What is actually use of SegWit?

[achow101]

In what way? The way that inputs and outputs work are still exactly the same.

Reference : https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/[/color]

Wallet authors tracking spent bitcoins: it’s easiest to monitor the status of your own outgoing transactions by simply looking them up by txid. But in a system with third-party malleability, wallets must implement extra code to be able to deal with changed txids.

I assumed that you were talking about tracking as in de-anonymizing who is sending the transaction. Instead you are talking about tracking as in checking the confirmation status of a transaction. In the latter case (watching a transaction) it is easier to track because malleability is fixed.

he Lightning Network: with third-party and scriptSig malleability fixed, the Lightning Network is less complicated to implement and significantly more efficient in its use of space on the blockchain. With scriptSig malleability removed, it also becomes possible to run lightweight Lightning clients that outsource monitoring the blockchain, instead of each Lightning client needing to also be a full Bitcoin node.

I don't think that it is necessary for lightning to be a full node. It can still work without being a full node but with some additional complexity. Where in the lightning paper does it say that a full node is required?

Do you not understand the Word OFFCHAIN , BTC is only Locked on the ONLINE BLOCKCHAIN, it is not and can not be moved onto LN's network,
So you are trading BTC IOUs when you use LN.

The Lightning Network conducts transactions by creating Bitcoin transactions that can be broadcast onto the Bitcoin network at any time. There are no IOUs being traded, what is happening is that transactions are being created but not broadcast. Again, there is no separate thing where Bitcoin is being converted into some sort of IOU on lightning.

(In Theory : Using advanced features LN may even allow only certain miners to process the transaction Fees when Onchain BTC Transactions are required.)
(Giving LN Nodes the ability to starve miners not in Collusion with them of transaction fees. )  

Now that is just FUD. How would LN only allow certain miners to confirm those transactions? That is just completely false.

One of the Concerns in the LN Network Whitepaper is that ,
Miners may Decline Certain LN transactions so their Locks timeout and the BTC can be Stolen.
If the above is possible, the reverse is also possible which makes what I said a Valid Theory.

That risk is based on miner collusion. The reverse would also require miner collusion, not some technical aspect of LN that makes it possible for only specific miners to mine those transactions. This is not just something related to LN but rather an issue that can already happen with Bitcoin as it is because it is just miner collusion and requiring human intervention in order for that to be possible.

[Temp_JayJuanGee]

In by Case , By FUD
F  = FACTS
U  = UNSUNG
D   = DEBUNK
 

Pretty much when anyone tries to redefine FUD spreading as if it were some form of higher but necessary truth, then most of the time, that person is engaged in such a practice of disinformation.  (by the way, FUD spreading = the posting of information (usually misinformation) that is meant to cause Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt in the reader of such)

[kiklo]

In by Case , By FUD
F  = FACTS
U  = UNSUNG
D   = DEBUNK
 

Pretty much when anyone tries to redefine FUD spreading as if it were some form of higher but necessary truth, then most of the time, that person is engaged in such a practice of disinformation.  (by the way, FUD spreading = the posting of information (usually misinformation) that is meant to cause Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt in the reader of such)

Thanks Newbie,   
There is a lot of something being spread, don't step in it.

 

[kiklo]

he Lightning Network: with third-party and scriptSig malleability fixed, the Lightning Network is less complicated to implement and significantly more efficient in its use of space on the blockchain. With scriptSig malleability removed, it also becomes possible to run lightweight Lightning clients that outsource monitoring the blockchain, instead of each Lightning client needing to also be a full Bitcoin node.

I don't think that it is necessary for lightning to be a full node. It can still work without being a full node but with some additional complexity. Where in the lightning paper does it say that a full node is required?

That little tidbit of info comes from Bitcore
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

The Lightning Network: with third-party and scriptSig malleability fixed, the Lightning Network is less complicated to implement and significantly more efficient in its use of space on the blockchain. With scriptSig malleability removed, it also becomes possible to run lightweight Lightning clients that outsource monitoring the blockchain,
instead of each Lightning client needing to also be a full Bitcoin node.

Do you not understand the Word OFFCHAIN , BTC is only Locked on the ONLINE BLOCKCHAIN, it is not and can not be moved onto LN's network,
So you are trading BTC IOUs when you use LN.

The Lightning Network conducts transactions by creating Bitcoin transactions that can be broadcast onto the Bitcoin network at any time. There are no IOUs being traded, what is happening is that transactions are being created but not broadcast. Again, there is no separate thing where Bitcoin is being converted into some sort of IOU on lightning.

LN is OFFCHAIN, unless it is ONCHAIN, it is LITERALLY IMPOSSIBLE for BTC to be on it , meaning you have BTC IOUs on LN.
In other words , since BTC can not exist Offchain, What LN lists as a BTC is merely a debt for BTC, which is paid upon completion of contracts.
IOU => is usually an informal document acknowledging debt

(In Theory : Using advanced features LN may even allow only certain miners to process the transaction Fees when Onchain BTC Transactions are required.)
(Giving LN Nodes the ability to starve miners not in Collusion with them of transaction fees. )  

Now that is just FUD. How would LN only allow certain miners to confirm those transactions? That is just completely false.

One of the Concerns in the LN Network Whitepaper is that ,
Miners may Decline Certain LN transactions so their Locks timeout and the BTC can be Stolen.
If the above is possible, the reverse is also possible which makes what I said a Valid Theory.

That risk is based on miner collusion. The reverse would also require miner collusion, not some technical aspect of LN that makes it possible for only specific miners to mine those transactions. This is not just something related to LN but rather an issue that can already happen with Bitcoin as it is because it is just miner collusion and requiring human intervention in order for that to be possible.

It is a Valid Theory of Possible Danger of Collusion between LN Nodes & Miners.
The original thought confirms the possibility of the reverse.  

 

FYI:

not some technical aspect of LN that makes it possible for only specific miners to mine those transactions.

Until LN has been up and running for a year or so , You don't really know what additional feature could be installed.  
They are including an option so the miner can induce an option to ignore a block, so it does not affect the time lock, under certain attack conditions.
Adding a rotating passcode so LN knows to only include it's transactions in a Block from a specific miner , is also not out of the realm of possibility.
Would they do it , hopefully not,  but would it be possible, yes it would, which is why I said Theory and not fact.

[Temp_JayJuanGee]

In by Case , By FUD
F  = FACTS
U  = UNSUNG
D   = DEBUNK
 

Pretty much when anyone tries to redefine FUD spreading as if it were some form of higher but necessary truth, then most of the time, that person is engaged in such a practice of disinformation.  (by the way, FUD spreading = the posting of information (usually misinformation) that is meant to cause Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt in the reader of such)

Thanks Newbie,   
There is a lot of something being spread, don't step in it.

 

Yes, another sign of a misinformation campaign is attacking the person rather than the argument.   And, by the way, I am not a newbie.. just having some issues with my regular account, as might be inferred by my username.

Substantively, I have trouble with quite a few of the seg wit naysayers, because in part, when seg wit was first proposed in December 2015, there was nearly unanimous agreement that it was a good thing for bitcoin.  And, overall, there really is no major technical criticism against it - except for attempts at FUD spreading (in other words misinformation campaigns that play to emotions rather than logic).

Surely it would be a good thing to get seg wit activated in the coming 6 months in order that Bitcoin developers will be able to take advantage of some of the features and to build upon it and to bring more to end-users, such as myself (and maybe a large segment of the population that does not want to get into technicalities, as long as their value remains decentralized immutable and securely able to store and transfer).

 

[kiklo]

Yes, another sign of a misinformation campaign is attacking the person rather than the argument.   And, by the way, I am not a newbie.. just having some issues with my regular account, as might be inferred by my username.

Substantively, I have trouble with quite a few of the seg wit naysayers, because in part, when seg wit was first proposed in December 2015, there was nearly unanimous agreement that it was a good thing for bitcoin.  And, overall, there really is no major technical criticism against it - except for attempts at FUD spreading (in other words misinformation campaigns that play to emotions rather than logic).

Surely it would be a good thing to get seg wit activated in the coming 6 months in order that Bitcoin developers will be able to take advantage of some of the features and to build upon it and to bring more to end-users, such as myself (and maybe a large segment of the population that does not want to get into technicalities, as long as their value remains decentralized immutable and securely able to store and transfer).

Your trying to taint my posts as misinformation is strictly Bullshit.

I post my conclusions along with the Links to the Whitepapers and articles that help me form those conclusions.
Which people can read those links and form their own personal conclusion.

Where as you are the only one throwing unsubstantiated slander toward me to cover up your lack of actual information.
Where is your detailed analyzes with links to articles & whitepapers or is a 3rd grade propaganda tactic all you have?  

 

FYI :
This Post says all I need to know about you, newbie.
You yourself admit you don't know Jack about SegWit.  

My question is how to explain segwit with using simple words, there is many technical analysis, explanations. Here in thread people mostly talk about supporting segwit and how to support it, will wallet's be updated for segwit.
My question is simple, what is SegWit, what this actually do? What we can gain with using SegWit? Is there some simple explanation for all this questions?

I don't claim to be any kind of expert either or even to know if important points are being left out of any kind of explanation...
snip*

[achow101]

That little tidbit of info comes from Bitcore

And they are wrong. I have spoken to Rusty about this and we both reached the same conclusion that it is in fact possible to create a lightweight lightning client without segwit, it just is a little more complex.

It is a Valid Theory of Possible Danger of Collusion between LN Nodes & Miners.
The original thought confirms the possibility of the reverse.  

Again, it is not something specific to LN but rather something that is possible regardless of LN being used or not

not some technical aspect of LN that makes it possible for only specific miners to mine those transactions.

Until LN has been up and running for a year or so , You don't really know what additional feature could be installed.  
They are including an option so the miner can induce an option to ignore a block, so it does not affect the time lock, under certain attack conditions.
Adding a rotating passcode so LN knows to only include it's transactions in a Block from a specific miner , is also not out of the realm of possibility.
Would they do it , hopefully not,  but would it be possible, yes it would, which is why I said Theory and not fact.

First of all, it is not option. What you are suggesting is not even mentioned in the paper at all, just some theory that you made up from some statements in the paper about the RISKS of LN. Those were part of the RISKS and they were listing all of the possible RISKS. These are RISKS not OPTIONS.

[Temp_JayJuanGee]

Yes, another sign of a misinformation campaign is attacking the person rather than the argument.   And, by the way, I am not a newbie.. just having some issues with my regular account, as might be inferred by my username.

Substantively, I have trouble with quite a few of the seg wit naysayers, because in part, when seg wit was first proposed in December 2015, there was nearly unanimous agreement that it was a good thing for bitcoin.  And, overall, there really is no major technical criticism against it - except for attempts at FUD spreading (in other words misinformation campaigns that play to emotions rather than logic).

Surely it would be a good thing to get seg wit activated in the coming 6 months in order that Bitcoin developers will be able to take advantage of some of the features and to build upon it and to bring more to end-users, such as myself (and maybe a large segment of the population that does not want to get into technicalities, as long as their value remains decentralized immutable and securely able to store and transfer).

Your trying to taint my posts as misinformation is strictly Bullshit.

I post my conclusions along with the Links to the Whitepapers and articles that help me form those conclusions.
Which people can read those links and form their own personal conclusion.

Where as you are the only one throwing unsubstantiated slander toward me to cover up your lack of actual information.
Where is your detailed analyzes with links to articles & whitepapers or is a 3rd grade propaganda tactic all you have?  

 

FYI :
This Post says all I need to know about you, newbie.
You yourself admit you don't know Jack about SegWit.  

My question is how to explain segwit with using simple words, there is many technical analysis, explanations. Here in thread people mostly talk about supporting segwit and how to support it, will wallet's be updated for segwit.
My question is simple, what is SegWit, what this actually do? What we can gain with using SegWit? Is there some simple explanation for all this questions?

I don't claim to be any kind of expert either or even to know if important points are being left out of any kind of explanation...
snip*

I have been around long enough to recognize the difference between substantive discussion and distraction and to know when folks are engaged in snow jobs and attempts to drag discussion into the weeds rather than engaging in substantive discussions that get the broader picture correct (as well as the details, if they are necessary and relevant), and I have likely said sufficiently enough, at this point... because your seeming attempts to focus on the weeds in order to attempt to trick and distract seems quite apparent.   

Surely, if you start to make some sense in some of your basic discussion of facts, parameters and logic then maybe I will spend a little time looking further into those substantive discussions (to the extent they might exist), which at this point seem to be mostly nonsensical distractions and speculations rather than pointing out actual cost benefit analysis based on real world and probable facts and decent logic.

Regarding the actual outline of seg wit, it was proposed and vetted over the past year or so (and maybe it took a bit longer than necessary, but that also gave time for vetting and discussion), and accordingly, seg wit seems to be presented as a very decent next step, especially from folks who are providing decent and non tricky explanations.  

Surely, if some supplemental alternatives get proposed and approved, such as increasing the blocksize har limit or something like that, or changing bitcoin's governance (which seems to be the agenda of a lot of the nutjob seg wit naysayers) then surely reasonable and necessary changes can be considered, vetted, and then incorporated, as well, but at this point, the advantages of seg wit seem to largely outweigh speculation and very unlikely scenarios about it's supposed disadvantages.

[kiklo]

@Temp_JayJuanGee

Your own words are the best reply to you. 

My question is how to explain segwit with using simple words, there is many technical analysis, explanations. Here in thread people mostly talk about supporting segwit and how to support it, will wallet's be updated for segwit.
My question is simple, what is SegWit, what this actually do? What we can gain with using SegWit? Is there some simple explanation for all this questions?

I don't claim to be any kind of expert either or even to know if important points are being left out of any kind of explanation...
snip*

 

[Temp_JayJuanGee]

@Temp_JayJuanGee

Your own words are the best reply to you. 

My question is how to explain segwit with using simple words, there is many technical analysis, explanations. Here in thread people mostly talk about supporting segwit and how to support it, will wallet's be updated for segwit.
My question is simple, what is SegWit, what this actually do? What we can gain with using SegWit? Is there some simple explanation for all this questions?

I don't claim to be any kind of expert either or even to know if important points are being left out of any kind of explanation...
snip*

 

Yes, I see that you have a very hard time staying on topic and responding to the substance of what people say within some kind of context.  I say all kinds of shit, within a context and responsive to a point.  Your various responses to me, are not responsive to what I say but instead attempts at distractions by either raising other issues or attempting to make the context of one response reply to another situation (which seems to be the thrust of why you are quoting me)... a pretty decent sign that you are not attempting to engage in any kind of meaningful discussion, but instead engaging in distracting levels of shit stirring.

[kiklo]

@Temp_JayJuanGee,

You basically admitted you don't know jack , so you have no information to actually talk about except your little soap opera attacks,
which are devoid of everything except your feelings. I could give a rat's ass about your feelings.
If you want to argue a technical point then post it, but keep throwing out those whiny I feel attacks, and you keep getting more of the same,
because that is all they deserve in response.  
Your call.

 

[kiklo]

That little tidbit of info comes from Bitcore

And they are wrong. I have spoken to Rusty about this and we both reached the same conclusion that it is in fact possible to create a lightweight lightning client without segwit, it just is a little more complex.

Then Tell them to Update their Lying Website, until then , I will believe the website over you.  

It is a Valid Theory of Possible Danger of Collusion between LN Nodes & Miners.
The original thought confirms the possibility of the reverse.  

Again, it is not something specific to LN but rather something that is possible regardless of LN being used or not

Reading Comprehension is not your strong suit,
Collusion between LN Nodes & Miners , would most definitely be specific to LN  

not some technical aspect of LN that makes it possible for only specific miners to mine those transactions.

Until LN has been up and running for a year or so , You don't really know what additional feature could be installed.  
They are including an option so the miner can induce an option to ignore a block, so it does not affect the time lock, under certain attack conditions.
Adding a rotating passcode so LN knows to only include it's transactions in a Block from a specific miner , is also not out of the realm of possibility.
Would they do it , hopefully not,  but would it be possible, yes it would, which is why I said Theory and not fact.

First of all, it is not option. What you are suggesting is not even mentioned in the paper at all, just some theory that you made up from some statements in the paper about the RISKS of LN. Those were part of the RISKS and they were listing all of the possible RISKS. These are RISKS not OPTIONS.

is not even mentioned in the paper at all
from some statements in the paper about the RISKS of LN

You Contradict yourself in the same sentence.  

 

[kiklo]

To anyone actually wanting to know more about Segwit, read the 1st page of this topic and make up your own minds.
These guys on the 2nd page , pure waste of my time.  


 

FYI:
In the end the Miners will determine whether or not SegWit is even activated.
Odds are all of these concerns over segwit & LN will be blocked by the Mining Pools anyway.

[Temp_JayJuanGee]

@Temp_JayJuanGee,

You basically admitted you don't know jack , so you have no information to actually talk about except your little soap opera attacks,
which are devoid of everything except your feelings. I could give a rat's ass about your feelings.
If you want to argue a technical point then post it, but keep throwing out those whiny I feel attacks, and you keep getting more of the same,
because that is all they deserve in response.  
Your call.

 

You are probably correct that it is not necessary for me to attempt to engage with you on this topic, and I think that I already stated my reasons and you stated your reasons and we seem to disagree about things.

By the way, even though you seem inclined to want to disqualify me from this topic, it does not seem to be necessary to know all technical aspects of seg wit in order to know things about bitcoin and/or segwit and to contribute to this kind of thread from whatever level, and as a bonus, it seems to me that the OP of this thread attempts to approach this seg wit topic from a non-technical perspective.

[JayJuanGee]

@Temp_JayJuanGee,

You basically admitted you don't know jack , so you have no information to actually talk about except your little soap opera attacks,
which are devoid of everything except your feelings. I could give a rat's ass about your feelings.
If you want to argue a technical point then post it, but keep throwing out those whiny I feel attacks, and you keep getting more of the same,
because that is all they deserve in response.  
Your call.

 

You are probably correct that it is not necessary for me to attempt to engage with you on this topic, and I think that I already stated my reasons and you stated your reasons and we seem to disagree about things.

By the way, even though you seem inclined to want to disqualify me from this topic, it does not seem to be necessary to know all technical aspects of seg wit in order to know things about bitcoin and/or segwit and to contribute to this kind of thread from whatever level, and as a bonus, it seems to me that the OP of this thread attempts to approach this seg wit topic from a non-technical perspective.

And, regular JJG agrees with my other self Temp JJG.  hahahahaha   

I don't plan to use Temp JJG anymore, unless for some reason my regular account gets compromised again.

[RawDog]

To anyone actually wanting to know more about Segwit, read the 1st page of this topic and make up your own minds.
These guys on the 2nd page , pure waste of my time.  


 

FYI:
In the end the Miners will determine whether or not SegWit is even activated.
Odds are all of these concerns over segwit & LN will be blocked by the Mining Pools anyway.

Miners do whatever GMax tells them to do.