So tek claims. He is partially right about the first one. A separation of signature data from the rest of the transaction data has indeed been proposed as a malleability fix. Funny thing about proposals - anyone can make one. Even an insane one. Not saying the concept of separating sig from tx is necessarily insane, just saying that there are essentially zero barriers to making a proposal.

To get the proposal implemented, however, requires consensus. There is no consensus for this proposal at this time.


Despite a direct challenge, tek has provided zero rationale for tek's claim that this proposal will change Bitcoin's security model. Zero. Tek merely dodges the question. See: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/2040221.msg34496915#msg34496915

It is possible there is a proposal for BCH that separates sig from tx and changes the security model. Possible. until tek coughs up the text of the relevant proposal, there is no knowing.

Salacious claims require support of evidence. The ball is in tek's court. Put up or shut up. *

If tek can establish such a proposal actually exists, it is then impingent upon tek to show that there is a snowball's chance in hell of it ever getting adopted. As if.

Unless tek steps forward with some evidence, you can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited. *


I think you sum up the situation rather well - Bitcoin Cash users are unlikely to accept being forced into such a system.

*edit: tek posted while I was composing this. From a quick scan, tek has identified a specific proposal, though tek's claims will still be debunked using this new evidence. Stay tuned.

The proposed fixes are listed here

https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/workgroups/blob/master/wg-malfix/summaries/20180130%20-%20Meeting%20Summary.md

Yes they are proposals nothing more I'm not saying that any will be adopted just that their is a chance

As for Bitcoin Cash users won't accept being forced into a new system the whole premise of Bitcoin cash is users nodes don't matter only mining nodes matter so you will get forced if the exchanges upgrade and the miners upgrade the users are forced to either upgrade because you use SPV wallets or sell taking huge losses


The only reason BTC users can have a say is the users run the majority of the nodes therefore the miners etc won't switch as it's not in their interest to mine something the vast majority of users define worthless

You posted that earlier and yes I saw

That vid of Roger and LN that's using eclair it's one of the early betas and has some issues I'm well aware of those I've had many failures with eclair that is not a issue with LN though just buggy early beta software that will be fixed

I've never had such issues with LND you just need to use the command line

Eclair also has other issues it currently cannot receive LN payments either only make them and does not advertise itself to the network or route payments for others

LND is the most reliable client so far yes there is still a lot of work to do

Bitcoin is the currency like USD
The block chain is where you store your money like your bank account
LN is a payment network like visa or MasterCard etc

When you go to shops etc you don't go and make a bank transfer to pay for something you use a payment processor and can only spend money that is on your bank account (your channel balance)

Finally. We get to something concrete and debatable. Thanks.


Exactly. Three people met and discussed what -- if anything -- to do about malleability. The outcome: nothing at this time. Slight preference for MalFix, but no consensus.

True, one of the participants was the individual who currently leads the market-leading client implementation. Was he the holdout? Who knows? Doesn't matter.

But you fail to support your claim that MalFix would result in Bitcoin Cash abandoning Bitcoin's tried and true security model. Again, put up or shut up. You may just be parroting my observation that The SegWit Omnibus Changeset has caused Bitcoin Segwit to abandon Bitcoin's tried and true security model. But you seem to fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. For it is not the separation of sig from tx within The SegWit Omnibus Changeset that has abandoned Bitcoin's security model. Rather, it is the misguided abortional crude hack of pretending that an anyonecanspend tx is anything other than exactly that, which has opened post- SegWit Omnibus Changeset Bitcoin Segwit to a myriad of new attack vectors.

Go sharpen your pencil and get back to us.

Again, until you provide some evidence, all can safely consider this claim debunked, dispatched, and discredited.


Again, you fundamentally misunderstand Bitcoin. Non-mining, fully-validating clients (often misrepresented as 'full nodes') have no power to effect the network itself. This is true whether discussing Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Segwit, or any other PoW satoshi-pattern cryptocurrency. Miners have the power to enact any change they want to - or the majority thereof does. This power is counterbalanced only by the power of users and holders to abandon any chain that does not implement the characteristics they desire. In contrast, the only power non-mining, fully-validating clients possess is to divorce themselves from the network. Period. Other than suiciding themselves, they do not affect they network in any way.

The above is true regardless of Bitcoin Cash or Bitcoin Segwit. For better or for worse, this is the system satoshi bequeathed us. True, miners are likely to use such chain abandonment as a signal of user/hodler displeasure. However, they are fully aware that such non-mining, fully-validating clients are subject to Sybil attacks. The only non-Sybillable resources are mining power and Bitcoin ownership, which is what makes the system work to begin with.


Exactly - and exactly identical for Bitcoin SegWit as for Bitcoin Cash.


No. Non-mining, fully-validating clients are the only entities in the system subject to Sybil attack. While they bring benefits to their owners, they do nothing for the network itself. They are merely a Sybiled proxy for economic power. Again, this is exactly identical for Bitcoin SegWit as for Bitcoin Cash.

I hate to feed the Blockstream/Core/LN trolls here in the Bitcoin Cash thread. But I will point out here that Bitcoin Cash is free of the cancer that is The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, upon which the current implementation of LN is dependent. As for LN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=pOZaLbUUZUs

I'm curious what Adam's "large teams full time job" will come up with to debunk (*ahem!*) the above.

Go ahead shills - rip it to shreds. If you can.

vicious little dump on BCH .

Like I said early beta client just because eclair still has some issues other don't

Eclair is going for the pretty GUI first while LND & c-lightning is concerntating on cli tools first.

While CLI is not user friendly it is far more versatile and there are GUIs from the creators of LND in the works and also ZAP wallet from Jack mallers

Just because eclair has some issues it does not mean the LN network is broken

Segwit is not just a malleability fix it also allows for further optimization through signature aggregation etc via a soft fork

Signature aggregation saves quite a bit if space and allows for many more transactions to be included in a block therefore further optimizing the available space and keeping node running costs and system resources down

wtf do you smoke m8? seriously...are you ok?
You cant seem to make your mind up can you...

yesterday it was nothing more, today its not just...whats it going to be tomorrow lol
its over m8

SEGWIT IS SHIT.....oh and turn it sideways and stick it straight up your candy ass  

Thankyou for confirming you know nothing  about the rock