CSW on Nodes, the Lightning Network, and SegWit

zbingledack [7:54 AM]
Can anyone summarize why non-mining "full nodes" can't be considered to validate? And in what sense of "validate"?

[7:58]
I would like to understand "not mining but acting as if they are" (edited)

cryptorebel [7:58 AM]
probably because anybody can spin up full non-mining nodes and you cannot trust them to be incentivized to be accurate, anybody can sybil attack non-mining nodes. Mining nodes require POW, so you know they are legit (edited)

[8:00]
I am guessing this is more BS from Greg Orwell, but interested in what Craig's response would be to him: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6aawgn/craig_wright_has_some_interesting_criticisms_of/dhd4jsw/
reddit
Craig Wright has some interesting criticisms of Segregated Witness, says segwit may allow developers to set fees centrally and also results in miners being incentivized to not validate fully. • r/btc
4 points and 6 comments so far on reddit

checksum0 [8:01 AM]
If you spin up enough "full node"

[8:02]
You can pretty much censor the network by preventing legit tx from reaching miners

[8:02]
That is pretty much what is already happening. My nodes are setup to mine some weird tx no other miners will do (edited)

[8:02]
But I never get them in my mempool to begin with

[8:03]
(Mostly, coin age based free txns that I'm willing to mine, though they gotta be really old)

csw [8:25 AM]
@checksum0 No, that is not how node percolation works.

[8:25]
Have a read of:
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1751-8113/49/34/345601

[8:26]
The number of nodes are not the factor. This is the flaw in the plan.

new messages
[8:27]
They think that they can attack the network with many small systems. The reality is that a few well connected nodes (miners) cover more than several 1000s of wallets (miners are nodes).

checksum0 [8:31 AM]
Thanks for the input CSW.

macsga [8:31 AM]
good morning @csw

checksum0 [8:31 AM]
Can you expand on @zbingledack question?

new messages
zbingledack [8:48 AM]
Is the position that any "full node" (wallet) can upgrade itself to being a true node simply by turning on mining (even with super-slow CPU)?

altoidnerd [8:50 AM]
joined private from an invitation by @macsga

macsga [8:50 AM]
@altoidnerd is a fellow physicist and a personal friend

[8:50]
welcome aboard man

[8:50]
enjoy your stay

gregnie [8:50 AM]
the non-mining nodes wouldn't validate the blocks before Core 0.8.x, Core changed that.

cryptorebel [8:52 AM]
well Craig did mention lottery earlier when talking about mining, so I guess even a small ROI miner might be considered full node, they would be more trusted and more incentivized to have a true history of the ledger, but not sure how it would all play out

zbingledack [8:52 AM]
Or is it more a matter of "the more you mine, the more of a bona fide network node you are"?

[8:53]
More hashpower = more of a node?

macsga [8:53 AM]
I'd be more concerned on what extra a "full" node has, instead of a "wallet"

[8:54]
ie: what is it that differentiates it ?

zbingledack [8:55 AM]
<rereading the SPV section of the whitepaper>

altoidnerd [8:58 AM]
Thanks @macsga

csw [9:00 AM]
Lightning is all about creating a global credit network
Lightning ties funds up for 6 months or so
How many people have 6 months available to place into a bank?

The alternative is that you loan the funds.
Imagine a global credit network run by Russian Oligarchs....

macsga [9:01 AM]
erk... :neutral_face:

csw [9:08 AM]
Simple logic - please think it through.

[9:08]
Start with the average savings of any person

[9:08]
Extend this to locking funds for 6 months

zbingledack [9:12 AM]
Whitepaper SPV section: "As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker."

Honest = seeking profit in BTC?

overpowered by an attacker = someone not seeking BTC profit mines a few blocks in row (intending to doublespend, say)?

"While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency."

"Invalid block" here means what? A doublespend doesn't require invalid blocks. So this makes me wonder what is really meant by "attacker" above?

csw [9:15 AM]
Honest = seeking profit in BTC using the rules

Invalid block - a UTXO that is assigned to steal funds - not a double spend, a theft (edited)

[9:17]
Say 10% miners discover an invalid block but there has been 1million USD to the other 90%... Will they give up funds to stop the theft?

SegWit calls for and incentivises SPV mining. That is, no validation mining...

zbingledack [9:38 AM]
Ah, so an "attacker" here refers to a miner who is hoping to fool SPV wallets (and SPV miners) by mining a block that breaks (majority-hashpower-determined) block validity rules and thus won't be part of the chain constructed by the hashpower majority.

If I have that right, what then is meant by the network being "overpowered" by the attacker? They get lucky and mine a block or two in a row?

[9:41]
@awemany

csw [9:54 AM]
You are thinking far too small.

mwilcox [9:55 AM]
SPV with no witness data means that the rules to determine whether a tx was correct is not bound into the PoW

csw [9:55 AM]
SegWit separates the signatures and the hash for the TX

Most and this is demonstrated and argued by Core, most miners will no longer validate.

[9:55]
:slightly_smiling_face:

[9:56]
I like it when people start to think...

mwilcox [9:57 AM]
the requirement needs to remain that you must validate transactions according to the previous rules to receive the reward for the next block

[9:57]
it doesn't matter if everyone gets together to 'agree' to change the rules because whoever actually finds the block is still motivated to be greedy and delay it for the next guy

csw [9:58 AM]
Agreed.

zbingledack [9:58 AM]
Right but just to confirm, in the original whitepaper the intended referrent of "an attacker" here was a miner hoping to fool SPV wallets

csw [9:58 AM]
No changing the rules mid game.

[9:58]
Start an Alt for that

mwilcox [9:58 AM]
as a miner, as long as you get your reward according to the _old_ rules, you're happy

[9:58]
the purpose of PoW is to protect the future state as much as it is the previous

csw [9:59 AM]
Yes, fooling SPV for a quick buy and run etc... not to take over and make this a part of the system

[10:00]
The game is a "superGame". This is not one like a prisoners dilemma. It is a game that follows a game that follows a game....

mwilcox [10:00 AM]
you're always going to be conservative when mining for a reward - no one wants to be the first guy to mine a forked ruleset if it might not get adopted

[10:00]
so everyone passes the buck along

csw [10:00 AM]
:slightly_smiling_face:

mwilcox [10:01 AM]
its the recursive nature of the function that makes it dependable (edited)

zbingledack [10:01 AM]
A Keynesian beauty contest of games? :)

csw [10:01 AM]
In SegWit, changes no longer require all this... you can add new signatures and Schnorr and the like with little pushback, just new Op_Ver statements
 2 replies Last reply today at 10:09 AM View thread

csw [10:02 AM]
Nasty miners will not change... just make the change as a dev...

mwilcox [10:03 AM]
btw PoS actually has the opposite effect where you get forced to pick a ruleset fork you don't agree with (edited)

[10:03]
(LN is PoS)

cryptorebel [10:07 AM]
weird thought: POS is more like Democracy but POW is more like a Republic
1 reply Today at 10:11 AM View thread

csw [10:09 AM]
Craig likes old Rome...

[10:09]
The US WAS old Rome...

cryptorebel [10:09 AM]
yeah it was good for a while, until the communists took over by gradualism

csw [10:10 AM]
No, socialists

[10:10]
There are MANY ways to be socialist

[10:10]
Even Hitler was socialist

cryptorebel [10:10 AM]
yeah true

csw [10:10 AM]
They say there is no way to make money running a LN node

zbingledack [10:10 AM]
So it seems Greg and Co. have misinterpretated the "overpowered by an attacker" part to mean majority hashpower "attacker" (in quotes because majority hashpower _decides_ the rules and thus - by @csw's definition of "honest" above - is honest and cannot be an attacker), and that SPV as described in the whitepaper "doesn't exist yet" because we don't have the alert system.

mwilcox [10:11 AM]
they don't call Vitalik Buterin the Digital Lenin for nothing

csw [10:11 AM]
There is in a credit economy

[10:12]
And they do not seem to want to make an alert system in any event

[10:12]
Do you really think they misunderstood any of this?

zbingledack [10:12 AM]
And, says Greg, since SPV doesn't exist yet, we must have tons of "full nodes" and so we cannot have big blocks (edited)

csw [10:12 AM]
LN expands in factorial terms.

[10:12]
2 networks - 2 linkages

[10:13]
3 = 6

[10:13]
4 = 24 (edited)

[10:13]
5 = 120

[10:13]
6 = 720

[10:13]
...

[10:14]
It would be a central credit network

[10:14]
Run by the very few

[10:14]
At rates set by the few

zbingledack [10:15 AM]
I suspect the misinterpretation has at least grown mighty convenient

csw [10:15 AM]
uploaded this image: image.png
Add Comment

csw [10:15 AM]
We have a form of SPV... we call it a full node...

[10:16]
Please tell me what described in that caption is not what they call a "Full node"?

[10:16]
I must be missing something.... It all seems clear to me :slightly_smiling_face:

zbingledack [10:18 AM]
It'd be nice to have a table showing what Core thinks SPV, lightweight client, full node, and miner mean, versus what was actually meant by those terms (edited)

cryptorebel [10:19 AM]
so we are victims of Greg Orwellian double speak coming from Core, full nodes are mining nodes, and what they call "full nodes" today should more accurately be called SPV nodes

csw [10:19 AM]
That would make it too easy to debate

mwilcox [10:20 AM]
@csw do you count an SPV client as a miner if it's completing hash puzzles?

cryptorebel [10:20 AM]
yeah good question, even if the ROI is very low

[10:21]
or not ROI, but hash rate is very low

zbingledack [10:21 AM]
Core:

Miner -
Full node -
Lightweight client -
Thin client -
SPV wallet -
Wallet -

Fill in the blanks?

csw [10:22 AM]
I will not say details yet. I was in a meeting yesterday. It was a person involved heavily in SegWit. They can say who later if they like...

"The paper is 10 years old, it is time to correct it"
"We should not be restricted in what people who do not understand want"
"Terms change, it is time to accept that the meaning of works is not fixed (in reference to nodes)"

My response...
"A dog is not a cat. The only way a dog goes meow is when I freeze it and saw it in half and the dog is less effective as a dog after that" (edited)

[10:23]
SPV miners are parasitical. The network can survive a few and the odd "test" packet with a flaw helps make them less profitable in that they lose blocks.

[10:24]
Changed word meaning sounds very Orwellian to me...

zbingledack [10:25 AM]
CSW definitions:

Miner -
SPV miner -
SPV wallet -
... -

cryptorebel [10:25 AM]
that sounds like Cobra Bitcoin he always wants to correct the whitepaper

mwilcox [10:25 AM]
I don't see any issue with the whitepaper

csw [10:25 AM]
uploaded and commented on this image: image.png
1 Comment
Segwit user...
"Do you run SegWit?"

Core: " we have near to 100% support for SegWit in our poll of Mr Maxwell and his cat.

csw [10:27 AM]
Miner - See 2008 paper

SPV miner - Mines on the header and does not validate. Basically a small profit if the number of parasites in the system are low (to be expected)

SPV wallet - See caption and paper. No change in terms

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=286.msg2947#msg2947
bitcointalk.org
Scalability
Scalability

zbingledack [10:28 AM]
Yup. So I'm then interested in cataloging how Core changed the terms.

csw [10:28 AM]
http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/188/

new messages
zbingledack [10:29 AM]
If Core terms can even be nailed down (usually they cannot)

csw [10:29 AM]
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

[10:29]
Page 5

[10:29]
Sect 8

[10:30]
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he's convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it's timestamped in. He can't check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it.

[10:32]
What we have in SegWit is a simplification of an attack:
"While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, *the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. *"

This is now:
While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the *simplified SegWit miners can continue to hold more than 50% of the network.

zbingledack [10:34 AM]
Just to confirm, "simplified Segwit miners" here means miners doing SPV mining due to being incentivized to do so by Segwit?

csw [10:36 AM]
Yes.

[10:36]
There are no payments to validate in SegWit, just to accept

[10:36]
As long as the majority does this (and this becomes the incentive) then miners stop validating

zbingledack [10:37 AM]
This has probably been covered before, but as a miner, how do I make extra profits by SPV mining under Segwit?

mwilcox [10:37 AM]
here's another way to think about it: when the tx must be validated by other miners, an invalid block is an _opportunity_ for other miners to call them out

csw [10:38 AM]
Miners are nodes. This is well defined in the code
https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/src/main.h#L795

// Nodes collect new transactions into a block, hash them into a hash tree,
// and scan through nonce values to make the block's hash satisfy proof-of-work
// requirements.  When they solve the proof-of-work, they broadcast the block
// to everyone and the block is added to the block chain.  The first transaction
// in the block is a special one that creates a new coin owned by the creator
// of the block.
GitHub
trottier/original-bitcoin
original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

mwilcox [10:38 AM]
if you perform the trivial calculation to catch an invalid block you a) might be able to publish a better candidate or b) at least stop yourself from mining on the wrong HEAD

[10:38]
if everyone is segwit then you have NO INCENTIVE to do so

csw [10:38 AM]
It is defined in the readme.txt
https://github.com/trottier/original-bitcoin/blob/92ee8d9a994391d148733da77e2bbc2f4acc43cd/readme.txt#L34

To support the network by running a node, select:

 Options->Generate Coins
GitHub
trottier/original-bitcoin
original-bitcoin - This is a historical repository of Satoshi Nakamoto's original bitcoin sourcecode

[10:39]
With P2SH... who is to determine what is invalid?


[10:39]
The script can seem valid until you go to spend

[10:41]
A script that is not valid and is hidden can go a long time and be made to be deep in the chain...

[10:41]
Will miners give up fees to stop this?

zbingledack [10:42 AM]
Damn. I get it. Fuck.

csw [10:43 AM]
CSW is evil... he will ruin Core's plans :slightly_smiling_face:


macsga [10:44 AM]
amen to that :stuck_out_tongue:

travin [10:44 AM]
Well, I made the right decision of not sleeping. Pastebinning


zbingledack [10:44 AM]
Basically Segwit removes the natural profit motive that makes miners want to validate because of the chance of catching their peers in a heist

macsga [10:44 AM]
thanks @travin


mwilcox [10:44 AM]
yep

travin [10:44 AM]
https://pastebin.com/gjsGpBb9 for everyone looking to catch up. (edited)

csw [10:45 AM]
But, profit is evil, we need to make all people (miners) do what is right :slightly_smiling_face:

csw [10:46 AM]
For the betterment of those in control at least...

[10:46]
I am an evil capitalist remember


zbingledack [10:47 AM]
And that profit motive is exactly the kind of thing Core devs would miss. I recall a comment on the mailing list saying something like, "Nice to see price and profit being mentioned here." Like it's a once a year occurrence.

csw [10:47 AM]
I am not Satoshi, SN was like Ghandi (who caused 20-30 million people to die by the way as a direct consequence of his actions).

This crazy idea that self sufficiency is better than trade....

cryptorebel [10:49 AM]
I made a pastebin of everything from the beginning: https://pastebin.com/QWgGtwgr
Pastebin
bitsko 3:35 PM   joined private, and invited @tomothy, @vlad2vlad, @onchainscali - Pastebin.com (19kB)

[10:49]
I set to private and won't share it publicly, you guys can decide that if you want (edited)

travin [10:50 AM]
Sweet. Redundancy is good. Yeah, mine are all unlisted as well.

macsga [10:50 AM]
I think this is mandatory reading for everyone who cares about bitcoin


new messages
csw [10:50 AM]
Gandhian economics has the following underlying principles:
Satya (truth)
Ahimsa (non-violence)
Aparigraha (non-possession) or the idea that no one possesses anything

macsga [10:50 AM]
so, public I'd propose

mwilcox [10:51 AM]
I wrote an article a while back about PoS but the same point fits into this conversation re SW.

mwilcox [10:51 AM]
uploaded this image: Pasted image at 2017-05-10, 8:51 PM
Add Comment

vlad2vlad [10:54 AM]
I agree, especially the nodes/LN notes should be public.  Anybody with hair a brain should see what's going on.

travin [10:54 AM]
Ok, changing this one to public. Keeping the rest unlisted.

csw [10:54 AM]
Ghandi felt that a capitalist with a benevolent heart was the right answer. “No doubt capital is lifeless, but not the capitalists who are amenable to conversion.”

He felt that the rich must hold their wealth in trust on behalf of the whole of society. He said: “Real socialism had been handed down to us by our ancestors who taught: ‘All land belongs to Gopal’.” In other words, the good capitalist is one who thinks of society before his own profits.

The result was famine. The country was plunged into mass death, poverty and starvation at rates that nowhere existed prior to this (and then were copied in China)

new messages
[10:55]
Craig is an evil SELF INTERESTED capitalist!
This is why AA and others loathe me.

macsga [10:56 AM]
@csw what happens next? (ie: in the case BTC is the global reserve currency)

csw [10:57 AM]
Gandhi suggested  that *“India must protect her primary industries even as a mother protects her children against the whole world...”*.

He further wrote: *“Much of the deep poverty of the masses is due to the ruinous departure from swadeshi in economic and industrial life. If not an article of commerce had been brought from outside India, she would be today a land flowing with milk and honey!”*

Basically, we sell out goods and this is why India is poor. We need to stop all that nasty trade....

They did. 10s of millions died.

new messages
[10:58]
Next, CSW MAKES BTC a global reserve money :slightly_smiling_face:
Nasty capitalists and evil countries and banks start to use it in COMPETITION :slightly_smiling_face:

[10:59]
And I get my sharks - not with lasers, with photon torpedoes :slightly_smiling_face:

macsga [10:59 AM]
lol

csw [10:59 AM]
.

ONLY Nixon could go to China>...

ONLY evil Craig could do what he is doing :slightly_smiling_face:

mwilcox [10:59 AM]
wealth is an output of prodictivity right, not the other way around

csw [11:00 AM]
Wealth is saved capital

new messages
zbingledack [11:00 AM]
@mwilcox Under PoW, the profit incentive is to call out deviations by (minority) miners, while under PoS it isn't. So basically Segwit moves us toward PoS-type security conditions? (edited)
1 reply Today at 11:02 AM View thread

csw [11:00 AM]
Capital in excess comes for trade, specialisation and productivity

[11:00]
:slightly_smiling_face:

[11:01]
SegShit allows the Devs to start to control what happens.

[11:01]
No more of that nasty unplanned economy and individual rights :slightly_smiling_face:

[11:01]
People need to know what to do.

cryptorebel [11:01 AM]
I guess socialism runs deep in India, recently I learned about this thing PROUT from India which is like socialism on steroids: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Utilization_Theory (edited)


csw [11:01 AM]
:wink:

cryptorebel [11:02 AM]
how to collapse links?

travin [11:04 AM]
X button on the upper left side next to the expansion

zbingledack [11:04 AM]
So mwilcox you mean in the case where most miners do SPV mine?

gregnie [11:04 AM]
I am a little slow and still doesn't get it, do you mean miners are incentivised to validate fully because they are forced to download the witness data ? If they can skip the witness data, then they won't validate? why?

cryptorebel [11:04 AM]
ahh, much better


new messages
mwilcox [11:05 AM]
@zbingledack yes

csw [11:05 AM]
SegWit has a centralised weight.
The payment is determined by Core, not markets...

macsga [11:05 AM]
it's much like the FED

csw [11:06 AM]
1 MB Block
3 MB Witness

Linear Block
Quadratic Witness

Paid for Blocks...
Underpaid for witness...

[11:06]
And if you disagree, we reduce the fees :wink:


[11:06]
BBL

joeldalais [11:07 AM]
its a poisoned carrot trick, @segwit

gregnie [11:10 AM]
It seems i understand a little now, i will try to explain it to some Chinese miners. :grinning:


new messages
zbingledack [11:11 AM]
@gregnie As I understand it, skipping the witness data saves time that could be spent mining, but miners won't do that very much now because they can gain more by catching another miner in such an error (and the more miners SPV mine, the greater the chance of catching one in an error, so under the current system SPV mining is self-limiting since incentives to call it out increase as more miners do it - making it forever a risky fringe activity - whereas under Segwit this self-limiting mechanism is removed) (edited)


gregnie [11:12 AM]
I want to write a post in Chinese about this, and post every where inside the GFW.


mwilcox [11:12 AM]
effectively it removes the monopoly that bitcoin has over sha256 proof of work. some proportion of blocks that are added to the chain will not be valid according to the protocol rules, you'll have to skip over them. this opens you up to an attack, where two btc forks could compete over the same hashpower and forever break the concept of a global consensus. the system only works when everyone converges to agree on the same answer. a block accepted by the mining network _has_ to be considered valid in order for things to function correctly (edited)

why would someone mine an invalid block? because someone paid them more than the block reward to do so...

[11:16]
other miners need to get a reward for cleaning things up

new messages
gregnie [11:16 AM]
This Segshit would poison the coin to death.

joeldalais [11:16 AM]
yep

[11:17]
think long term also, how much segwit would be stealing from miners, csw linked a bit above

csw [11:17 AM]
And CSW is NOT giving his coin up:P