[18-07-2018]How the Proposed Schnorr Upgrade Could End Bitcoin Scalability Issue

[SlipMart]

The recently proposed Schnorr upgrade could become the biggest modification to Bitcoin since Segregated Witness (SegWit).

Veteran Bitcoin developer Dr. Pieter Wuille published a Github document on July 6th suggesting a new standard for cryptographic signatures. The proposed standard, which uses 64-bit Schnorr signatures, would allow a user to utilize a single signature to execute transactions from their various different wallets.

Bitcoin has traditionally used the Elliptical Curve Digital Signature Algorithm (ECDSA) to authenticate transactions. While these are standardized, they do have a number of downsides compared to Schnorr signatures over the same secp256k1 curve. Wullie asserts that the update would not only improve Bitcoin’s utility but also upgrade its scalability and privacy.

Schnorr signatures are provably non-malleable, support multi-signatures and are easily provable in the random oracle model assuming the elliptic curve discrete logarithm problem (ECDLP) is hard. Such a proof does not exist for ECDSA.  Adoption of the new standard will employ a number of improvements not specific to Schnorr signatures including signature encoding and batch validation so as to provide higher security.

Ultimately, as Wuille states, the Bitcoin community will collectively make the decision to adopt Schnorr and only if the update proves to genuinely improve the Bitcoin protocol will it be implemented.

See more information on:https://news.bitzamp.com/how-the-proposed-schnorr-upgrade-could-end-bitcoins-scalability-issues/

[Carlton Banks]

Headline sounds misleading, the on-chain capacity increases are supposed to average at 20-30%. There's no point in over-selling the scalability improvements, better to emphasise the privacy and fungibility improvements. The latter are absolute, whereas the scaling improvements are only relative (and modest).

[hatshepsut93]

Headline sounds misleading, the on-chain capacity increases are supposed to average at 20-30%. There's no point in over-selling the scalability improvements, better to emphasise the privacy and fungibility improvements. The latter are absolute, whereas the scaling improvements are only relative (and modest).

It's just like with SegWit, the media called it a scaling solution, but it never was such, the point of it was to fix the malleability problem, blockwheight increase was just a nice addition. Crypto media still don't understand that Bitcoin will never take a path of on-chain scaling, it will only have some relatively small on-chain capacity boosts that don't require trade offs with security and decentralization. And with Schnorr, I guess "Bitcoin improves scalability" just sounds more sensational than "Bitcoin improves privacy".

[DooMAD]

And with Schnorr, I guess "Bitcoin improves scalability" just sounds more sensational than "Bitcoin improves privacy".

It depends on the article.  I've definitely read a few that place a greater emphasis on the privacy benefits (the CoinDesk one seemed more balanced, for example).  Things like this will always lean towards any bias or preference held by whoever wrote it, so I can only assume the author of this particular article doesn't value their privacy more than their views on scaling.  But, in practice, both are incrementally improved.

And they probably only chose that headline because clickbait.  Can't honestly expect any better these days.  It's all about the page impressions and ad revenue.  Not ideal, but hardly shocking either.

[cryptofonia]

Headline sounds misleading, the on-chain capacity increases are supposed to average at 20-30%. There's no point in over-selling the scalability improvements, better to emphasise the privacy and fungibility improvements. The latter are absolute, whereas the scaling improvements are only relative (and modest).

How it's going to raise privacy of Bitcoin to the level Monero affords?

[Carlton Banks]

How it's going to raise privacy of Bitcoin to the level Monero affords?

It doesn't. But better is still better. Really all it does is improve the cost dynamics of existing privacy techniques, making them more attractive.