Clearing the FUD around segwit

[franky1]

The problem is that the bad block cannot exist in the first place. You cannot spend from an output that you do not own. Segwit does not change this behavior.

before segwit is released someone can make a segwit tx. where the witness data is not part of the transaction.

a better analogy than anyone can spend is that any signature data is treated as just a 'message'. that is overlooked and not checked or done anything to.
old clients will just see it as a funky tx.

again segwit tx is not a op-true so please look away from the anyonecanspend analogy and concentrate on op_0. and only op_0.. they are different things entirely.

so knowing old clients are backward compatible to blindly look passed segwits. it proves that old clients would not reject or orphan a block containing a segwit. otherwise segwit is not backward compatible. and blocks would get rejected all the time by old clients.(if the opposite to reality could occur)

its just basic logic/common sense.
old clients wont reject a segwit transaction

and nothing in the future when the real segwit it activated changes for old clients.. remember old clients wont upgrade so nothing changes for them. what they look blindly passed now they will look blindly passed in the future.

[franky1]

i think knightdb cannot get beyond the concept that segwit is not foolproof. so its best i leave him to wallow in his small box of bug free perfect code, cushioning himself with candyfloss clouds and pink unicorns. blissfully ignorant that the world is not the dream laid out on whitepapers, while he pretends it is

have a good month everyone

[gmaxwell]

Thanks & yes, I got that. But this soft fork happens at 4) or two weeks later.
The question is, whether the new coded miners (SW enabled) will orphane the non SW chain down two that BAD block made in 2)  because they will all agree that this BAD but old block is the last valid SW one since it contains the correct LAST  correct SW  entry?

No, that block will not be invalid. The rule is not enforced for any blocks before the specific block where the activation starts, all at once for everyone upgraded (including the 95%+ hashpower that triggered it). The blockchain itself assures that the triggering is coordinated and that almost all the hashpower is running software that can enforce at that coordinated point.

[achow101]

before segwit is released someone can make a segwit tx. where the witness data is not part of the transaction.

Yes, but only for spending from an output of the type OP_0 <20 bytes> or anything similar. The witness data must still be in the transaction when you are spending from an output that has anything like OP_CHECKSIG in the output script.

i think knightdb cannot get beyond the concept that segwit is not foolproof. so its best i leave him to wallow in his small box of bug free perfect code, cushioning himself with candyfloss clouds and pink unicorns. blissfully ignorant that the world is not the dream laid out on whitepapers, while he pretends it is

have a good month everyone

I think franky1 cannot get beyond the concept of how bitcoin works and is just spouting bullshit to make himself seem better than anyone else. He simply doesn't know how bitcoin works or is trolling.


New local rule: franky1 is banned from this thread from this post onwards.

[rizzlarolla]

OP

I wrote a post on my website to try to clear up the misunderstandings that people have and spread about Segregated Witness.

http://www.achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup

If you think I missed something or made a mistake, please let me know and I will change it.

I appreciate your efforts to help explain, however, your explanation is far from definitive.
I'm unmoved so far.

Segwit is all too vulnerable. It is too new.
And while it maybe "tested", effects cannot be fully understood.

[achow101]

Segwit is all too vulnerable. It is too new.
And while it maybe "tested", effects cannot be fully understood.

And that begs the question: When is it not "too new"? If it is never deployed on such a scale as Bitcoin, then it will always be new to Bitcoin and the effects of it on the network the size of Bitcoin's cannot be known until it is tried on the Bitcoin network. No altcoin is at the same level as Bitcoin, a new altcoin certainly wouldn't. The testnet is most definitely not on the same level of Bitcoin. So sure, while we could test it on the testnet and get most of the technical bugs out (as they have been doing with segnet), it is not possible to fully understand the entirety of the effects that segwit, or any major change for that matter, on the economy and non-technical aspects of Bitcoin without actually doing it. By that logic then, Bitcoin would never be able to evolve and change in the future because the effects of any change cannot be fully understood.

[rizzlarolla]

Segwit is all too vulnerable. It is too new.
And while it maybe "tested", effects cannot be fully understood.

And that begs the question: When is it not "too new"? If it is never deployed on such a scale as Bitcoin, then it will always be new to Bitcoin and the effects of it on the network the size of Bitcoin's cannot be known until it is tried on the Bitcoin network. No altcoin is at the same level as Bitcoin, a new altcoin certainly wouldn't. The testnet is most definitely not on the same level of Bitcoin. So sure, while we could test it on the testnet and get most of the technical bugs out (as they have been doing with segnet), it is not possible to fully understand the entirety of the effects that segwit, or any major change for that matter, on the economy and non-technical aspects of Bitcoin without actually doing it. By that logic then, Bitcoin would never be able to evolve and change in the future because the effects of any change cannot be fully understood.

Fair point, but some changes are more far reaching than others.
As in the situation of segwit being so new, if there is any risk of destroying Bitcoin, that is a risk to far.

The effects of a small block size increase is maybe more generally understood than the intricacy's of segwit.
I don't feel the same risk of destroying Bitcoin applies.

[dumbfbrankings]

To all FUDsters and there FUD:

Just ley back, close your ayes, it will all be over soon. Squirming about only makes things worse, for everyJuan, Gee. Be glad you are only being soft forked, contention over consensus isn't even possible or relevant with feathery soft things... 

[achow101]

Segwit is all too vulnerable. It is too new.
And while it maybe "tested", effects cannot be fully understood.

And that begs the question: When is it not "too new"? If it is never deployed on such a scale as Bitcoin, then it will always be new to Bitcoin and the effects of it on the network the size of Bitcoin's cannot be known until it is tried on the Bitcoin network. No altcoin is at the same level as Bitcoin, a new altcoin certainly wouldn't. The testnet is most definitely not on the same level of Bitcoin. So sure, while we could test it on the testnet and get most of the technical bugs out (as they have been doing with segnet), it is not possible to fully understand the entirety of the effects that segwit, or any major change for that matter, on the economy and non-technical aspects of Bitcoin without actually doing it. By that logic then, Bitcoin would never be able to evolve and change in the future because the effects of any change cannot be fully understood.

Fair point, but some changes are more far reaching than others.
As in the situation of segwit being so new, if there is any risk of destroying Bitcoin, that is a risk to far.

The effects of a small block size increase is maybe more generally understood than the intricacy's of segwit.
I don't feel the same risk of destroying Bitcoin applies.

That is of course personal preference. You can think whatever you want of the risks, and form your own opinions, that's fine and up to you, I'm not going to try to sway you. The main point of this thread was to stop many misconceptions and misinformation that people spread and to present the facts about segwit. The opinions you make of it are completely up to you.

[johnyj]

Soft-forks are not enforced on the older parts of the chain. Only in blocks from two weeks after 95% of the hash-power had signaled their intent to enforce (counted over a 2016 block interval after the change start-time).

For prior soft-forks, like strictder, there are many historical violations before where it was enforced. It does not make the chain invalid, only violations after the point where the new rule's enforcement begins would do so.

Good, this is the first if...then added to fix a specific logic flaw, and this will not be the last of them, keep adding if...then until all the code base become an ugly mess and you still might have missed some scenario

You really don't need all these wasted efforts of patch making and testing if you just do a hard fork

[gmaxwell]

You really don't need all these wasted efforts of patch making and testing if you just do a hard fork

That would be strictly harder not easier. The older behavior must be accommodated regardless or it will confiscate peoples coins.

I'm sorry you disagree with the method used by Bitcoin's creator-- as well as almost every technical expert to come after-- has fixed and maintained the system, perhaps you should use something else.

[johnyj]

You really don't need all these wasted efforts of patch making and testing if you just do a hard fork

That would be strictly harder not easier. The older behavior must be accommodated regardless or it will confiscate peoples coins.

I'm sorry you disagree with the method used by Bitcoin's creator-- as well as almost every technical expert to come after-- has fixed and maintained the system, perhaps you should use something else.

You sounds like a central planner/protector for all the people. This is experimental software and open source isn't it, no one is responsible for people's financial loss, thus everyone here knows how to protect themselves by only investing risk money. But they hate being centrally controlled, it seems you value money over freedom

[franky1]

Yes, but only for spending from an output of the type OP_0 <20 bytes> or anything similar. The witness data must still be in the transaction when you are spending from an output that has anything like OP_CHECKSIG in the output script.

old clients wont check whats after 0x00(op_0).. they automatically treat the transaction as valid.

again the signatures are not in the same expected area. segwit abuses 0x00 to achieve this. thats the whole point of how segwit can work as a softfork!
because the signatures are not where they are expected. old clients treat it as just a valid funky tx.

the 20 bytes after 0x00 (op_0) are not going to be what old clients expect to see. yet they would automatically look passed it, without care.

i think you are blindly trusting the dev's to make pretty code with zero bugs. instead of thinking with a critical mind that things can break and to think that its better to have a things might break mindset rather then a devoted faith that it will elegantly work. because blind faith is the mindset of people who wont bug check/hack it to its limits. they will just do a couple standard transactions and praise their lord that funds move.. rather than trying to break it

come on.. the code is not even released and ur already thinking its perfect..

real that last line 5 times. let it settle in your head. and think about the mindset you have.
even scientists who spend years developing space rockets, still end up with them blowing up.

[hv_]

You really don't need all these wasted efforts of patch making and testing if you just do a hard fork

That would be strictly harder not easier. The older behavior must be accommodated regardless or it will confiscate peoples coins.

I'm sorry you disagree with the method used by Bitcoin's creator-- as well as almost every technical expert to come after-- has fixed and maintained the system, perhaps you should use something else.

hm - you can improve, debug and grow only with constructive critics, so I  wonder (but could understand as well)  that you lose patience here ...

You are a sience guy, so you know your theory fail once you cannot convince your critisizers .

[gmaxwell]

You sounds like a central planner/protector for all the people. This is experimental software and open source isn't it, no one is responsible for people's financial loss, thus everyone here knows how to protect themselves by only investing risk money. But they hate being centrally controlled, it seems you value money over freedom

If third parties make decisions to take away your funds, then Bitcoin isn't money. I find it amusing that you call avoiding that, "centrally controlled".

hm - you can improve, debug and grow only with constructive critics, so I  wonder (but could understand as well)  that you lose patience here ...
You are a sience guy, so you know your theory fail once you cannot convince your critisizers .

There is little point in arguing with a climate change denier or creationist whos positions are axioms and not based on the science. At some point all there is left to say is that this is what Bitcoin is, it's what it's been since the start-- the poster has already aggressively and insultingly disregarded the advice of virtually everyone with established expertise-- and promotes a vision, things like it being okay to make changes that confiscate people's funds, that in my opinion is practically and ethically incompatible with Bitcoin. I feel no shame in telling such a person that Bitcoin may not be what they seek.

If Bitcoin is to satisfy anyone it cannot satisfy _everyone_; some demands are mutually exclusive.

old clients wont check whats after 0x00(op_0).. they automatically treat the transaction as valid.

This is the property of the address, not the signature; if it were a property of the signature you could already simply steal any coin.

[franky1]

If third parties make decisions to take away your funds, then Bitcoin isn't money. I find it amusing that you call avoiding that, "centrally controlled".

money is centrally controlled.. sorry but thats the truth.

bitcoin is not money.. its an asset..

both money and assets equally sit under the umbrella term of currency. so yes money is a currency and so is an asset. but trying to say bitcoin is money is playing right into the FIAT overlords mindset.

bitcoin is not money. pure and simple. nor should it ever be money.
being an asset is no worse than being money, but the benefits and positives are larger.

[hv_]

You sounds like a central planner/protector for all the people. This is experimental software and open source isn't it, no one is responsible for people's financial loss, thus everyone here knows how to protect themselves by only investing risk money. But they hate being centrally controlled, it seems you value money over freedom

If third parties make decisions to take away your funds, then Bitcoin isn't money. I find it amusing that you call avoiding that, "centrally controlled".

hm - you can improve, debug and grow only with constructive critics, so I  wonder (but could understand as well)  that you lose patience here ...
You are a sience guy, so you know your theory fail once you cannot convince your critisizers .

There is little point in arguing with a climate change denier or creationist whos positions are axioms and not based on the science. At some point all there is left to say is that this is what Bitcoin is, it's what it's been since the start-- the poster has already aggressively and insultingly disregarded the advice of virtually everyone with established expertise-- and promotes a vision, things like it being okay to make changes that confiscate people's funds, that in my opinion is practically and ethically incompatible with Bitcoin. I feel no shame in telling such a person that Bitcoin may not be what they seek.

If Bitcoin is to satisfy anyone it cannot satisfy _everyone_; some demands are mutually exclusive.

old clients wont check whats after 0x00(op_0).. they automatically treat the transaction as valid.

This is the property of the address, not the signature; if it were a property of the signature you could already simply steal any coin.

This form needs really a good AI filter for 'constructive critics / Feature requests' - rest put on ignore  :-)
In the end I guess 95% of memebers are trying to improve bitcoin, methods for that are mostly wrong.

[Zarathustra]

If third parties make decisions to take away your funds, then Bitcoin isn't money. I find it amusing that you call avoiding that, "centrally controlled".

money is centrally controlled.. sorry but thats the truth.

bitcoin is not money.. its an asset..

Yes.

Paul C. Martin:

Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force. The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the possession of it guarantees property of it. Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute). The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons (copper, tin). Thus non-circulating money begins. Taxes as “census” and money are the same.

http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdf

[Searing]

Just found this thread. What is the 'consensus here' will 'segregated witness' deploy BEFORE halving..or will they put it off till after?

(I know they said before but seems kinda close to halving ...perhaps they are gonna wait)

anyway not up on this just wondering ...so chime in here

[achow101]

Just found this thread. What is the 'consensus here' will 'segregated witness' deploy BEFORE halving..or will they put it off till after?

(I know they said before but seems kinda close to halving ...perhaps they are gonna wait)

anyway not up on this just wondering ...so chime in here

Based upon the discussion that the Core Devs have been having in the IRC, a release containing segwit will be out before the halving. Whether it is deployed before the halving is up to the miners.