Bitcoin Only

So these Mandalorian Tracking FOBs, do they use an Imperial Blockchain? Im not trying to inject cryptocurrency talk, but they are literally talking about private keys and such. Its so cool to include that in Starwars. I imagine the trade guilds having massive exchanges that trade stars and planets.

So I watched episode one, and then I saw the second episode on Disney Plus and I just paused it after seeing a Tracking Fob and I just had to ask, what blockchain are using, a centralized Imperial blockchain? or a decentralized bounty hunter network? ;) In the first episode's meeting between the Protagonist and the guy who gives out the "Pucks" ..... Im not trying to inject cryptocurrency talk, but he literally is talking about private keys and such. Its so cool to include that in Starwars. Reminds me of the Ferengi in Starwars, intergalactic exchanges where people sell planets, people, trop moons like Lando in Solo, where he mentions winning a moon, but in a poker game BUT im sure they use credits that have to be checked somehow....

Also people obviously had bounties which was a form of a wallet in a way, I mean a person could be identified maybe genetically with the bio scanner, and then, frozen in carbonite and a private key matched, however, im sure there will be episodes where people swap FOBs and capture the wrong people etc, hacking tracking FOBs etc. Proof of Work wont work in Star Wars universe when people have death star loads of power to generate hash power to essentially break ur encryption with probably just one Star Destroyers onboard computers lol. I imagine the time AFTER the empire however, is still full of finance and fintech galore, with trade guilds filling the void, but I havent read the Canon of what comes next, I mean I know the new Order and the whatever happens but i just cant accept that new star wars stuff it makes me sad i dunno, its like a zoomer got to the star wars we all know and loved, and tried way too hard, i dunno, maybe episode 9 will be better? Ill go see it soon. Anyway I have some plans to inject Keylontic Science UFO lore into Star Wars and connect it to earth in an interesting way, but first id like to do this with Star Trek. I think we have to ramp up all sci fi for our up coming Mars and Moon missions thanks to Space X and Nasa etc, its essential to make Sci Fi and space travel and engineering as interesting to young people as possible. ANyway sorry for rambling I just had some ideas wanted tow rite about anyway BACK to my question about what MONEY system they use in the mandalorean.....

Also in that first table sit down exchange they have a talk about "Imperial credits" being just as spendable lol... seems like they need more volume. I noticed some interesting historical political stuff with the whole money exchange in the second meeting between the protagonist and the vestigial Imperial Boss (like an old Nazi left over after ww2) he gives him what is basically Nazi Gold lol, but its Mandalorian metal thats been looted, and he repays him in his own peoples looted metal, maybe the Mandalorians are like in a Diaspora, like Israelis hunting down the nazis after ww2?

I wonder if the Empire had a fiat currency or had to rely on a decentralized math backed currency due to the same problems we see in Warhammer 40k where the empire of a galaxy is so vast its hard to communicate monetary policy and things just sort of collapse into medieval shit in some places while other places look like coruscant.... theres a disparity between worlds and I guess thats the whole point , we must be Planetary Chauvanists and think about our planet first unless we had some sort of portal system, only then could I see people caring enough between planets

Anyway the idea of a inter planetary galactic stock market or crypto currency exchange is so interesting, Ive seen it in Star Wars Enterprise with the orisons slave market, and DS9 with the ferrengi markets visible to Quark maybe over sub space

Im not sure if Starwars has Subspace tech to have faster than light internet for communication and finance?

If we humans already have Bitcoin and smart contracts like eosio then I imagine Star Wars bounty hunters had some sort of BLOCKCHAIN for tracking Bounties using oh i dunno..quantum kyber crystals that have to be matched and can never be faked, like tally sticks but using the force, maybe thats how the FOB's can get activated, its like the challengedac or something, GPS smart contracts but for the whole galaxy, tracking FObs are interesting so i looked it up wondering what "FOB" stood for as i knew it couldnt just mean a keyless entry keychain thing.,...

FOB stands for “free on board” or “freight on board” and is a designation that is used to indicate when liability and ownership of goods is transferred from a seller to a buyer.

That blew me away... that this mandaloran show is using the lingo of the industry and I had no idea FOB stood for Freight on Board.

Ok anyway guys i was just recovering from the flu and wanted to have some fun talking about star wars and Bounty Hunter Blockchain crypto currency for validation of bounties captured.... just so fun to talk about tracking FOBs and space X and if we can have real M. Falcon and tie fighter shaped space hotels on the ISS and private spaceX space hotels VERY soon in the next few years, obviously Disney will have to be involved so they can sell the rooms directly from Disney Land and have a space port AT Disney land for real....... and tesla will have star wars looking speeders and star wars themed boring tunnel "rides" that will just be normal boring tunnel tunnels from LAX to Disney land but will be fitted out with projectors, lasers, in tunnel screens and extra stuff to make the boring tunnel rude more of a disney land ride in itself :D We could have a Disney mandalorian hired actor for every train, with LED weapons and armor accessories that light up in the dark when the whole tunnel goes dark when the train appears to be hijacked by raiders or other bounty hunters, and youll have a WHOLE experience in a boring tunnel ride for DIsney Star Wars Space X Space Port ride, lol, on your way to Disney MARS or disney MOON park, because who else is going to make us feel at home on the moon but Disney?

Galaxies Edge could be so incredibly REAL with a SPaceX Deal for a real space port out in the desert using same boring tunnels that would take you from DIsney to Las Vegas anyway, so halfway there youd get out to a Disney Space Port to take you to a SpaceX launched Space Hotel just like the International Space Station. Im sure Disney and SPaceX working together could raise the funds to launch a Millenium Falcon shaped Space Hotel.

Anyway I know thats different from my title but now I just wanna write a proposal for SPaceX DIsney Star Wars Space Hotel, and Disney SpaceX Space Port in desert outside Galaxies Edge using Boring Tunnel to get there, use the money from the space hotel to build the Disney Moon and Mars bases.
submitted by ackza to MawInstallation [link] [comments]

Holy shit! Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd both just ADMITTED and AGREED that NO solution has been implemented for the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector, discovered by Peter Todd in 2015, exposed again by Peter Rizun in his recent video, and exposed again by Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem.

UPDATE - Below is an ELI5 (based on a comment below by u/cryptorebel, and another comment below by u/H0dl) of this silent-but-deadly, ledger-corrupting novel attack vector which will inevitably happen on the Bitcoin SegWit fork (but which can never happen on the Bitcoin Cash fork - because Bitcoin Cash does not use SegWit for this very reason, because all the smart people already know that SegWit is not Bitcoin):
ELI5:
Basically miners can be incentivized to mine without validating all of the data. Currently this problem already happens without SegWit, but there exists a Nash Equilibrium (from game theory), where the incentives make sure that this problem does not get out of hand - because currently if the percentage of "validationless miners" gets too high, then (in the system as it is now), validationless mining becomes unprofitable, and easy to attack.
But SegWit would significantly change these incentives. SEPARATING THE SEGWIT DATA FROM THE BLOCKCHAIN ENLARGES THE PROBLEM, RESULTING IN a change to the Nash Equilibrium and AN UNSTABLE AND LESS SECURE SYSTEM where miners are encouraged to do validationless mining at higher rates.
For example, if 20% of smaller struggling miners are incentivized to perform validationless mining, an attacking miner with as little as 31% hash could suddenly also "go validationless" (because 20% + 31% = 51%), forking the network back to pre-SegWit-as-a-soft-fork and stealing "Anyone-Can-Spend" transactions, causing mass confusion and havoc.
In fact, as Peter Rizun pointed out below: WITH SEGWIT THERE WOULD NOT EVEN BE ANY PROOF THAT THE THEFT HAD ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Meanwhile, with Satoshi's original Bitcoin (now renamed Bitcoin Cash to distinguish it from Core's "enhanced" version of Bitcoin incorporating SegWit), proof of the theft would at least exist in the blockchain. This highlights Peter Rizun's main assertion that SEGWIT BITCOIN HAS A MUCH WEAKER "SECURITY MODEL" THAN SATOSHI'S ORIGINAL BITCOIN - a scathing condemnation of SegWit which Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is apparently unable to rebut.
Greg Maxwell made some inaccurate statements trying to claim that this kind of attack would never happen - arguing that because Compact Blocks are smaller than SegWit blocks (30kb vs 750kb), this would disincentivize such an attack. But Peter Todd pointed out that DISINCENTIVIZING NON-MALICIOUS MINERS from doing this is not the same thing as PREVENTING MALICIOUS MINERS from doing this - because the difference between 30kb vs 750kb would obviously not prevent a malicious miner from performing this attack.
Other people have also pointed out that by discarding the fundamental definition of a "bitcoin" from Satoshi's whitepaper ("We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures"), SegWit would open the door to various new failure modes and attack vectors, by encouraging miners to "avoid downloading the signature data". This could lead to what Peter Todd calls the "nightmare scenario" where "mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain" - and people wouldn't even notice (because so many SegWit miners were no longer actually downloading and validating signatures).
Background
This debate is all happening as Bitcoin is about to fork into two separate, diverging continuations (or "spinoffs") of the existing ledger or blockchain, as of August 1, 2017, 12:20 UTC.
All Bitcoin investors will automatically hold all their coins, duplicated onto both forks (Bitcoin-SegWit and Bitcoin Cash). However, in order to be sure you have all your coins automatically duplicated onto both forks, you must personally be in possession of your private keys before the August 1 fork. The only way you can gain possession of your private keys is by moving all your coins from any online exchanges or wallets, to a local wallet under your control - and you must do this before August 1, 2017, in order to guarantee your coins will be automatically duplicated onto both forks. Some online exchanges and wallets (most notably, the biggest exchange in the US, Coinbase) have announced they will refuse to give people their coins on the Bitcoin Cash fork after August 1 - already leading to a mass exodus of coins from those online wallets and exchanges.
DETAILS:
Below is the recent exchange between Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd, where they're arguing about whether the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector discovered by Peter Todd in 2015 has or has not been solved yet - and where Peter Todd makes the bombshell revelation that it has not been solved:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qdp90/peter_todd_warning_on_segwit_validationless/dkwvyim/?context=3
https://archive.fo/zVP35
u/nullc:
This was resolved a long time ago ...
u/petertodd:
Hmm?
1) Your first link doesn't resolve the problem at all - compact blocks do not work in adversarial scenarios, particularly for issues like this one.
2) Your second link - my "follow up post" - is just a minor add-on to the original post, noting that validationless mining can continue to be allowed. Calling it me "saying I thought things would be okay" is a mis-characterization of that email.
[...]
ydtm's scenarios are realistic...
u/nullc:
You have the right answer: we know how to block it, and if abuse happens there would be trivial political will to deploy the countermeasure (and perhaps before, but considering the fact that the same miners that have been most aggressive in holding segwit up are the same ones that still visibly engage in spy mining, it may have to wait).
Remark:
Note how Greg engages in his usual tactics of distortion, half-truths, misquoting people, etc. - in order to spread his propaganda and lies.
A more-complete link to the same thread (from above) is here, showing some additional comments which also branched off from that thread:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qdp90/peter_todd_warning_on_segwit_validationless/dkwoata/
https://archive.fo/MrMcp
Here's the devastating video by Peter Rizun detailing how "SegWit validatonless mining" would decrease the security of the Bitcoin SegWit blockchain / ledger:
Peter Rizun: The Future of Bitcoin Conference 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO176mdSTG0
The main points made by Peter Rizun in that presentation are summarized on one of his slides, reproduced below in its entirety for convenience:
  1. SegWit coins have a different definition than bitcoins, which gives them different properties.
  2. Unlike with bitcoins, [with SegWit coins] miners can update their UTXO sets without witnessing the previous owners' digital signatures.
  3. The previous owners' digital signatures have significantly less value to a miner for SegWit coins than for bitcoins - because miners do no require them [the digital signatures] in order to claim fees [when mining SegWit bitcoins].
  4. Although a stable Nash equilibrium exists where all miners witness the previous owners for bitcoins, one [such a Nash equilibrium] does not exist for SegWit coins.
  5. SegWit coins have a weaker security model than bitcoins.
Here's the blog post by Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem where he describes the same flaw with SegWit - "a simple yet disastrous side effect caused by SegWit fixing malleability in an incorrect manner":
The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
https://bitcrust.org/blog-incentive-shift-segwit
SegWit transactions will be less secure than non-SegWit transactions
If the flippening occurs for the 20% smallest (e.g. most bandwidth restricted) miners, a 31% miner could start stealing SegWit transactions!
We cannot mess with the delicate incentive structures that hold Bitcoin together.
Finally, below are four recent posts from me, where I've been attempting to alert people about the serious dangers of the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector - and the dangers, in general, of SegWit "allowing miners to avoid downloading signature data".
So SegWit would actually destroy the very essence of what defines a bitcoin - because, recall that in the whitepaper, Satoshi defined a "bitcoin" as a "chain of digital signatures".
Note that the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector could only happen on the Core's radical, irresponsible Bitcoin SegWit fork.
This attack is totally impossible on the original version of Bitcoin (now called "Bitcoin Cash") - because Bitcoin Cash does not support Core's dangerous, messy SegWit hack.
Note:
Many of the people attempting to rebut my claims in the three posts below were totally confused: they apparently thought this attack is about non-mining nodes (what they call "full nodes") failing to validate transactions.
But actually (as Peter Todd clearly described in his original warning, and as Peter Rizun and Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem also described in their warnings), this attack vector involves mining nodes mining transactions without ever validating or even downloading the signatures.
Just read these two sentences and you'll understand why a SegWit Coin is not a Bitcoin: Satoshi: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures." // Core: "Segregating the signature data allows nodes to avoid downloading it in the first place, saving resources."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qb61g/just_read_these_two_sentences_and_youll/
Peter Todd warning on "SegWit Validationless Mining": "The nightmare scenario: Highly optimised mining with SegWit will create blocks that do no validation at all. Mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain, producing blocks that appear totally normal and contain apparently valid txns."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qdp90/peter_todd_warning_on_segwit_validationless/
BITCRUST 2017-07-03: "The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit: Peter Rizun pointed out a flaw in SegWit (discussed by Peter Todd) that makes it unacceptably dangerous. A txn spending a SegWit output will be less safe than a txn spending a non-SegWit output, and therefore will be less valuable."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6q149z/bitcrust_20170703_the_dangerously_shifted/
SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6oxesh/segwit_would_make_it_harder_for_you_to_prove_you/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

around $60 in about a week and a half, $49 of that from one site.

Opinion Outpost fillout surveys for points, redeem points for paypal, amazon gift cards, frequent flyer miles, a couple of others that i don't recall cause i only cash out to paypal. 100 pts = $1 on paypal, and most surveys are around 15-25 pts, plus every so often you'll get bonus pts. i've earned and successfully cashed out $49 in a little over a week. no referral system to worry about, about an hour a day should be fine, i keep doin surveys til i run out for the day. heads up, a couple of them will say stuff like "select 3 out of 10 for this" just to make sure you aren't clicking wildly but thats rare. $10 minimum FIRST payout to paypal, $3 minimum after that, transfers to paypal within minutes. [Opinion Outpost](www.opinionoutpost.com)
the rest of this is ways to earn bitcoin, but since the value tends to fluctuate its hard to say how much you could make, but my bitcoin wallet is at about $15 (combined from these sources) since i started.
Land of Bitcoin this one will take you to tons of faucets and (loosely) keep track of when they are ready to dispense again. i would recommend hiding faucets that don't payout to a microwallet.org or coinbox.me account, which is just a handful, mostly so that you can more easily keep track of all your loose satoshi floating around out there. i suggest creating an account and leaving the main page open, you'll get more free satoshi and if the faucet ever stops just enter the captcha and more free comin your way. also earned a decent amount playing the Kate poker free-rolls, but just a heads up it didn't adjust for daylight savings so you'll have to check Kate Poker for when the freerolls actually start Referral Non Referral
Earn Crypto this one is a bit of a mixed bag, you have to be careful about the offers it has or you'll wind up with a bit of spyware and such. do the surveys and account creation stuff (on a throw away email) for easy "crypto points" which can then be exchanged for Bitcoin, Dogecoin, Litecoin, Peercoin, Namecoin, you pretty much name it, even Linden for second life, seriously. Avoid the "supersonicad" section and do the Peanut surveys or the Crowdflower tasks and watch the occasional video for the most "crypto points" ever 1000 crypto can be exchanged for you preferred coin. i got 1400 points for creating a fake turbotax account in about 15 seconds. AVOID any offers that want you to download something or check your credit scores, for pretty much anything else a throwaway email is all youll need but i STRONGLY recommend just stickin to the peanut lab surveys. Referral Non Referral
Bit Chest a simple temp wallet and a list of consistently paying faucets that you can use ever 30 minutes will earn you the minimum payout of 5000 satoshi in a bout a day with very little effort. no muss, no fuss, NO SIGNUP, just enter a bitcoin wallet address
Qoinpro this is the only true faucet i've found in my opinion, but if you are a bitcoin person its also the lowest paying, relying more on referral system to actually earn you something. this site pays you Bitcoin(0.00000001), Litecoin (0.00000030), Feathercoin (0.00002419), Fedoracoin (0.39141087), and infinitecoin (0.02272727), in small amounts every 24 hours. people are pushing for them to add dogecoin to the faucet but its not there yet if you're a dogeperson Referral Non Referral
Freebitcoinz 2000 free satoshi ever 24 hours for just entering 2 captcha's. quick and simple. for every 1000 a referral earns you earn an additonal 250 Referral Non Referral
update: just wanna say thanks to everyone who clicked on my various referrals :)
submitted by graavity81 to beermoney [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/btc] Holy shit! Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd both just ADMITTED and AGREED that NO solution has been im...

The following post by ydtm is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ btc/comments/6qftjc
The original post's content was as follows:
UPDATE - Below is an ELI5 (based on a comment below by u/cryptorebel, and another comment below by u/H0dl) of this silent-but-deadly, ledger-corrupting novel attack vector which will inevitably happen on the Bitcoin SegWit fork (but which can never happen on the Bitcoin Cash fork - because Bitcoin Cash does not use SegWit for this very reason, because all the smart people already know that SegWit is not Bitcoin):
ELI5:
Basically miners can be incentivized to mine without validating all of the data. Currently this problem already happens without SegWit, but there exists a Nash Equilibrium (from game theory), where the incentives make sure that this problem does not get out of hand - because currently if the percentage of "validationless miners" gets too high, then (in the system as it is now), validationless mining becomes unprofitable, and easy to attack.
But SegWit would significantly change these incentives. SEPARATING THE SEGWIT DATA FROM THE BLOCKCHAIN ENLARGES THE PROBLEM, RESULTING IN a change to the Nash Equilibrium and AN UNSTABLE AND LESS SECURE SYSTEM where miners are encouraged to do validationless mining at higher rates.
For example, if 20% of smaller struggling miners are incentivized to perform validationless mining, an attacking miner with as little as 31% hash could suddenly also "go validationless" (because 20% + 31% = 51%), forking the network back to pre-SegWit-as-a-soft-fork and stealing "Anyone-Can-Spend" transactions, causing mass confusion and havoc.
In fact, as Peter Rizun pointed out below: WITH SEGWIT THERE WOULD NOT EVEN BE ANY PROOF THAT THE THEFT HAD ACTUALLY OCCURRED. Meanwhile, with Satoshi's original Bitcoin (now renamed Bitcoin Cash to distinguish it from Core's "enhanced" version of Bitcoin incorporating SegWit), proof of the theft would at least exist in the blockchain. This highlights Peter Rizun's main assertion that SEGWIT BITCOIN HAS A MUCH WEAKER "SECURITY MODEL" THAN SATOSHI'S ORIGINAL BITCOIN - a scathing condemnation of SegWit which Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is apparently unable to rebut.
Greg Maxwell made some inaccurate statements trying to claim that this kind of attack would never happen - arguing that because Compact Blocks are smaller than SegWit blocks (30kb vs 750kb), this would disincentivize such an attack. But Peter Todd pointed out that DISINCENTIVIZING NON-MALICIOUS MINERS from doing this is not the same thing as PREVENTING MALICIOUS MINERS from doing this - because the difference between 30kb vs 750kb would obviously not prevent a malicious miner from performing this attack.
Other people have also pointed out that by discarding the fundamental definition of a "bitcoin" from Satoshi's whitepaper ("We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures"), SegWit would open the door to various new failure modes and attack vectors, by encouraging miners to "avoid downloading the signature data". This could lead to what Peter Todd calls the "nightmare scenario" where "mining could continue indefinitely on an invalid chain" - and people wouldn't even notice (because so many SegWit miners were no longer actually downloading and validating signatures).
Background
This debate is all happening as Bitcoin is about to fork into two separate, diverging continuations (or "spinoffs") of the existing ledger or blockchain, as of August 1, 2017, 12:20 UTC.
  • "BITCOIN" (ticker: BTC): This is an "enhanced" version of Bitcoin, heavily modified by Greg Maxwell and Core to add support for SegWit, and which is also expected to support 2 MB "max blocksize" in 3 months, versus
  • "BITCOIN CASH" (ticker: BCC, or BCH): This is essentially Satoshi's original Bitcoin, now temporarily renamed Bitcoin Cash for disambiguation purposes. It includes a minimal tweak to immediately support 8 MB "max blocksize" for faster transactions and lower fees. Most importantly, Bitcoin Cash expressly prohibits support for SegWit - in order to protect against the failures and attacks enabled by SegWit's discarding of signature data.
All Bitcoin investors will automatically hold all their coins, duplicated onto both forks (Bitcoin-SegWit and Bitcoin Cash). However, in order to be sure you have all your coins automatically duplicated onto both forks, you must personally be in possession of your private keys before the August 1 fork. The only way you can gain possession of your private keys is by moving all your coins from any online exchanges or wallets, to a local wallet under your control - and you must do this before August 1, 2017, in order to guarantee your coins will be automatically duplicated onto both forks. Some online exchanges and wallets (most notably, the biggest exchange in the US, Coinbase) have announced they will refuse to give people their coins on the Bitcoin Cash fork after August 1 - already leading to a mass exodus of coins from those online wallets and exchanges.
DETAILS:
Below is the recent exchange between Greg Maxwell and Peter Todd, where they're arguing about whether the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector discovered by Peter Todd in 2015 has or has not been solved yet - and where Peter Todd makes the bombshell revelation that it has not been solved:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qdp90/peter_todd_warning_on_segwit_validationless/dkwvyim/?context=3
https://archive.fo/zVP35
u/nullc:
This was resolved a long time ago ...
u/petertodd:
Hmm?
1) Your first link doesn't resolve the problem at all - compact blocks do not work in adversarial scenarios, particularly for issues like this one.
2) Your second link - my "follow up post" - is just a minor add-on to the original post, noting that validationless mining can continue to be allowed. Calling it me "saying I thought things would be okay" is a mis-characterization of that email.
[...]
ydtm's scenarios are realistic...
u/nullc:
You have the right answer: we know how to block it, and if abuse happens there would be trivial political will to deploy the countermeasure (and perhaps before, but considering the fact that the same miners that have been most aggressive in holding segwit up are the same ones that still visibly engage in spy mining, it may have to wait).
Remark:
Note how Greg engages in his usual tactics of distortion, half-truths, misquoting people, etc. - in order to spread his propaganda and lies.
A more-complete link to the same thread (from above) is here, showing some additional comments which also branched off from that thread:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6qdp90/peter_todd_warning_on_segwit_validationless/dkwoata/
https://archive.fo/MrMcp
Here's the devastating video by Peter Rizun detailing how "SegWit validatonless mining" would decrease the security of the Bitcoin SegWit blockchain / ledger:
Peter Rizun: The Future of Bitcoin Conference 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hO176mdSTG0
The main points made by Peter Rizun in that presentation are summarized on one of his slides, reproduced below in its entirety for convenience:
  1. SegWit coins have a different definition than bitcoins, which gives them different properties.
  2. Unlike with bitcoins, [with SegWit coins] miners can update their UTXO sets without witnessing the previous owners' digital signatures.
  3. The previous owners' digital signatures have significantly less value to a miner for SegWit coins than for bitcoins - because miners do no require them [the digital signatures] in order to claim fees [when mining SegWit bitcoins].
  4. Although a stable Nash equilibrium exists where all miners witness the previous owners for bitcoins, one [such a Nash equilibrium] does not exist for SegWit coins.
  5. SegWit coins have a weaker security model than bitcoins.
Here's the blog post by Bitcrust dev Tomas van der Wansem where he describes the same flaw with SegWit - "a simple yet disastrous side effect caused by SegWit fixing malleability in an incorrect manner":
The dangerously shifted incentives of SegWit
https://bitcrust.org/blog-incentive-shift-segwit
SegWit transactions will be less secure than non-SegWit transactions
If the flippening occurs for the 20% smallest (e.g. most bandwidth restricted) miners, a 31% miner could start stealing SegWit transactions!
We cannot mess with the delicate incentive structures that hold Bitcoin together.
Finally, below are four recent posts from me, where I've been attempting to alert people about the serious dangers of the "SegWit validationless mining" attack vector - and the dangers, in general, of SegWit "allowing miners to avoid downloading signature...
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Sentinel: Bitcoin Watch-Only Mobile Wallet Watching Only Wallet Bitcoin Q&A: Derivation paths and watch-only wallets Virtual Wallet  Watching-Only Wallets

A watch-only address is a public bitcoin addresses youve imported into your wallet. This isa cool, useful feature if you want to monitor activity at a particular bitcoin address. You can import any existing bitcoin address ( like this one, for example ) into your wallet as a watch-only address, which will incorporate all of its incoming and outgoing transactions into your live transaction feed ... As for how many bitcoins you'll have to dump from your digital wallet to get this watch on your wrist, it'll go for about 4 at their current value (that's $25,000, or about £19,089, AU$34,640 ... A watch-only wallet, as the name suggests it is just a Bitcoin wallet that is used for watching only. A watch only address doesn’t have private keys and you’ll not be able to spend any Bitcoins associated with that address. It is used only to view the balance and monitor the transaction activity of a particular wallet address. Lightning-only Bitcoin wallet: Android: Sats App: Mobile Non-Custodial Wallet connected to Casa Node: iOS & Android (Beta) Zap: Desktop Lightning Wallet. Mobile LND Interface : Desktop, iOS & Android: Zeus : Mobile app for LND users: iOS & Android [Note: Google Drive]: Google Drive backups on Breeze & Casa Keymaster allows those companies to access your email address, name and google profile ... Watch-only addresses are a Blockchain Wallet feature you can find in the Imported Addresses section of your wallet. In recent updates, we’ve made some improvements to how you can use watch-only addresses, and how the balances of these addresses ar...

[index] [8043] [29405] [21944] [5447] [16877] [13267] [7024] [21782] [14176] [8070]

Sentinel: Bitcoin Watch-Only Mobile Wallet

Better wallet recommendations and full video tutorials: BLUE WALLET https://bluewallet.io/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imMX7i4qpmg BLOCKSTREAM GREEN http... Copy & Paste Videos and Earn $100 to $300 Per Day - FULL TUTORIAL (Make Money Online) - Duration: 22:51. BIG MARK Recommended for you In this video, you'll learn how to get your first Bitcoin Wallet, so you have a way to store your Bitcoins. Free Video Reveals: How To Earn 3.24 BTC In 51 Da... Learn how to Import and Export the private key in the Bitcoin-Core Wallet and bitcoind.exe and bitcoin-cli.exe Why am I experiencing a mnemonic seed recovery failure? What are derivation paths? Is there a security risk for watch-only wallets with the master public key? Is there a security benefit from ...

#