Topic: Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT! - page 5. (Read 1358 times)

which is a trojan horse. imagine the blockstream/barrysilbert team (many exchanges, merchants and devs that made up the majority of the NYA agreement) decided to add a new script that allowed any input to be added even if the signature didnt link to the input (eg i put doomads utxo's into a tx to me, without the signature needing to prove im doomad's utxo owner).

there are many many other dangerous implementations that can be added and by having its as 'soft fork' (no consensus required) means that there is no way to prevent it.

Welcome back! But,



More misinformation from franky1, what's new. You can't show anything/offer no input because there's nothing. Happy 2nd Segwit Anniversary!

no input does malleate the tx hash
the tx hash is created by hashing a complete tx. and as you yourself said no input can alter a input after its been written

the point being if i was using no-input, i made a tx and then copied the tx hash to then monitor the blockchain for broadcasts. whomever gets the tx next  could then add more inputs, take away inputs. which would alter the tx hash.

what no-input does is allow alterations of inputs without needing to change the signature script. its the signature that dos not alter. but the tx hash does.. which is what malleability is all about. altering the tx hash to broadcast a tx using an altered hash so someone monitoring a specific hash wont see it.

dang you really are believing the propaganda.
segwit does not have lower transaction BYTE hard drive storage size. it has UNCOUNTED size which they refer to as Virtual byte. these virtual bytes are used to make all the weight of a block appear as 1mb to not break the now outdated1mb rule

but when it comes to WEIGHT which does account for actual bytes. segwit tx actually uses more bytes compared to a legacy tx of same input/output count

maybe best to learn about segwit and how it mis-counts bytes


same could be said about the other way, using satoshi's instead of cents. less people are transacting as often because the cost is so high

the grand debate of bitcoins purpose WAS about a open currency without borders. yet the tx fee of bitcoin has ruled out utility to many countries of unbanked people

i am british but i travel alot. and while i see americans literally wanting to orgasm at the desire of a $20 tx fee to co-erse people over to LN so the west can make income as fee grabbing hubs, watchtowers, factories and routers. but the 3rd world countries are literally ignoring bitcoin because its been outpriced and made only fit for what they call the 'wall street crowd'

i have been subtle to tell some that i will offer them no input into their research of discovering which opcode will introduce malleability into segwit

if you cant figure it out, maybe you need to do more research

But yet because of fear of losing, he and his friends activated Segwit, crushed by non-earning nodes.

Simply, Segwit was starting to gain ground in the community, and in some of the Core developers. UASF were nodes "saying" that they only want a type of block, if miners can't give that type of block, their blocks will be rejected.

The miners believe in economic reality. They had no choice. The first miners to follow the community, and the developers will be the winners, and the miners left will be the losers. Why do you believe Segwit won?

the proposals (BIP118 is just one such proposal) for no-input opcodes don't malleate the transaction hash, that's not possible anymore.

They do alter (or malleate if you prefer) which input is used after the transaction has been written (but obviously not once it's confirmed)

This makes payment channel protocols much better. Using them for on-chain transactions has no benefit, and comes with the risk you mention; if you reuse an address, and you sent a no-input transaction from that address once before, someone could replay the old transaction to spend the newer input, as the old transaction didn't specify a particular input (hence "no-input"). But no wallet developer is going to give you the option to use no-input onchain, that'd be dumb

still, the devs have been talking about exactly how to design the no-input feature for maybe 1 year now. they're being very careful, because it's definitely possible for the user to shoot themselves in the foot if they get too inquisitive and start trying to use no-input in transactions without understanding how it could backfire on them. It's not possible to do anything like that in Bitcoin transactions now, all the footguns were taken out of the scripting language years ago

how exactly do you define "dominant chain"?
- having a minuscule hashrate, difficulty and proof of work compared to bitcoin?
- having a manipulated difficulty adjustment so they could mine 1000+ blocks per day compared to the normal ~144 blocks per day?
- being centralized?
- not being immutable due to the fact that they rolled back a bunch of blocks they didn't like using their centralized power?
- maybe by price, being worth 0.028BTC?
- or maybe by block size having blocks that are on average have always been much smaller than bitcoin? (200 kb BCH versus 1.3 MB bitcoin)

This thread sure brings back memories and its crazy how 2 years ago feels more like a decade in Crypto years. I used to be all over Reddit, Twitter and Bitcointalk and hear all these people going back and forth whether to activate it or not. There was that UASF campaign and then that Antminer CEO who controlled so much hashrate that the SEGWIT activation was more or less in his hands. Times were crazy.

It was so crazy that its the reason why I never sold my BCH after Aug 1st, because if for some odd reason BCH became the dominant chain and basically had a flippening, then I wanted to be hedged completely so I just held both coins. Which was smart since BCH shortly after was in the 4 digits.

Those sure were the days.

The fork happen 2years back when there was a reason for split between the blocks size and claim for real btc , this has been a great journey so dar for the btc as the lightning as help reduce the scalability of the btc and make the transaction more fast than expected.

franky1 is known to be a drama queen about everything when SegWit is involved
he may be talking about BIP-118 which "proposes" addition of a new sighash called NoInput. i don't know what it has anything with malleability but i have seen some concerns raised about it specially for when you do address reuse. although like many of the BIPs it is just a proposal that is not accepted.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0118.mediawiki
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2018-May/001242.html

He has been asked this question on numerous occasions and never answers it.  Also, his story has already changed since March, when he claimed they had already introduced it.  Now they apparently only want to introduce it:


So if they have introduced it, which one is it, Francis?  Which one allows malleation?  

I'm starting to think he doesn't actually know what the difference between a sighash flag and an opcode is.  But here he is on his little soapbox telling us that the developers don't know what they're doing.  

Oh I think Mr. Wu is doing better than most here.  

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihan_Wu


@WindFury, and your non-mining node still earns $zero before and after segwit. 
Does not look like you personally won anything.

It wasn't ideal, I admit, but it was what's best in that circumstance in my opinion. It showed that the top miners, and the top merchants can't co-opt the network.


"Miners" of which was really Jihan Wu, and his friends, who politicized the signalling process to activate. He got his war, it didn't end well for them.

Which is brilliant.  But, let's be honest, based on his posting history, it's not like franky1 is going to be thrilled about the prospect of making implementing features via soft forks easier, now, is it?  

In b4 he posts "another Core plot to bypass consensus blah, blah, blah".  

Segwit's script versioning also allows the introduction of new signature schemes relatively easily via soft fork. It makes implementing Schnorr signatures much easier. Schnorr signature aggregation can provide significant space and fee savings.

still thinking bitcoin cant scale is like kodak thinking digital photography wont succeed because of capacities of the time

the old debates about bytes has been busted so many times. we are in 2019 not 1994. we have fibre/5g internet not dial up. 4tb hard drives are under $£100

what can be optimised is not just the "size" which many fools think is the only debate. but also how the wallet apps load up.
EG the main complaint about "size" is not actually the size, its the delay at first loadup to then have a usable program. there are many ways to change it so people can be sending out transactions within seconds of opening the wallet instead of days/weeks.
emphasis: that is the main complaint


but concentrating just on segwit.. lets list what segwit promised and if it has/hasnt achieved it
1. better transaction capacity: no
    bytes per transaction has got worse since segwit.
    segwit is actually more bloaty.
    even with a 1.3x byte growth compared to ~2015 stats the tx count has not risen by 1.3x

2. fee efficiency: no
    fee's in 2015 where pennies with a top price of 25cents before users complained. fees now are more by averaging 25c

3. malleability: no
    segwit has not solved malleability for legacy
    devs want to introduce new opcodes to segwit that reintroduce malleability into segwit

the only 'thing' that segwit is useful for is being a gateway format for alternative networks like LN and sidechains, but as we all know LN and sidechains are not bitcoin

this is a good indicator but nowhere near accurate.
at any time there is a large percentage of nodes that run on these cloud services. for example right now ~20% of the the bitcoin nodes are hosted on Amazon and Hetzner cloud services. i believe Google also has some cloud services that people use (~550 nodes ~5%). possibly more that i don't know of.
many of the same users may run new nodes on the similar cloud services without upgrading the one they were running.

things like schnorr signature aggregation are awesome, but we can't limit ourselves to just optimizing bitcoin. transaction size can only be improved upon so much. hal finney knew it---bitcoin can't scale to all the world's transactions. at some point, you need to consider other compatible applications (offchain, trustless or trust-minimized) that can actually scale exponentially.


sure it's increased capacity. show me a block larger than 1MB before segwit was activated.

Signalling with hash power also costs miners nothing. No cost is incurred until they actually begin building on the incompatible fork -- spending hashpower on mining rewards that could be worthless.

Case in point: Segwit2x. The 2x fork had 95% of the hash rate signalling support at one point. Yet it was abandoned a week before the fork out of fear of a network split.


In that specific situation, we could look at network statistics to point out the likelihood of a Sybil attack. Similar attempts were made with Bitcoin XT/Classic. We can't just look at node count, especially where it looks like no one is upgrading their nodes, rather they are just being added to the network through datacenters.

Like I was saying before, any incompatible fork should not be taken likely. It should be adopted on a timeline of years before the fork date through the reference implementation. This goes for a UASF or a hard fork.

We would need to look at long term node distribution, economically relevant nodes -- exchanges, services -- social and developer consensus, etc. to really have a good idea what would happen. My opinion is that if a UASF were done through Core on a timeline of 1-2 years, miners would be highly unlikely to risk remaining on the legacy chain, but all we can do is guess.

I'm happy that everything played out so well, namely the SegWit2x fork died without ever seeing the light of the day, but a part of me is curious what would have happened if it did launch - would we have another competing coin? How big would it be? Would it be bigger than Bitcoin? How would the market react, and what would happen with the historical price (we had ATH less than half a year after SegWit).

I personally think that Bitcoin would still have won, but after a serious fight.