[2017-06-03] Segregated Witness and the Possibility of Patent Infringement

[sheld0n]

During the late evening of June 1, Bitcoin.com received an email from an anonymous source who has been researching possible patent infringements associated with the Segregated Witness (Segwit) protocol. According to the researcher, Segwit may be at risk violating two specific patents filed with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Segwit is a protocol that has been discussed quite a bit over the last year as a solution to bitcoin malleability issues and the possibility the implementation will improve transaction throughput. The concept relocates witness inputs created by transaction hash and separates the data into its own tree. The Segwit soft fork has been debated relentlessly within the bitcoin community as the protocol has not yet found sufficient support to activate the code.
https://news.bitcoin.com/segregated-witness-patent-infringement/

[European Central Bank]

i'll wait to hear more from a 'news' source that isn't owned by roger ver before deciding whether to panic or not.

[Bit_Happy]

Will a rebranding to "Dimwit" help solve any possible challenges?   
Related news: Fees are still high and transactions are sooooooooo slowwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.

[richardsNY]

i'll wait to hear more from a 'news' source that isn't owned by roger ver before deciding whether to panic or not.

Exactly that. Everything SegWit/scaling related coming from bitcoin.com should be taken with a serious load of salt. I expect more of these articles to pop up from them and other sites that supports Ver's poisonous ideology, the closer we come to the UASF date. It's clear that they will not be able to initiate a fork in current state, and thus they will revert to other measures (spreading fud) in order to avoid SegWit from activating.

[d5000]

The patent is claiming an "invention" that is rather trivial and a pure software implementation, as far as I can interpret it.

This kind of patents are only valid in a few countries like the US. In Europe and most of South America, for example, this would never be accepted (only by error). So a solution - if what the article says is true - would be to move the Bitcoin foundation outside of the authoritarian state that allows this kind of trivial software patents.

Yes, I know, it would be a bummer anyway - because no for-profit company in the US could then use Bitcoin or at least a Segwit-enabling client. But I also don't believe the source of the article is too trustworthy (at least, this time they cite sources and don't make claims out of thin air like so many times).