Topic: Segregated witness - The solution to Scalability (short term)? - page 15. (Read 23163 times)

It doesn't.

It was clearly implied that data propagation and bandwidth is not directly addressed by this proposal.

Have you read Greg's scalability "roadmap"? There are other solutions on the drawing boards in that regard:

http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-December/011865.html

Thanks, but that's Pieter's imagination to re-design bitocin:

"What if we could redesign Bitcoin from scratch? What if you're designing an altcoin, there's really no reason why you would want to do this in Bitcoin. This is actually something we did in sidechain alpha."

Yes, need some more material, especially some examples showing how a transaction is verified in the new design

jonnyj, your avatar text has always read "Beyond Imagination". May I submit that you have gone too far. Come back!

Look, you need to step back and realize that you clearly don't understand the proposal. Granted that may be because it wasn't communicated well enough yet seeing as all details haven't been hashed out.

I understand your precautionary approach but may I suggest you wait until the full BIP proposal is out?

Ok, so the fully verifying nodes are not going to benefit from the new design, then how does this design improve the communication speed between fully verifying nodes (which is the bottleneck of the current design) ?

The biggest drawback of complexity is it increases the risk of centralization: If only a few guys knows how it works, then if these guys are compromised then the whole system is down. Currently bitcoin is understandable by thousands of developers, but if you go two chain implementation it will take decades to reach that level of understanding, at mean time simple solutions will gain more and more supporters

That cannot happen.

If the right signatures are not included along with the transactions data inside the blocks fully verifying nodes will reject them.

A full-scale deployment of Lightning would require segregated witness to be implemented.

I insist that you are exagerrating the complexity of the proposal. It may not be simple for laymen but clearly it is generally well understood by the developer community from the logs of bitcoin-wizards I've looked at. This is also something that's already been tested to an extent under the Sidechains Elements platform.

By all accounts the security model is exactly the same and while the direct transaction gains are not in the order of magnitude improvement, they are significant. Moreover it enables a new type of semi-verifying SPV using fraud proofs, an important progress.

Even it is a working solution, the gain in that is not even a magnitude, the risk/reward ratio is not worth it. I prefer the simplicity over complexity. I think Lightning network's settlement based design can increase the capacity for magnitudes, that is more worth the effort

Raised level of complexity will bring much more trouble later in robustness and sustainability. That's why those complex network design in early ages of internet eventually died over time

So far from what I've gathered there's clear understanding of what Pieter is doing within the dev community.

It is not as complex as you make it seem but certainly more complex than a simple change in constant. Yet the upsides are clear and significant.

Maybe Greg could pop up in this thread and clear things up a bit.

Not only these. I guess chinese mining farms  are mostly driven by large capitals which using the mining infrastructure to move capital out of china due to capital control in China. These investors can hire hundreds of developers in a large project, so they might not be too interested in what devs are saying. For large capitals, the only thing they care about is risk, anything increase the risk will not be considered

The objection to BIP101 was on the basis of it's efficacy, not it's simplicity.

If you're looking for a simple system, a trustless cryptographic consensus network is possibly the wrong place to look.

Do you really understand what Pieter is suggesting? And the possible consequence in future if it is adopted?

We have observed, even simply raise the blocksize limit to 8MB which is simple enough for anyone to understand will result in huge resistance, this kind of complex solution which requires decision makers to have deep understanding of the inner workings of blocks and nodes would never get serious acceptance if any at all

To be exact it's more like a parallel merkle tree than a chain if I understand it correctly.

1. Not a side chain, a parallel chain. For every header'ed block, there must be a corresponding SegWit block. Not a side chain.

2. SegWit chain is prunable. Future chain bloat not a problem. You haven't taken it all in yet (and neither have I)

Back to the basic: How can you validate a transaction without the signature? You can not, otherwise a node will be able to spend anyone's coin and bitcoin will immediately worth nothing overnight

It seems that after the validation and the transaction is finalized in the block, if node can verify the validity of the block, then it requires no detailed transaction data, since everything in that block is regarded as valid

However, if a rogue node send out a block appears to be valid but with transactions with wrong signature, then if other nodes do not validate each transactions in the block, they have no way to know if those transactions are valid, if they approve those blocks and start to build block above this block then those invalid transactions can even spend satoshi's coins

Therefore bitcoin is designed so that any nodes are able to independently verify every transaction, so that it is secure on every node. And that will include lots of data in each block

In order to come over this limitation, Pieter suggested to redesign bitcoin, where the hashes of all the signature goes into the coinbase. But still, without the original transaction data together with signature, you have no way to prove that the hashes are correct, you would still need all those data to prove the validity of each hash. However, those data would be in another chain, then it will reduce the data on main chain, but put the data into a side chain. And in future, that side chain will have all the capacity problem that bitcoin chain have today, even more difficult to deal with

It's mostly a lack of communication and language barrier. (with regards to chinese mining pool)