Quote from: hdbuck on January 27, 2016, 07:40:37 AM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on January 27, 2016, 07:31:06 AM

Quote from: hdbuck on January 27, 2016, 06:45:40 AM

I still have doubts regarding sidechains security:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3vg06a/official_release_rootstock_white_paper/cxnfe6n

As for the segwit thing, I am still quite opposed to the excision of cryptographic signatures from the holy ledger (also implying the introduction of 3rd trusted parties)..

WHat you think?

Sigs aren't being excised from the Holy Ledger, merely segregated from tx.

That makes the Holy Leger more secure by patching up some outstanding maintenance issues. The tps bump is just a nice side effect.

I trust the BIP process will work out any bugs with segwit and sidechains. So far, so good. Cool

Eh, to me they are introducing further points of failure and security breach (centralization, 3rd parties, etc...) whilst over-complexifying Bitcoin's code.

I'd rather have efficient (transparent?) off chain solutions to scaling as it will necessarily lead to centralization.

I just don't like my money being forked to please the social media and their mass adoption coffee cups urges.

"Wouldn't it be extremely inefficient to copy every single coffee purchase on everyone's computer?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/42tcqm/eli5_wouldnt_it_be_extremely_inefficient_to_copy/

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ is a long read, but well worth the time*effort.

There's no centralization or TPPs involved in segwit. For one thing, Bitcoin CEO Adam Back (Ph.D. in distributed systems) wouldn't stand for it.

Segwit isn't being done for coffees-on-the-blockchain. The tps bump is merely a serendipitous bonus, and just the thing for shutting up the 2MB ClassicCoin troll-forkers.

Segwit is being done to make our potentially disruptive experiment an eventually viable candidate for the job of high-powered digital cash, capable of being the provably honest mother of all settlement networks.

Segwit fixes several points of potential failure and security breach. It also enables some amazing features, IE linear sighash scaling.

What can we do with tx signed by groups of 100 or 100k users? I have no idea but am in favor of finding out, because I like Nice Things.

Details aside, look at the big picture here.

SW is being done as a soft fork, so there is nothing anyone can do to prevent its deployment (besides finding a deal-breaker bug or other flaw).

We can't force people to desegregate their tx and sig data. Node operators are free to construct their blocks however they like. Almost all of them will choose to use the new option of segregated witness, because of the apparently overwhelming advantages and acceptably negligible trade-offs.

We can run the old version and refuse to look in the newly provided companion blocks for sig data, but that doesn't change anything but our own opsec.

We are obligated to fight features, but at some point some of them begin to smell like a done deal. Remember when everyone was upset ("rabble rabble Peter Todd rabble") about CLTV, but then some wag called it OP_HODL and suddenly all was well? Cheesy

The BIP process has worked like a charm so far. I don't see any reason to stop trusting it for fear of segwit, sidechains, and RBF (oh my!).

The white smoke for segwit, sidechains, Lightning, and RBF went up at the HK #ScalingBitcoin. They're coming, and the world is preparing for a Bitcoin that is ready to scale, eventually.