Pages:
Author

Topic: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! - page 8. (Read 84845 times)

hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 504
Will bitcoincore accept segwit 2x or will this cause another hard fork later?

We will probably see another fork and bitcoin core 0.15.0 won't support SegWit2x, It will actually disconnect nodes running that proposal from what I read on Reddit.

Yeah. WTF

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982

They really are THAT stupid. Don't they know that they'll just drive more users to BCC/BCH/Bitcoin Cash?
legendary
Activity: 4270
Merit: 1313
Will bitcoincore accept segwit 2x or will this cause another hard fork later?

We will probably see another fork and bitcoin core 0.15.0 won't support SegWit2x, It will actually disconnect nodes running that proposal from what I read on Reddit.

Yeah. WTF

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982

The answer to the "WTF" is in the comments on github and the dev mail list if you wish to understand more of the issues.
hv_
legendary
Activity: 2548
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
Will bitcoincore accept segwit 2x or will this cause another hard fork later?

We will probably see another fork and bitcoin core 0.15.0 won't support SegWit2x, It will actually disconnect nodes running that proposal from what I read on Reddit.

Yeah. WTF

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10982
staff
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6152
Will bitcoincore accept segwit 2x or will this cause another hard fork later?

We will probably see another fork and bitcoin core 0.15.0 won't support SegWit2x, It will actually disconnect nodes running that proposal from what I read on Reddit.
hero member
Activity: 777
Merit: 777
Altbone inc.Burial service for altcoins
Will bitcoincore accept segwit 2x or will this cause another hard fork later?
sr. member
Activity: 257
Merit: 250
There is some mention of Flexbile Transactions as an alternative to Segwit among the BitcoinCash crowd. They claim it is better than Segwit and that soon it will be included as an upgrade in BCC.
Flextrans is not better than segwit and that table you posted is very miseleading. Flextrans has several problems. You can read explanations for why segwit is better than flextrans here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/malleated-transactions-1822954

do u want to say what segwit doesnt have the same problems?

staff
Activity: 3458
Merit: 6793
Just writing some code
There is some mention of Flexbile Transactions as an alternative to Segwit among the BitcoinCash crowd. They claim it is better than Segwit and that soon it will be included as an upgrade in BCC.
Flextrans is not better than segwit and that table you posted is very miseleading. Flextrans has several problems. You can read explanations for why segwit is better than flextrans here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/malleated-transactions-1822954
legendary
Activity: 2898
Merit: 1823
There is some mention of Flexbile Transactions as an alternative to Segwit among the BitcoinCash crowd. They claim it is better than Segwit and that soon it will be included as an upgrade in BCC.

This is what they claim. I am not a coder or a technical person so please tell us if what they claim is true or untrue.

Feature   SegWit   FlexTrans
Fixes Malleability   ✅   ✅
Linear scaling of hashing   ✅   ✅
Hardware wallet Support   ✅   ✅
Makes transactions smaller   ❌   ✅
Supports the Lightning Network   ✅   ✅
Signatures can be pruned (in future)   ✅   ✅
Double Spend Proofs   ❌   ✅
Support future script versions   ✅   ✅
No "two buckets" economics   ❌   ✅
sr. member
Activity: 409
Merit: 286
That is even better for decentralized off-chain, because the Nash-Equilibrium for a 2way payment channel is trivial.
2 parties
cheat/try to gain an advantage = loose everything

Could my grandma cheat accidentally?

I'm disappointed to see this brillant question not answered.

Did someone ever discuss this whole class of attacks on LN?

Can some bug in a root service, like a 2yk or a big number bug, make someone accidently send an old channel tx? I guess it is possible.

Can someone write a malware tricking a LN client into releasing an old tx? I guess it is possible.

And, something else: Does a LN client need to keep its private keys in memory to serve as a hub for other payments? If not, he must manually approve every transaction made through his channel.








staff
Activity: 3458
Merit: 6793
Just writing some code
I had plans to buy a Trezor and I came across their blog[1] post regarding Litecoin SegWit new addresses. Do I understand from this that bitcoin is going to have addresses that start with other then "1" and "3" as well? If that's the case, is it possible to choose? or the new addresses are going to be the only ones (means the old will be invalid)

[1] https://blog.trezor.io/litecoins-new-p2sh-segwit-addresses-843633e3e707
Litecoin's thing is completely unrelated and irrelevant to Bitcoin. The current addresses will work and continue to work; making them not work would be a backwards incompatible change. Segwit will eventually have its own addresses which you can choose to use if you wish, but for now, segwit will work via P2SH addresses (3... addresses) instead of a native segwit address.
staff
Activity: 3500
Merit: 6152
I had plans to buy a Trezor and I came across their blog[1] post regarding Litecoin SegWit new addresses. Do I understand from this that bitcoin is going to have addresses that start with other then "1" and "3" as well? If that's the case, is it possible to choose? or the new addresses are going to be the only ones (means the old will be invalid)

[1] https://blog.trezor.io/litecoins-new-p2sh-segwit-addresses-843633e3e707
newbie
Activity: 24
Merit: 3
Thank you very very much achow101. You helped me a lot with your reply Smiley
staff
Activity: 3458
Merit: 6793
Just writing some code
1) I've read that a segwit transaction cannot spend non-segwit utxos. Is this correct? How can you then create your first segwit transaction, if you only have non-segwit utxos? I am sure I am missing something there.
You send your coins back to yourself. So you will spend your non-segwit utxos and create segwit utxos, all of which you control.

2) Is the new segwit serialization format really backwards compatible? I have been looking at it and I am pretty sure that wallets that do not understand segwit will not be able to recognize a segwit transaction,
Yes, it is. It is because of the way they are requested and sent. Transactions are only sent with the witness serialization if that is what was requested. They must use MSG_WITNESS_TX and MST_WITNESS_BLOCK to get transactions in segwit format. Old nodes use MSG_TX and MSG_BLOCK so they receive the non-segwit format.

and thus, they might think that the block is invalid for including non-standard transactions?
Blocks that contain non-standard transactions are not invalid. Non-standardness does not mean that the transaction is invalid

3) I also read that there will now be two ways of identifying transactions, the txid (which is the hash of the transaction serialized the old way) and the wtxid (the hash of the transaction serialized as segwit). When signing the transactions, do you also use the old serialization to calculate the hash you need to sign? or do you serialize it as segwit? (in which case, again, old wallets would not be able to verify the signature).
Serializing transactions to be signed is different from network serialization. Segwit will also change this serialization too but for segit utxos only. Old nodes cannot validate segwit transactions anyways since they won't even receive the signatures.

The txid and wtxid are unrelated to sighash serialization. Txid will still be the identifier, wtxid is only used for the witness commitment.

4) If the txid included in the merkle tree is not the wtxid, then, how can you tell if a transaction is segwit or not when it is presented to you using the old serialization?
You look at the input scriptsig and the utxo being spent. Segwit utxos have a specific format, and if the utxo has the same format pattern as segwit, then it is considered a segwit utxo and must be spent as one.
newbie
Activity: 24
Merit: 3
Hi! I am reading about segwit and I have several questions about it.

1) I've read that a segwit transaction cannot spend non-segwit utxos. Is this correct? How can you then create your first segwit transaction, if you only have non-segwit utxos? I am sure I am missing something there.
2) Is the new segwit serialization format really backwards compatible? I have been looking at it and I am pretty sure that wallets that do not understand segwit will not be able to recognize a segwit transaction, and thus, they might think that the block is invalid for including non-standard transactions?
3) I also read that there will now be two ways of identifying transactions, the txid (which is the hash of the transaction serialized the old way) and the wtxid (the hash of the transaction serialized as segwit). When signing the transactions, do you also use the old serialization to calculate the hash you need to sign? or do you serialize it as segwit? (in which case, again, old wallets would not be able to verify the signature).
4) If the txid included in the merkle tree is not the wtxid, then, how can you tell if a transaction is segwit or not when it is presented to you using the old serialization?

Thanks a lot in advance! Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 11416
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc.

You come off as someone who can't be objective, take a step back, don't choose sides and look at the situation for what it is. I simply laid out the situation IMO, feel free to take from it what you will. And BTW satoshi's supposed vision is not as supposed as you would like the uninitiated to believe, it's fact backed up by his/their own words. And in reality i could give two hoots whose vision it is, what i actually care about is whether it makes sense. In short, certain people have chosen to forego the initial scaling plan and chosen to provide their own solution, if it  works, great, if not, we are all screwed, and that leaves the question still of what their motivations are.


You keep going on about some supposed vision that is not in line with what is going on and suggest that some small minority is controlling the direction of bitcoin, which is nonsensical.  The fact of the matter is that seg wit has consensus and broad support in  spite of whiner big blockers wanting to sabotage bitcoin with some narrower and self-imposed direction by suggesting that they are appealing to some broader vision, when they are not.  They neither have consensus nor do they have factual or logical support for their position that is sufficient enough to garner anything close to consensus.  That is part of the reason that they are imposing a hardfork rather than attempting to work within bitcoin's current governance mechanism.


Just stop ok ? 1) You brought up this "vision"  2) If segwit had consensus this discussion would not exist

You are really pushing this "narrow self-imposed" thing hard, but unfortunately , that's not what is going on here. The more you go on , the more you sound like a shill. All i did was point out what i know and state my opinion, pray tell, what are you doing ?

Yeah, right.  You are giving way too much credence to a group of whiner renegades, to suggest that they had some kind of meaningful following.
full member
Activity: 380
Merit: 103
Developer and Consultant

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc.

You come off as someone who can't be objective, take a step back, don't choose sides and look at the situation for what it is. I simply laid out the situation IMO, feel free to take from it what you will. And BTW satoshi's supposed vision is not as supposed as you would like the uninitiated to believe, it's fact backed up by his/their own words. And in reality i could give two hoots whose vision it is, what i actually care about is whether it makes sense. In short, certain people have chosen to forego the initial scaling plan and chosen to provide their own solution, if it  works, great, if not, we are all screwed, and that leaves the question still of what their motivations are.


You keep going on about some supposed vision that is not in line with what is going on and suggest that some small minority is controlling the direction of bitcoin, which is nonsensical.  The fact of the matter is that seg wit has consensus and broad support in  spite of whiner big blockers wanting to sabotage bitcoin with some narrower and self-imposed direction by suggesting that they are appealing to some broader vision, when they are not.  They neither have consensus nor do they have factual or logical support for their position that is sufficient enough to garner anything close to consensus.  That is part of the reason that they are imposing a hardfork rather than attempting to work within bitcoin's current governance mechanism.


Just stop ok ? 1) You brought up this "vision"  2) If segwit had consensus this discussion would not exist

You are really pushing this "narrow self-imposed" thing hard, but unfortunately , that's not what is going on here. The more you go on , the more you sound like a shill. All i did was point out what i know and state my opinion, pray tell, what are you doing ?
legendary
Activity: 3948
Merit: 11416
Self-Custody is a right. Say no to"Non-custodial"

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc.

You come off as someone who can't be objective, take a step back, don't choose sides and look at the situation for what it is. I simply laid out the situation IMO, feel free to take from it what you will. And BTW satoshi's supposed vision is not as supposed as you would like the uninitiated to believe, it's fact backed up by his/their own words. And in reality i could give two hoots whose vision it is, what i actually care about is whether it makes sense. In short, certain people have chosen to forego the initial scaling plan and chosen to provide their own solution, if it  works, great, if not, we are all screwed, and that leaves the question still of what their motivations are.


You keep going on about some supposed vision that is not in line with what is going on and suggest that some small minority is controlling the direction of bitcoin, which is nonsensical.  The fact of the matter is that seg wit has consensus and broad support in  spite of whiner big blockers wanting to sabotage bitcoin with some narrower and self-imposed direction by suggesting that they are appealing to some broader vision, when they are not.  They neither have consensus nor do they have factual or logical support for their position that is sufficient enough to garner anything close to consensus.  That is part of the reason that they are imposing a hardfork rather than attempting to work within bitcoin's current governance mechanism.
full member
Activity: 380
Merit: 103
Developer and Consultant

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc.

You come off as someone who can't be objective, take a step back, don't choose sides and look at the situation for what it is. I simply laid out the situation IMO, feel free to take from it what you will. And BTW satoshi's supposed vision is not as supposed as you would like the uninitiated to believe, it's fact backed up by his/their own words. And in reality i could give two hoots whose vision it is, what i actually care about is whether it makes sense. In short, certain people have chosen to forego the initial scaling plan and chosen to provide their own solution, if it  works, great, if not, we are all screwed, and that leaves the question still of what their motivations are.

hv_
legendary
Activity: 2548
Merit: 1055
Clean Code and Scale
Your strong /s risk ana finally convinced me, but  you ll simply run out of time. Roll Eyes
Wow - just throwing words around does not help your position.
Be specific - show the weaknesses, but i doubt you can.

For example:
Decentralized 2nd Layer Solutions have a stable Nash-Equilibrium.
The Nash-Equilibrium of Bitcoin might get unstable with Bitcoin Cash or bigger blocks, because a miner could gain an advantage by producing big blocks with nonsense data, if the miner knows that other miners/pools will have difficulties processing the bigger blocks.

How do you ensure that your off chain tx is settled on chain?

You finally need a miner to mine this specific tx. The miner's game is on chain. Could you think of miners might skip your tx despite a very high fee you provide? Just i.o.to breake your off chain 'reputation' into peaces? This is esp announced by some SW hating miners already and might hit your off chain business at least if your tx is easy to detect as a SW one.

full member
Activity: 152
Merit: 100
I've been reading a lot discussion threads about the ongoing changes on bitcoin.
Many mentioned bip91, bip141, bip148 and etc...
BIP is short from Bitcoin Improvement Procedure, do I get this right?
and where can I read all the specs/details on each BIP
I've been trying to find a thread explaining them, but seems elusive to find for me

Bitcoin Improvement Proposals. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips
Pages:
Jump to: