Does anyone here understand why all Segwit coins are doomed (BTC in particular). I'll tell you. The biggest threat to crypto-currencies is something called selfish mining. Selfish mining is when a miner finds a block, but instead of propagating the block to the network they keep it secret, meaning only then can mine on the next block. So long as the selfish miner is smaller than the honest miners he will make more money as a selfish miner. The good news for non-Segwit coins is that there is a simple defense. The honest miners (who make up more of the network's hashrate) simply form their own selfish mining cartel and choke the selfish miner until he is out of money. This isn't a great defense as it will cause even the honest cartels to lose money, but by definition the honest cartel always wins in this scenario. However, everything changes when Segwit is taken into account. The first issue with Segwit is that it allows the selfish miner to publish his block, just without signatures. By publishing his block without signatures the selfish miner can now entice new miners into his cartel without any collusion, making him more efficient than any honest cartels that may try and choke him off the network. Furthermore, because the Segwit selfish miner has already published his block, if an honest miner tries to publish a block they will be beat in the block propagation race because the Segwit cartel only has to release the signature data, while the honest cartel has to release the signature data and the rest of the block. This means the normal defense against selfish mining does not work as even if it is attempted the Segwit cartel makes more money than the honest cartel. Furthermore the point of the Segwit selfish mining attack is not only to be the most profitable miners, but to forge transactions. (1)
Does anyone here understand why all Segwit coins are doomed (BTC in particular). I'll tell you...
If the Segwit Selfish miner can attract 51% of the hashrate then he can change the destination of all transactions in the block he mined to his own address (or more likely spread these transactions amongst miners according to their hashrate). Remember that this Segwit selfish miner is always more profitable than honest miners or honest miners that form cartels because the cartels must try and selfish mine without releasing the blocks. The only real defense against this attack is to mine blocks without signature data, but again, once 51% of miners mine on blocks without signature data the Segwit mining cartel can forge all transactions in that block. So the only defense against this attack is to do exactly what the attacker wants you to do. Furthermore the fact that Bitcoin Segwit is committed to small blocks (as are most Segwit coins) means the attacker can use a Sybil attack and create many nodes throughout the network for a very small cost (thanks to the small block sizes) and every time they get in a block propagation race with the honest miners they will win as their nodes will propagate their block faster. So basically in the long-term all Segwit coins are fucked, because the more they get used the more the transaction volume in a block is. The more the transaction volume is in a block the more profitable this attack becomes. Finally even if the Segwit coin tries to fork and start on a new chain the Segwit mining cartel can follow them to the new chain, so there is no escape. Please tell me, why does anyone trust Segwit?
tldr
nice post but this is way too advanced for typical biztard
just post a picture of a trap on a toilet with a mspaint bitcoin coming out of his?her? ass and caption something like "corecucks btfoooo"
One final tidbit, did you know that Jihan Wu controls Antpool and BTC.com, which account for 40% of the hashrate depending on the day. Then you have VIABTC who is owned by Yang Haipo which controls around 10%. And then there is Roger Ver, but his mining assets are being shipped from China to Canada so his pool is only at 1% right now since most of his miners aren't running, so I don't know his usual hashrate, but I think he is in the 5-10% range. This means they could pull off a 51% selfish mining attack on Bitcoin Segwit, steal all the transactions in a block, and destroy Bitcoin Segwit to be replaced by Bitcoin Cash. You're lucky they are nice guys who haven't decided to do such an attack... Yet anyways.
Any coin with Segwit can have all of its transactions forged, furthermore the method required to forge transactions is more profitable than normal mining. This means miners of all Segwit coins are incentivized to forge transactions. In other words, Segwit and all coins using it are fucked.
That probably would be best, but most supporters of BCH don't really understand this even though it can be typed in two paragraphs. I'm doing it for them. This problem is massive so if even two people understand I'll have done my part. I mean a blockchain where miners can steal all the coins and are incentivized to do so can't function. Its kind of a massive problem.
Anybody here understand that there is currently a coin with a 160 billion dollar market cap whose hodlers will most likely have their funds stolen at some point in the future? Or do all of you Bitcoin Segwit supporters just not care?
>By publishing his block without signatures
not possible
Yes, you can do that because witness data is segregated, so you can build on top of a block without the witness data and "check" it later
but you don't really need to check it later
fake and gay also
You release the signature data when another miner tries to release a full block, but remember, since you already published a block minus the signatures all you have to do is publish the signatures. The other miner has to publish the signatures and the rest of the block. This means you will win the block propagation race so your block gets accepted. I'm not sure how dense you have to be to misunderstand this, its not that difficult.
It is very possible and not even that difficult from a technical standpoint.
you didn't get segwit, amarite?
the only reason they didn't do that IF that's even possible that they are making more money on btc, has nothing to do with being nice. the truth is user, no one fucking cares about bcash, if they destroy Bitcoin they don't have a golden goose anymore. accept reality
You didn't make an argument, amirite? Please if you think you understand segwit try and make a valid response. This attack is only possible if segwit is activated, so yes I understand segwit. If I didn't I wouldn't have posted this particular attack.
>the only reason they didn't do that IF that's even possible that they are making more money on btc
Are you stupid enough to believe that a miner makes more money mining honestly than using this form of selfish mining where they can take every single Bitcoin transaction in a block and re-route to their own address? I hope this a joke.
how stupid niglet can you be not seeing if they compromise the system it's fucked? IF that would be even possible...
Well if you do it bitcoin would tank very fast when the public finds out so you can only really use it for a one time heist which would fuck up bitcoin long term and make your mining hardware worth less.
Its funny redditors will pretend this vuln existing is no biggie though.
every fucking day, cashies bumping their own threads- why do these reddit cunts come here?
>how stupid niglet can you be not seeing if they compromise the system it's fucked?
That's the point. Over 51% of the miners fully support BCH. As large BCH holders if they kill Bitcoin Segwit then BCH is the only real SHA-256 mineable coin left. Also when they forge these transactions they would immediately transfer the Bitcoin Segwit into another coin. So there is almost no risk of failure and they would be completely safe from the massive tanking price of the coin (so long as they don't hold Segwit coins).
>IF that would be even possible...
Why do you keep saying if its possible? It is possible because Segwit addresses are AnyoneCanSpend addresses so if signatures are left out of a block being mined by 51% of miners those miners can send those coins to anyone (including themselves). There's no if about it and the point of the attack is to compromise the system and replace it with non-Segwit systems.
Wow, a 51% attack sounds bretty dangerous. Better flippening over to bcash, where a small cadré of self-interested cons has regularly controlled more than 90% of all mining.
>Well if you do it bitcoin would tank very fast when the public finds out so you can only really use it for a one time heist which would fuck up bitcoin long term and make your mining hardware worth less.
The point of the attack is to tank the price. You do a one-time heist, exchange your forged coins for another coin and since you removed signatures from the blockchain there is no proof of your heist and then you move to mine another non-Segwit coin of the same mining algorithm (BCH). You are saying that tanking the price is a problem with the attack when it is the reason you do it. Also you can leverage short the Bitcoin market and literally make billions in one day.
lol how new are you. OP isnt describing a normal 51% attack
>Better flippening over to bcash, where a small cadré of self-interested cons has regularly controlled more than 90% of all mining.
You can't do this type of selfish mining attack on BCH since it doesn't have segwit you moron. That's the point of this post. This attack only works on coins with Segwit. BCH does not have Segwit.
I just think the BCH crew wont do it since they will win this fight anyways due to BCH being fundamentally better.
No need to tarnish the bitcoin name with a massive shitstorm.
But hey maybe they will do it one day if they need to.
Its comforting they have the option while BCH is secure and corecucks cant do shit about it.
Your argument is literally "some 51 attacks are worse than others".
Go back and read the white paper. Also, check the digits you replied to. Can't beat my dubbadubs.
The point of the post is obvious, thanks. "Same. Old. Shit."
>Your argument is literally "some 51 attacks are worse than others".
Thats true lel
Segwit makes OPs attack possible. Other PoW coins dont have that attack vector
...
...
>That's true lek
Now closing this thread in case your stupid is contagious.
>having multiple attack vectors is the same as having only one
This is your brain on core, lads.
>Your argument is literally "some 51 attacks are worse than others".
No, this is not a 51% attack as 51% attacks aren't profitable (but this attack is always profitable). It is a modified version of selfish mining from which there is no defense. Selfish mining doesn't work on non-Segwit coins because if you selfish mine them then other miners selfish mine as well and your attack fails. With Segwit if you try and selfish mine that means you mine without signatures. If 51% of the hashrate mines without signatures whichever miner mines the block can reroute transactions to their own addresses and there is no record of it on the blockchain. In a 51% there is no possibility of profit. With this selfish mining attack there is no possibility of losses and if 51% mine without signatures you will make millions in a few minutes, and if you short the coin you can easily make billions in a few days. This isn't a joke and you should do the research so you understand.
This isn't even the issue as 51% attacks on non-Segwit coins are always unprofitable. This attack always yields the attacker profit and can literally kill the coin. So with non-Segwit coins there are attack vectors, but they will never work. With Segwit coins there are attack vectors that cannot be defended against. That's the problem that Segwit supporters are dealing with.
If it can be done why not do it and claim your billions?
You say you can publish a block for propagation and omit the signatures from the segwit transactions. I can see that pre segwit nodes would support those transactions in the block as valid and not see a problem, because they're marked as "anyone can spend", but what about post segwit capable nodes that just see those segwit transactions and without attached signatures? Won't they view those transactions as invalid? Or is a segwit transaction indistinguishable from a legacy "anyone can spend" transaction if it does not include signatures in the segwit partition?
At any rate, no matter how this technique would or could be executed, actually doing it would indeed flatly kill BTC, nobody would trust it anymore, and thus the present situation where SHA256 miners can make n per day would instead degrade where they can make n-mining payments on the BTC chain. That being the case, I don't think BTC miners would actually execute this attack *even if they could* *until* they are also ready to flatly kill the BTC chain permanently and move to BCH, which it would make sense for them to do when BTC mining profitability is a rounding error compared to BCH mining profitability, which will only happen due to organic price rise on BCH from executing on Satoshi's original vision of widespread global deployment and use as an actual transaction layer.
So once again it would seem that this attack is of a similar class to the hash power strangulation attack, with the additional caveat that it will never be executed automatically by accident, whereas the hash power strangulation attack may be at a certain profitability equilibrium.
pls give 40% hashrate so I can do it. kthx