Why Bitcoin needs Segregated Witness - page 2.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2019, 04:06:52 PM

firstly
segwit has not fixed malleability.
it created a new TX format that people can use to (at the time) show they cannot perform malleability.
a. people could continue to use old legacy tx formats and still malleate

But those are not Segwit transactions.

Quote

b. recently due to new feature needs. core devs introduced a new sighash opcode that actually allows segwit tx's to malleate again..

Can you post some links proving that? That's going to be a big issue if it's really true. Plus, if it's true, how did the Core developers react when it was "discovered"? Cool

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 6089

bitcoindata.science

Quote from: BrewMaster on March 21, 2019, 11:01:13 AM

Quote from: bitmover on March 21, 2019, 10:53:20 AM

Segwit somehow solves blocksize problems, by reducing transaction size. So more transactions can go in a block with the same size.

Additionally it also adds new features which will allow lightning network.

OP is not asking a question here that you are answering it! OP is just sharing a link here.
and you are wrong, SegWit does not reduce transaction size, it instead increases capacity by moving the signatures (witnesses) elsewhere inside transactions that way the legacy nodes still see the 1 MB cap while we have more transactions in new versions with witness.

Ok thank k you for your correction about segwit. You are right, it does not reduce transaction size, just made a small research about it now.

BrewMaster

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1293

There is trouble abrewing

Quote from: bitmover on March 21, 2019, 10:53:20 AM

Segwit somehow solves blocksize problems, by reducing transaction size. So more transactions can go in a block with the same size.

Additionally it also adds new features which will allow lightning network.

OP is not asking a question here that you are answering it! OP is just sharing a link here.
and you are wrong, SegWit does not reduce transaction size, it instead increases capacity by moving the signatures (witnesses) elsewhere inside transactions that way the legacy nodes still see the 1 MB cap while we have more transactions in new versions with witness.

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 6089

bitcoindata.science

Segwit somehow solves blocksize problems, by reducing transaction size. So more transactions can go in a block with the same size.

Additionally it also adds new features which will allow lightning network.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: magnumwallet on March 21, 2019, 09:16:43 AM

Quote from: dothebeats on March 21, 2019, 07:59:00 AM

9 years later and that benchmark has still not ben surpassed

While what you are saying is true, you have to admit that there are very few backward compatible solutions that Bitcoin could implement.
Of course, the network could (and probably should) reinvent itself entirely, as efficiency is clearly not its biggest strength. But it won't, because Bitcoin's popularity also gave it great inertia, and all changes have to both satisfy all parties AND can't allow the network to fork into pieces.

the thing is. the network DID controversially fork

there was a controversial hard fork in summer 2017, to get rid of opposition. to then fake approval for segwit to activate after the controversy

if devs were smart they would have used the controversial date to include extra features that could only be included using a controversial fork

the whole 'compatibility' ruse was not about network security but as a ploy to try and get segwit activated without having to reach the ultimate consensus %

..
but anyway. here is some funny facts
1. Sipa (pieter wuille) the innovator/dev of segwit still to this day does not trust his bitcoin donations on segwit bech32 addresses
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ - bottom right of page - 1NrohbDoPkARCGdjvtnXbwFLwoBH86pskX

2. BTCC, the biggest bitcoin mining pool that sponsored advocated and promoted sgwit as being the best thing ever, did not trust bitcoin blockrewards to be put on segwit bech32 addresses
13TEThZNnKPk34HYAuo1QqYMwDdjF3qeHx
even its last block (543,040) used legacy

magnumwallet

jr. member

Activity: 57

Merit: 5

Quote from: dothebeats on March 21, 2019, 07:59:00 AM

9 years later and that benchmark has still not ben surpassed

While what you are saying is true, you have to admit that there are very few backward compatible solutions that Bitcoin could implement.
Of course, the network could (and probably should) reinvent itself entirely, as efficiency is clearly not its biggest strength. But it won't, because Bitcoin's popularity also gave it great inertia, and all changes have to both satisfy all parties AND can't allow the network to fork into pieces.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

Quote from: dothebeats on March 21, 2019, 07:59:00 AM

I like SegWit's idea of trying to relieve/alleviate the stress on the nodes and cramming more transactions in a block compared to the previous LBTC code,

it doesnt cram more transactions in. .
back in 2010 there was some math done and it was shown that bitcoins 1mb can fit 600k tx a day
9 years later and that benchmark has still not ben surpassed
also the wishy washy code of MISCOUNTING data does not make more transactions, it just fools a software rule into doing something. but at the hard drive storage of a full block of transaction data. the bytes per transaction of a segwit tx vs a legacy tx actually show a segwit tx uses slightly more bytes per tx

dothebeats

legendary

Activity: 3542

Merit: 1352

Cashback 15%

Quote from: magnumwallet on March 21, 2019, 05:59:13 AM

The network's utility is actually enhanced by these alternative networks as Bitcoin (in its current form) has become too expensive and overcrowded for the majority of its daily users.

I like SegWit's idea of trying to relieve/alleviate the stress on the nodes and cramming more transactions in a block compared to the previous LBTC code, but do we really have to resort to another network in order to solve the scaling problem that we've been bothered since early 2014? For what purpose does the main chain of bitcoin serve if we are just going to load most transactions at the LN? I don't think bitcoin getting 'too expensive' is a problem in bettering the code for the way it handles data. It should 'scale' if we want it to compete against other payment processors (Paypal, Visa, etc.) without relying on a third-party service that also asks for fees in exchange of using their platform.

magnumwallet

jr. member

Activity: 57

Merit: 5

Quote from: franky1 on March 20, 2019, 04:06:52 PM

firstly
segwit has not fixed malleability.
it created a new TX format that people can use to (at the time) show they cannot perform malleability.
a. people could continue to use old legacy tx formats and still malleate
b. recently due to new feature needs. core devs introduced a new sighash opcode that actually allows segwit tx's to malleate again..

secondly
the wishy washy code of witness scale factor. does not actually give more transaction capacity per real hard drive storage bytes of full block data.
stripped blocks do not contain signature data to validate a tx is truly authentic. thus having a node storing stripped data is not a guarantee to hold valid data or a ability to relay full data to real full nodes. thus no point being a node messing with stripped data

thirdly
the purpose of segwit is actually to change bitcoin to have a new gateway tx format that would allow features to be done that would suit another network (LN)

fourthly
segwit was conceived to edit bitcoin to give bitcoin a doorway to an alternative network.
the other network was not edited to be purely bitcoin functional
the esssence is to eventually persuade users to de-burden themselves of using the bitcoin network and use another network. thus reduce bitcoin networks utility

Thanks for your message, here what we think:

1) SegWit by itself is a fix, albeit a nonobligatory one, and that is its main feature.
Please tell us which opcode you are referring to. If what you are stating is indeed true we can include that in the article, because such information is hard to come by.

2) It was mentioned in the article that the signature data is still stored on the blockchain. The issue you're referring to is indeed relevant, but nodes that do not have access to the signature data can simply "wait it out" until enough confirmations are acquired.

3) The number 1 purpose of SegWit (stated in the full text of BIP 141) is to ensure that "Nonintentional malleability becomes impossible".

4) Again, none of this contradicts the article, except for the last sentence. The network's utility is actually enhanced by these alternative networks as Bitcoin (in its current form) has become too expensive and overcrowded for the majority of its daily users.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4410

Merit: 4766

firstly
segwit has not fixed malleability.
it created a new TX format that people can use to (at the time) show they cannot perform malleability.
a. people could continue to use old legacy tx formats and still malleate
b. recently due to new feature needs. core devs introduced a new sighash opcode that actually allows segwit tx's to malleate again..

secondly
the wishy washy code of witness scale factor. does not actually give more transaction capacity per real hard drive storage bytes of full block data.
stripped blocks do not contain signature data to validate a tx is truly authentic. thus having a node storing stripped data is not a guarantee to hold valid data or a ability to relay full data to real full nodes. thus no point being a node messing with stripped data

thirdly
the purpose of segwit is actually to change bitcoin to have a new gateway tx format that would allow features to be done that would suit another network (LN)

fourthly
segwit was conceived to edit bitcoin to give bitcoin a doorway to an alternative network.
the other network was not edited to be purely bitcoin functional
the esssence is to eventually persuade users to de-burden themselves of using the bitcoin network and use another network. thus reduce bitcoin networks utility

^BuTcH^

full member

Activity: 671

Merit: 103

Moni

Why does Bitcoin need Segregated Witness

Just read this article and finally it became clear to me why BTC needs Segregated Witness. Recommended to everyone https://medium.com/@corp_92607/why-bitcoin-needs-segregated-witness-5b664e2ec6ec

Is everything correct in the article or you have something to add?

Topic: Why Bitcoin needs Segregated Witness - page 2. (Read 407 times)