Why does someone have to convince you that progress is necessary for innovation to continue?
Stagnation and it's subsequent results should be enough motivation. Change is a part of life, I prefer to be on the right side of it.
Topic: Convince me that SegWit is necessary (Read 2204 times)
I haven't heard one good reason to upgrade to SegWit. Just a bunch of nonsense about the network not being able to scale. Seems to be scaling just fine to me....
Is the whole network going to crash if there is a million unconfirmed transactions? I don't think so.
Where did all the SegWit supporters come from all of a sudden? Many users registering in the last month all of a sudden know everything about why Bitcoin needs SegWit.
Well, would you say that all the knowledgeable people (such as Andreas Antonopulos) are randomly saying that segregated witness is a must to be activated before we plan in increasing block size? those guys make a living out of knowing how bitcoin works, if all the best minds in the game agree that segwit is good, there must be something about it right? im not saying blindly believe the experts, do your research, but the fact the experts agree should tell you something already.
SegWit and LN are the best proposals so far that I have heard that can help towards achieving these goals.
Any side-chain can do that and it wouldn't need to modify the bitcoin protocol. So. As a maleability "fix" it's a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut with a rather large cost in data storage and distribution. The question is then; why is the tail wagging the dog?
Why do we need Lightning Network again?
Because we need to scale 1000000x solution. Not fucking 2x or 10x.
We need really cheap micro-payments.
We need INSTANT micro-payments, faster than 0.1 second.
We need SECURE INSTANT micro-payments.
We need BTC for 1 000 000 000 users, not for fucking early adopters, who does not understand how segwit/LN work, but they have their fucking opinion...
Agreed. I'm sick of paying 25 cents worth of Bitcoins in fees to pay $20 to an online retailer and having to wait 19 hours for 1 confirmation.
It should be fast.
It should be cheap.
It should be perfect.
SegWit and LN are the best proposals so far that I have heard that can help towards achieving these goals.
Why do we need Lightning Network again?
Because we need to scale 1000000x solution. Not fucking 2x or 10x.
We need really cheap micro-payments.
We need INSTANT micro-payments, faster than 0.1 second.
We need SECURE INSTANT micro-payments.
We need BTC for 1 000 000 000 users, not for fucking early adopters, who does not understand how segwit/LN work, but they have their fucking opinion...
Why do we need Lightning Network again?
I think we will need off-chain scaling solution to achieve mainstream if you want to maintain the useful properties that bitcoin has today.
That's what we are more or less talking about. Should Bitcoin as it is now go mainstream, even with 20 MB blocks it won't be able to process daily payments of average Joe.
The way bitcoin works is more akin to a settlement layer, not really a payment processor processing thousands of small-size transactions per second. I think we will need off-chain scaling solution to achieve mainstream if you want to maintain the useful properties that bitcoin has today.
And btw, let's think who is interested in spreading FUD about Segwit and LN, going as far as making ridiculous statements such as 'segwit is an altcoin'?
Should Bitcoin as it is now go mainstream, even with 20 MB blocks it won't be able to process daily payments of average Joe. So business of payment processors such as Visa will be unaffected. Nothing prevents them from being able to process payments denominated in Bitcoin just like they do it now with USD. That means of course that people will have to put their BTC in banks, fractional reserve banks precisely speaking. So Visa's business is unaffected, bank's business is less affected. Well it's a little conspiracy theory, don't take it too seriously.
Should Bitcoin as it is now go mainstream, even with 20 MB blocks it won't be able to process daily payments of average Joe. So business of payment processors such as Visa will be unaffected. Nothing prevents them from being able to process payments denominated in Bitcoin just like they do it now with USD. That means of course that people will have to put their BTC in banks, fractional reserve banks precisely speaking. So Visa's business is unaffected, bank's business is less affected. Well it's a little conspiracy theory, don't take it too seriously.
I have thought about this, and I cannot think of a way that LN can work without malleability being removed from Bitcoin
Take a look at this (not just quote, but whole post):Code:
TX1:
0) Pays 3x: (Alice + HA1 after T1) or (Bob after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
1) Pays x: (HB1 + Alice) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
2) Pays x: (HA1 + Bob) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
3) Pays 3x: (Bob + HB1 after T1) or (Alice after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
4) Pays Alice's change: (Alice)
5) Pays Bob's change: (Bob)
Frankly, I don't understand, how channels of indefinite duration could be created without SegWit or SIGHASH_NOINPUT or another possible patch, which makes txid independent on signatures. Explanation appreciated.
Bitcoin is expanding because it is a fantastic payment system, but it does not have the ability to become the dominant world payment system. There would be too many transactions for it to handle. It is the most sophisticated payment sytem in my opinion, and it has the potential to become even more sophisticated. SegWit allows it to incorporate these changes, and to keep the blockchain manageable. For this reason alone, I think SegWit is desirable, the other advantages are icing on the cake.
-snip-
The spam attacks cause everyone to pay more to get their transaction confirmed. If the max block size were increased then the cost of these spam attacks would grow exponentially, and the effectiveness of these transactions to decline.
The spam attacks cause everyone to pay more to get their transaction confirmed. If the max block size were increased then the cost of these spam attacks would grow exponentially, and the effectiveness of these transactions to decline.
A mere inconvenience, same as having to wait for a confirmation in order to make sure you can trust the input. Both have a cost, one in time, the other in coins.
-snip-
No, its not fixed. We just ignore all transactions. This causes issues for users using old software.
You can say the same thing about every soft fork. However users of non-full-node wallets should receive notification that their transactions have been rejected, which should hopefully get them to upgrade.No, its not fixed. We just ignore all transactions. This causes issues for users using old software.
They get messages alright, usually the message gives them no indication what to do though. You can blame that on bad error messages, its still a problem.
Full node users tend to be more active in upgrading, however they can view their transactions (or that their transactions have been rejected) on one of many block explorers, which might get them to upgrade in addition to the warning message to upgrade.
38% are currently running the latest version -> https://bitnodes.21.co/dashboard/?days=90
Old data are not shown (or only as other) so I cant say how long it exactly took until the network had upgraded to the mellability quick fix, but thats all it is. Im not inclined to believe that node operators are not more active in upgrading, unless you can show me data to support that statement.
-snip-
I am not sure what you are saying here? I am trying to describe the small number of businesses that are affected by malleability under current node rules.
I am not sure what you are saying here? I am trying to describe the small number of businesses that are affected by malleability under current node rules.
SegWit is not needed, its not necessary, Bitcoin would still exist and work without it. SegWit however properly fixes a long term problem that keeps coming back and is currently crudely fixed. It also offeres many opportunities for a larger number of different transaction types. The increase in transactions per block doesnt hurt either.
What is it about malleability that is such a big problem?
-snip-
-snip-
depends on what you consider big -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-transaction-malleability-attack-wave-another-stresstest-1198032
Same as the "spam attacks", yet somehow a lot of people think we need to do something about that in order to advance bitcoin.
Subsequent to that 'attack' the majority of nodes have been "programmed" to not relay high s-value signature transactions, so malleability has more or less been fixed for the end-user.
No, its not fixed. We just ignore all transactions. This causes issues for users using old software.
Non-upgraded users will probably not receive high s-value signature transactions because other upgraded nodes they are connected to will not rebroadcast such transactions, and because the overwhelming percentage of users will not even attempt to broadcast such transactions.
The only way that I am aware that a high s-value signature transaction to get confirmed is for a miner to accept such transaction directly and the only type of business that remains vulnerable to malleability are gambling establishments that allow for on-chain gambling (businesses that tentatively accept 0-confirmation transactions can ignore transactions in which there is an unconfirmed input to the funding transaction in order to prevent fraud).
Its working, yes. Is that the metric here?
What is it about malleability that is such a big problem?
-snip-
-snip-
depends on what you consider big -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-transaction-malleability-attack-wave-another-stresstest-1198032
Same as the "spam attacks", yet somehow a lot of people think we need to do something about that in order to advance bitcoin.
Subsequent to that 'attack' the majority of nodes have been "programmed" to not relay high s-value signature transactions, so malleability has more or less been fixed for the end-user.
No, its not fixed. We just ignore all transactions. This causes issues for users using old software.
The only way that I am aware that a high s-value signature transaction to get confirmed is for a miner to accept such transaction directly and the only type of business that remains vulnerable to malleability are gambling establishments that allow for on-chain gambling (businesses that tentatively accept 0-confirmation transactions can ignore transactions in which there is an unconfirmed input to the funding transaction in order to prevent fraud).
Its working, yes. Is that the metric here?
What is it about malleability that is such a big problem?
-snip-
-snip-
depends on what you consider big -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-transaction-malleability-attack-wave-another-stresstest-1198032
Subsequent to that 'attack' the majority of nodes have been "programmed" to not relay high s-value signature transactions, so malleability has more or less been fixed for the end-user. The only way that I am aware that a high s-value signature transaction to get confirmed is for a miner to accept such transaction directly and the only type of business that remains vulnerable to malleability are gambling establishments that allow for on-chain gambling (businesses that tentatively accept 0-confirmation transactions can ignore transactions in which there is an unconfirmed input to the funding transaction in order to prevent fraud).
What is it about malleability that is such a big problem?
-snip-
-snip-
depends on what you consider big -> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/new-transaction-malleability-attack-wave-another-stresstest-1198032
Here's my position, if Bitcoin is not good enough As-Is then why don't you all get together and create a better Alt-Coin?
Oh that's right you can't. So if you can't create a better Alt Coin then why screw up Bitcoin?
Oh that's right you can't. So if you can't create a better Alt Coin then why screw up Bitcoin?
If there are failure scenarios then I don't think it will work very well, nor do I think many people will be willing to even give it a try.
There are failure scenarios in everything. Not having segwit for LN introduces a few more possibilities for failure (if coded improperly) than without segwit. Not having segwit requires more complexity and thus a higher possibility of a bug.From a technical perspective, in a vacuum, LN should work once malleability is removed, assuming a client can be programmed in a way that it cannot be tricked into signing transactions "out of order". From an economical perceptive, I am not so sure for a couple of reasons.
If there are failure scenarios then I don't think it will work very well, nor do I think many people will be willing to even give it a try.
There are failure scenarios in everything. Not having segwit for LN introduces a few more possibilities for failure (if coded improperly) than without segwit. Not having segwit requires more complexity and thus a higher possibility of a bug. I understand that, but that is not how SegWit is being "sold" to Bitcoin users! What achow101 et al is saying is that SegWit is fixing his horrible malleability "problem" and will help Bitcoin scale with a defacto block size increase (via a discount in how much space SegWit signatures take up), but are leaving out the fact that LN/thunder cannot function without SegWit.
LN can function without segwit. It is just a lot more complicated and has a few more failure scenarios. With segwit, its implementation is much simpler.Jump to: