegWit donations and kicking off the idiot snowflakes who believe cryptocurrency is a democracy, will actually increase the valuation of Bitcoin or at least not interfere with its S/F valuation march higher. Reason being that minions will be kicked off of Bitcoin anyway. And enriching the miners means more energy expended on mining, which in the S/F valuation model means a faster rise in the market cap and price. Thus all the value that was perceived to be in Bitcoin Core will be sucked into Bitcoin sending Core towards 0 and Bitcoin up even faster.
Is there some sort of game theoretical Schelling point around which miners could coordinate?
Yeah I already wrote that when a significant amount of hashrate starts accepting the “pay to anyone” donations, then every rational miner is going to want to participate. Who wants to be the last one out of the door when the music stops playing for Core? Who wants to be mining on a chain that gives them tokens that will be worthless? Who wants to forsake the opportunity to earn massive profits by partaking of the donations booty?
Seems to me that in the short term that such a massive theft would crash the price of bitcoin in the short term as many will panic not understanding what is going on and flee the marketplace. These things have happened in the past (Mt Gox, DAO hack of ETH, etc) and the result crashed the price each time.
Those who will panic will be those who did not know what was going to happen and thus did not keep their BTC stored in addresses that start with 1. And thus they will only have Core tokens to sell. So yes you are correct that Core will plummet in price, whilst Bitcoin rises in price.
The strong hands will be holding Bitcoin and the free airdropped Core. The weak hands will be holding only their Core shitcoins.
A move of claiming only the top 20 segwit addresses alone right now would exceed the number of bitcoin stolen from Mt Gox. (>850,000 BTC).
Now you made me even more sure it’s going to happen. 😈
Let that “pay to anyone” donations booty pile up even larger and larger.
Maybe this will be what causes Bitcoin to rocket to $1 million in 2020 as McAfee expects.
If such an attack happens, then soon afterwards might be the cheapest bitcoin available causing a quick rush to buy in.
Only cheap for Core shitcoins, which is not what we want.
Hard to keep a secret like this for long (if your theory is correct).
I had several huge threads about this on bitcointalk.org. I was shouting and shouting. Nobody wants to listen. They prefer to think they know it all. Hehe.
Speaking of this, I am confident that Satoshi expected this outcome and designed for it. I think Blockstream was funded because those who created Bitcoin want this to happen. See Bitcoin is a means for bringing about the world government, because the nations and unemployed masses will turn against Bitcoin. But they will need 666 control to attempt to stop Bitcoin, not realizing that the global elite who control their nations are the same ones who created and unleashed Bitcoin. The 666 system will then be used to enslave them and never to actually stop Bitcoin, which the elite will own most of.
So the massive donations that kick all the “social consensus” idiots and Lightning Network users off of BTC, because they will only have Core shitcoins after that, will be another way to make the masses bitter and hate Bitcoin.
By disenfranchising the majority by playing on their ignorance, their idiotic belief in the nonsense of democracy, their belief that off-chain Lightning Networks will work out, and their belief that their vote and their existence is actually worth anything non-meritoriously.
Imagine now that all that BTC that was taken as donations will then be tainted as being “stolen funds” in the minds of snowflake idiots who think the governments must protect them against such imagined theft (when in fact the reality is they were sending transactions to the network that can be spent by anyone and allowed themselves to be fooled into thinking Core has any legitimacy). Yet you can imagine that some governments may actually try to trace those donated BTC and place capital control restrictions on such tainted BTC. This is yet another way the $trillionaires global elite can destroy the other lowly millionaires who want to transact and hodl BTC.
This is why I was writing in #7 and #8 in my prior two comment posts about the importance of making mining more accessible. And also to try to actually make a transactional cryptocurrency that will not kick most of the population off-chain to trustless systems. Because if we could get a billion people to actually use and be vested in cryptocurrency, then the masses would demand that cryptocurrency be not taxed and instead be treated as a currency by the nations. So then instead of banksters winning with their plan to make Bitcoin exclusive and a tool of the 666, we would win and put that wound of the forehead of the Beast as stated in Revelation. Well who knows, the masses are so easy to fool into accepting taxes that they think will only apply to the wealthy, which in fact only apply to them in the end.
OK stupid question time:
are there any Satoshi v0.5.3 protocol block explores out there (apologies if this is an easily answered question with a quick net search).
while the bulk of my coins have never touched a segwit addy (always legacy addy to legacy addy moves, and i have been very careful to keep them away from any segwit contamination. which has been easy so far as i rarely more them) i would still like to verify they are on the 0.5.3 chain. along with other 0.5.3 related chain queries. but installing/running 0.5.3 to let it download the chain to run my own queries on it is not possible due to bandwidth issues on my side, it would take over a month and make my internet unusable for that whole time.
thanks for any input you can give on how i may explore the 0.5.3 chain coins and how they treat segwit.
There’s no need for a distinct v0.5.3 block explorer until after the fork begins, because Satoshi’s protocol recognizes all SegWit spends as valid “pay to anyone” transactions. So a Core protocol block explorer is valid for Satoshi’s protocol until when the fork-off begins.
The only thing you need to be worried about is to make sure that your BTC is stored in addresses that begin with
1. Even if you transacted through a SegWit address in the past, this would still be valid in the Satoshi chain after the fork-off, assuming that the miners don’t attempt to rollback the chain. Contrary to my misconceptualization when I was first learning about this issue, I doubt very much they would attempt to rollback the chain, because this would:If one is worried about rolling back the chain, could one use a DEX to spend into something like Monero and then back into a fresh nosegwit BTC address? Is it all addresses on chain that have only been used after v0.5.3?
IOW, if they roll back the chain, everything recorded after v0.5.3 was updated will be erased? (segwit or not)
They will not rollback because they wouldn’t have the longest chain to force Core to fork off. Rolling back to genesis is insane, and would certainly fail.
At most we could be concerned about a few weeks of rollback and AFAICS the Satoshi miners have 0 incentive to do this.
If they did extensive rollbacks the only way to be safe would be to obtain your BTC from miners, but that would make BTC not fungible. I see no incentive for miners to set a precedent of breaking BTC’s fungibility when there’s no incentive for them to do so, and significant disincentives.
If that's the case, anyone can taint your legacy coin simply by sending you a donation from a segwit address. See this one for example...
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/address/1andreas3batLhQa2FawWjeyjCqyBzypd
Seems Andreas Antonopoulos isn't worried about that taint or has been sending them off with coinjoin or mixers.
It's my understanding that he can simply spend those coins to another 1x legacy address to remove taint. I believe a 3x address spending back to a 1xx address requires a signature in the blockchain, so when segwit rules stop being enforced by miners, the received transaction is still valid even though it came from a segwit address. I remember reading from the Trilema logs but not entirely clear if this is true in practice.
That’s true as long as there will be no rollback to the tainted lineage. I have argued that rollback makes no sense from a game theoretic and economics analysis, thus rollback should not occur.
So the miners roll back their software to the version of bitcoin that can only recognize the P2PKH. The full non mining nodes who will still be running the later software then become part of the worthless Core fork unless they also revert. However, writing bitcoin code is more like designing hardware. Your bugs will be forever enthroned on the blockchain for the sake of immutability. One other potential thing to consider is the bugs that could result from such a rollback after hardware changes. I don't think there would be a problem with ASIC's yet since they have one thing to do which is find the nonce, but the longer segwit remains as a standard, the more likely other hardware changes will make it increasingly too difficult to roll back.
This is the only potential problem that I can see with your argument at this point. It's a timing issue. Imagine rolling back to Windows 95 on current processors. Most people wouldn't be able to comply. But it might be extremely profitable for the ones who do. What's the chance that a fork of Core from the bitcoin classic wouldn't be like Eth and Eth classic with Core being like Eth in marketcap? IOW, what other violations of economic principle have Core engaged in?
Please kindly make substantive arguments, so I am not obligated to pollute my Comments list with moar replies. I am obligated to reply now to your (more or less vacuous) comment, because otherwise naive readers might incorrectly assume you’ve stated some substantive objection. Please don’t take this as a personal insult. It’s just that instead of editing your comments to merge new comments, you make double replies for example. I’ve written too many comment replies today. Please in the future consider to merging your new thoughts by editing a previous comment. I will notice it and edit my reply as well to add any reactions. No need to pollute my Comments list such that I will not even been able to find anything anymore because buried under 3000 comments.
You have not proposed any such specific hardware dependency and inertia.
Only hashrate matters.
The only plausible SegWit hardware dependency I’m aware is Gregory Maxwell’s changes to defeat surreptitious (i.e. undetectable) use of ASICBOOST. Yet I see new ASICs being announced with ASICBOOST. So apparently detection is not a sufficient deterrent.
Mining is not really anything like a consumer OS such a Windows. The analogy is weak. You should have tried to find a substantive example first of your hypothetical. I believe there is none to be found.
There was a time when I was thinking about all that deeply and might have had some ideas to share, but I let it go. I have to focus elsewhere.
Extensive discussion about the coming epic SegWit donations “attack” on Bitcoin
The following is very important, specialized information that you can not read any where else on the Internet. I have condensed all the essential information into a few posts.
After the linked post from @Last of the V8s which quotes me, look for every post in the thread from @infofront where he posted on my behalf:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.0;all#msg51306669
There is an archived copy in case the
bitcointalk.org(aka BCTalk) mods start censoring (deleting) the posts:https://web.archive.org/web/20190607135535/https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5147618.0;all#msg51306669
I'm thinking that once the Segwit booty exceeds 50% of the total BTC in existence, that's when it will happen. If I could just mathematically model the flow into segwit somehow, I might be able to extrapolate when.
At the 50% mark, the value of BTC Core and BTC legacy will be equal which turns this into something similar to a PoS situation where the majority BTC legacy is assured control.
Addendum Jun 3rd: Craig Wright has also been cosying up to the state, obtaining copyrights for a paper he probably didn't write (stylometry). I can imagine miners accepting bribes from state actors who want to destroy the crypto field by making an example of bitcoin using this as well. It will cause a mass panic at first because 99% of the public has no idea what's going on. Maybe someone gets the funds from the military budget and pays the miners 1+ Trillion to get started justifying the expense under "national security".
Craig Wright is apparently promising to launch the attack on the halving in May 2020. Their group has at least 3 million TH/s (i.e. 3000 peta-hash/s).
The halving is the logical time to launch it because the income for miners temporarily is cut in half, so miners have less profit leeway to support shit they ideologically believe in. And market psychology reasons.
Note Craig’s blog post adds more support. So hilarious that Craig intentionally does a teapot-calling-the-kettle-black wherein he is both the teapot and the kettle simultaneously! Lol! He criticizes Core for mutating the protocol, yet he wants naive readers to not pay attention he necessarily implicitly (while explicitly claiming otherwise!) advocates to centralize the future increases in the block size of BSV because adaptive block size is otherwise insecure. It’s obvious what Craig is doing. He is employing Orwellian double-speak to fool all the snowflake idiots. Abstractly it’s as if he is performing a theatrical playbook for Revelation’s 666. More concretely, he’s possibly going to lead (or like an opportunist parasite, take credit for leading when it happens naturally) the SegWit donations defensive mechanism “attack” that will force Core to fork off from the real Satoshi v0.5.3 Bitcoin and self-destruct, whilst publicly claiming or insinuating (perhaps with continued double-speak) that BSV is the real Bitcoin with scaling (which it isn’t), all the while letting fools buy BSV while he (and his wealthy supporters) are trading BSV for the real Satoshi v0.5.3 Bitcoin that survives from the Core fork-off. Clever and so many idiot snowflakes will be duped. Love it! I have reason to believe that Craig was reading my stuff and getting some of his recent ideas from me (as have many others throughout our industry). Whereas, I tend to cite those I get ideas from such as Vitalik. Not that I care to receive recognition for it. I don’t need any recognition. I prefer to be ignored by the snowflakes and read by the experts, lol. Ignored but…
pay attention and you might be able to figure out that I’m much more than you think I am…(so you like double-speak?)Craig’s points about the law are basically correct. Anonymous tokens (i.e. where proof of source of funds is not provable) will of course be banned from registered exchanges eventually, but that doesn’t mean they won’t still function decentralized for those who want to use them as a medium-of-exchange in a black market. And it’s possible that anonymous cryptocurrencies with “view keys” that enable authorities to verify lineage will not be banned. And he is correct that for those who want to transact in Satan’s statism, they will need to deal with the law and anonymity won’t help them.
In the image below presumably “DL” is Daniel Larimer and “CZ” is Changpeng Zhao:
Here’s another source:
@jesseluther wrote:
0.000000000000000000001Funny pic! Is this Buterin in the fleeing audience?
Posted using Partiko Android
What does "0 to 21 decimal places" mean?
"Thus I conclude that adaptive block sizes require centralization"
I do not see how you have provided evidence for this.
When there is no block size cap ..... then "consensus" on the block size is reached by the majority of nodes choosing to build on top of a block (or not). ie. can the network transmit your block quickly enough? (or is your block stale).
It's competition.
Learn how to read.
Wow! Much clearer to me now. Thanks. I did read this:
But it didn't make sense to me until now. HSIOW on the grand crypto timing scheme of things; this will be absolutely epic when it happens. I'm hoping that you've made a mistake somewhere that could derail from this prediction, but I'm 90% sure you are correct.
Interesting that @tonevays says that the bull market won't arrive until all the shitcoins die, but his numbers are far below most predictions (saying 3K for a low in 2020 and not until 2024 we see >$100K. I suspect that he's a Core supporter and not aware of this flaw in P2SH.
One thing's for sure, the tech oligarchs (Google, Amazon, FB, etc) are all buying into bitcoin right now. They're paying higher prices than you or me, but they have a lot more money to do so too. To them 8K is but what a penny is to us. They may end up owning nearly all of the original BTC while trying to shove their FB GlobalCoin Keynesian economic model down our throats. Amazon has already made serious inroads to seizing the means of production from which they can implement capital controls.
The big picture now makes sense to me. Know of a good bitcoin citadel?