ToominCoin aka "Bitcoin_Classic" #R3KT

[exstasie]

Why is it that everyone who supports segwit has to be a condescending asshole all the time?

Because we're tired of endlessly responding to trolls like johnyj who continuously spread misinformation about Segwit in support of their contentious hard fork. He clearly isn't interested in honest debate, thus he gets treated with contempt.

[johnyj]

They still think every block is normal, but they can't discover there is another block attached to each block and the relationship is described in coinbase transaction of each original block

That certainly does not mean that old nodes will validate the transactions within those blocks. They will reject them for containing invalid outputs.

Old nodes only see one of the twin blocks, which is the original one, containing all valid transactions. They won't even receive new type of transactions and new type of blocks, just like old nodes can not receive the witness blocks

I give it in layman's terms: Imagine if you are running windows XP and you used to talk to another windows XP machine in your LAN, you can see the shares, and free space on that machine is 500G etc... But one day, that machine had an upgrade, it becomes a windows Vista, and the original windows XP is converted to a virtual machine installed on that Vista machine. You feel nothing, since you can still see the shares and free space on that machine is 500G, exactly as before. But in reality, that windows VISTA machine gets another hard drive with 3TB of free space, you don't see it because it exists out of your knowledge. This is similar to what segwit soft fork is doing, and that's the reason it requires thousands of lines to implement: It will build a new coin, and make original bitcoin a virtual coin inside this new coin

[johnyj]

WTF is your point? That "upgrading" to Classic is a virus? You claimed Segwit was too complex to implement; wallet developers and library maintainers disagree. Very simple. Not sure why anyone would take you seriously.

I have explained, these wallet operators of course like to promote Segwit since they get a cut in transaction fee, but I'm afraid miners won't buy this

[marky89]

They still think every block is normal, but they can't discover there is another block attached to each block and the relationship is described in coinbase transaction of each original block

That certainly does not mean that old nodes will validate the transactions within those blocks. They will reject them for containing invalid outputs.

Old nodes only see one of the twin blocks, which is the original one, containing all valid transactions. They won't even receive new type of transactions and new type of blocks, just like old nodes can not receive the witness blocks

You're missing the point here. No old node will accept these outputs as valid payment; they will never confirm. So miners wouldn't be able to spend these "new coins" unless nodes reinstall their software to relax consensus rules. I.e. Those coins are stuck on another network. This is a hard fork.

[marcus_of_augustus]

Why is it that everyone who supports segwit has to be a condescending asshole all the time?

It just seems like that because the wise-asses from the classic pump machine are asking deliberately misleading (seemingly simple) questions designed to confuse and misinform the unknowledgeable reader. So the responses can seem like condescension but it's just because if they ask deliberately 3-yo level half-truths disguised as questions they get 3-yo level answers.

[johnyj]

I'm referring to this first slide:


If you don't understand where it is wrong, then you better spend some time to check how bitcoin transaction works. The description in the Satoshi white paper is also not the current design, but there are plenty of materials out there

This is the third time I've seen you allude to this, but you seem incapable of explaining it. You brought it up, and you are the only person talking about it. You need to explain what is wrong if you are trying establish that it's wrong. Then you need to explain how this has any relevance to what you have said.

Obviously you don't understand how bitcoin transaction works, otherwise you won't ask so strange question. This proved my point, those who is supporting segwit typically don't understand how bitcoin works

[exstasie]

WTF is your point? That "upgrading" to Classic is a virus? You claimed Segwit was too complex to implement; wallet developers and library maintainers disagree. Very simple. Not sure why anyone would take you seriously.

I have explained, these wallet operators of course like to promote Segwit since they get a cut in transaction fee, but I'm afraid miners won't buy this

Wallet developers get a cut in transaction fees? Explain.

Coinbase likes to promote Classic because their business model depends on cheap and free transactions. I'm afraid miners won't buy this.

[exstasie]

I'm referring to this first slide:


If you don't understand where it is wrong, then you better spend some time to check how bitcoin transaction works. The description in the Satoshi white paper is also not the current design, but there are plenty of materials out there

This is the third time I've seen you allude to this, but you seem incapable of explaining it. You brought it up, and you are the only person talking about it. You need to explain what is wrong if you are trying establish that it's wrong. Then you need to explain how this has any relevance to what you have said.

Obviously you don't understand how bitcoin transaction works, otherwise you won't ask so strange question. This proved my point, those who is supporting segwit typically don't understand how bitcoin works

So for the 4th time, you claim that something is "wrong" while refusing to explain "how it is wrong." This doesn't prove anything except your inability to persuade anybody regarding anything. You're a troll. You haven't even established how this slide has any relevance to any point you have tried to make.

[iCEBREAKER]

Why is it that everyone who supports segwit has to be a condescending asshole all the time?

Because we're tired of endlessly responding to trolls like johnyj who continuously spread misinformation about Segwit in support of their contentious hard fork. He clearly isn't interested in honest debate, thus he gets treated with contempt.

Exactly right.  After the concept has been around for a year, there no good excuse to not understand segwit.

It's not hard.  Segwit takes all of two sentences to explain:

the witness data (signatures) portion of a transaction usually makes up around 75% of the total transaction data size ... so by moving it out the main block and into a separate 'witness block' of data makes available approx. that much space in the main block for other data.

[Bergmann_Christoph]

I'm referring to this first slide:


If you don't understand where it is wrong, then you better spend some time to check how bitcoin transaction works. The description in the Satoshi white paper is also not the current design, but there are plenty of materials out there

This is the third time I've seen you allude to this, but you seem incapable of explaining it. You brought it up, and you are the only person talking about it. You need to explain what is wrong if you are trying establish that it's wrong. Then you need to explain how this has any relevance to what you have said.

Obviously you don't understand how bitcoin transaction works, otherwise you won't ask so strange question. This proved my point, those who is supporting segwit typically don't understand how bitcoin works

Unfortunately they know mich more about bitcoin than about economics, philosophy and good behavior

[Bergmann_Christoph]

Why is it that everyone who supports segwit has to be a condescending asshole all the time?

This is a major question many people ask and a phenomena that made many people escape bitcoin.

The best explanation I heard was posted yesterday in another forum:

The age of deference to authority will never end. It's in our blood, a tribal instinct. That is why Core's position is the default among the unthinking masses and especially junior coders who look up to the "wizard" heroes at Core.

Over the years I have looked at many fields and found that the marks of a field being fleeced by authority figures are pretty universal. Most salient is that semantic games always figure prominently: equivocation, weasel words and vague terms like "consensus," constant goalpost shifting, appeals to tribal identity ("cypherpunks"), circular arguments rinsed down with appeals to authority, blatant double standards, censorship in the name of free speech, buzzwordism, extremely short public memory just like in political cycles, the genetic fallacy, slippery slope, etc.

Hope this helps to understand some kind of mindset without disrespecting them. Everybody is human.

[Lauda]

Obviously you don't understand how bitcoin transaction works, otherwise you won't ask so strange question. This proved my point, those who is supporting segwit typically don't understand how bitcoin works

You're a bad joke. You don't even know what is wrong in that picture yet you persist on saying that something is wrong and that your knowledge is above everyone else's.  

Unfortunately they know mich more about bitcoin than about economics, philosophy and good behavior

Certainly more than what the 'forkers' have shown so far.

[sickpig]

Maybe I'm wrong but from my understanding of SegWit's BIPs (*) blocks propagation will include also witness data. In fact it's impossible for a full node to validate a block without signatures data, only once validation is performed the full node operator could decide to drop (or keep) the witness data. Before that moment they seem mandatory to me.  

Well, despite your belief that it's impossible, I don't think the full nodes do see the signature data... but they do receive a compacted proof that the tx's in a given block were signed.

So the miners will be, as you say, coping with <4MB data per block. But ordinary full nodes only see 1MB of that. Hence "segregated". And so ordinary full nodes will use the same BW and storage they do now.

Full nodes receive a "compacted proof"? Maybe you are referring to "Compact fraud proof for SPV nodes" (*)?

Here a relevant quote from SegWit BIP 141:

Transmission of signature data becomes optional. It is needed only if a peer is trying to validate a transaction instead of just checking its existence. This reduces the size of SPV proofs and potentially improves the privacy of SPV clients as they can download more transactions using the same bandwidth.

So signature data will be optional only for SPV clients. The elliptic curve digital signature has to be there in its entirety for a full node to be able to validate a transaction.

So it seems that 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block bandwidth consumption wise. Hence I suppose my original question is still unanswered, doesn't it?


(*) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#compact-fraud-proof-for-spv-nodes


edit: grammar

[CIYAM]

The main reasons for SegWit are to eradicate tx malleability (which was really a mistake that was in the original design) and to make it easier to add extensions to Bitcoin's script language (which are currently only possible via soft or hard fork).

Any space savings are a beneficial side-effect (for SPV clients) rather than being anything to do with the purpose of it.

Note that once SegWit has been implemented a new type of signature approach will be introduced that will be far more compact (so eventually the amount of bandwidth will be reduced even for full nodes but of course that won't be until a lot of txs are using the new type of signatures).

[Carlton Banks]

Full nodes receive a "compacted proof"? Maybe you are referring to "Compact fraud proof for SPV nodes" (*)?

Here a relevant quote from SegWit BIP 141:

Transmission of signature data becomes optional. It is needed only if a peer is trying to validate a transaction instead of just checking its existence. This reduces the size of SPV proofs and potentially improves the privacy of SPV clients as they can download more transactions using the same bandwidth.

So signature data will be optional only for SPV clients. The elliptic curve digital signature has to be there in its entirety for a full node to be able to validate a transaction.

So it seems that 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block bandwidth consumption wise. Hence I suppose my original question is still unanswered, doesn't it?


(*) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#compact-fraud-proof-for-spv-nodes

Yes, but the roadmap for Core does feature a stage where what I described happens. I can only apologise if I got the name wrong. Seeing as you're neck deep in github.com/bitcoin, you should look for it, and present it to the thread. Remember, you actually want an answer to this question, don't you?

I've got this situation on my hands where I have a life to live, so your subtle assertion that everyone else should be literally researching the answer to your enquiries, when you're evidently more than capable of doing so yourself, without help. When it suits you. Let us know what your findings are

[marcus_of_augustus]

It was inevitable that these forkers would eventually target segwit, which was widely acclaimed as a completely uncontroversial fix when it was first released.

The governance coup that they are attempting is founded on disrupting any and all progress that doesn't belong to 'their vision' of progress. If it wasn't segwit it would be whatever Core was currently working on.

[sickpig]

Full nodes receive a "compacted proof"? Maybe you are referring to "Compact fraud proof for SPV nodes" (*)?

Here a relevant quote from SegWit BIP 141:

Transmission of signature data becomes optional. It is needed only if a peer is trying to validate a transaction instead of just checking its existence. This reduces the size of SPV proofs and potentially improves the privacy of SPV clients as they can download more transactions using the same bandwidth.

So signature data will be optional only for SPV clients. The elliptic curve digital signature has to be there in its entirety for a full node to be able to validate a transaction.

So it seems that 2MB SegWit block is equal to a 2MB normal block bandwidth consumption wise. Hence I suppose my original question is still unanswered, doesn't it?


(*) https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki#compact-fraud-proof-for-spv-nodes

Yes, but the roadmap for Core does feature a stage where what I described happens. I can only apologise if I got the name wrong. Seeing as you're neck deep in github.com/bitcoin, you should look for it, and present it to the thread. Remember, you actually want an answer to this question, don't you?

I've got this situation on my hands where I have a life to live, so your subtle assertion that everyone else should be literally researching the answer to your enquiries, when you're evidently more than capable of doing so yourself, without help. When it suits you. Let us know what your findings are

Core roadmap is orthogonal to the issue at hand, IMHO. You don't need to apologize, everybody could be wrong every once in a while. And everybody as a busy life to deal with.
 
Going back to what we were saying, It is clear now that full nodes bandwidth consumption will remain the same even when SegWit soft-fork will be enforced/activated.

And speaking of my original question I think that you're misremembering what I was asking, I just restate my question just for a matter of clarity because I'm genuinely in getting a proper response:  what's the reason why a discount of 75% is applied to signatures (witnesses) while computing block space limit? 

Nevertheless I apologize in advance if I'm wasting your time Carlton.

[hdbuck]

The consensus is rough. No place for compromise.

[johnyj]

Obviously you don't understand how bitcoin transaction works, otherwise you won't ask so strange question. This proved my point, those who is supporting segwit typically don't understand how bitcoin works

You're a bad joke. You don't even know what is wrong in that picture yet you persist on saying that something is wrong and that your knowledge is above everyone else's.  

I don't want to waste time in useless discussions, I throw in 10 bitcoin to bet that picture is wrong, call or fold? 

[CIYAM]

Going back to what we were saying, It is clear now that full nodes bandwidth consumption will remain the same even when SegWit soft-fork will be enforced/activated.

Even initially that is not necessarily true because if a full node is relaying txs (which will contain the signatures) then it may actually already have all of the necessary information to validate the next block it sees (currently full nodes that are relaying txs are often actually seeing the signatures twice).

Also as I pointed out above - the SegWit implementation will support a new type of signature which will be much smaller (so although not initially a saving this will result in a saving of bandwidth as the witness data will be less than the equivalent signatures being used currently).