Quote from: knightdk on March 16, 2016, 08:37:31 PM

Quote from: jl777 on March 16, 2016, 08:24:00 PM

my reaction was based on the answers I was getting and clearly it is a complex issue. segwit is arguably more changes to bitcoin than all prior BIP's combined. I dont think anybody would say otherwise.

I agree with that, after all, there are 6 separate BIPs for it of which 4 (or 5?) are being implemented in one go.

Quote from: jl777 on March 16, 2016, 08:24:00 PM

Now please ignore the space savings for nodes that are not full nodes. I am assuming that to bootstrap a node it will need to get the witness data from somewhere, right? so it is needed permanently and thus part of the permanent HDD requirement.

Again, no. Full nodes don't have to validate the signatures of transactions in super old blocks. This is something that Bitcoin Core currently does and will continue to do. Since it doesn't check the signatures of transactions in historical blocks those witnesses don't need to be downloaded, although I suppose they could. There will of course be people who run nodes that store all of that data (I will probably be one of those people) in case someone wants it.

Quote from: jl777 on March 16, 2016, 08:24:00 PM

I still dont fully understand how the size of the truncated tx+ witness data is as small as 2 bytes per tx + 1 byte per vin. But even if that is the case, my OP title is accurate. as N+2*numtx+numvins is more than N

that is the math I see.

From the view point of a new node some years in the future, that data isn't needed and it most certainly won't be downloaded or needed. But for now, yes, you will be storing that data but it can be pruned away like the majority of the blockchain can be now. Keep in mind that a pruned node is still a full node. It still validates and relays every transaction and block it receives. Full Nodes do not have to store the entire blockchain, they just need to download it. That extra data is also not counted as what is officially defined as the blockchain.

Quote from: jl777 on March 16, 2016, 08:24:00 PM

Also I made the mistake of making sure the transaction hash matches for a transaction. I had assumed that if the transaction hash doesnt match, it is invalid rawbytes. Are you saying that we dont need to verify that the transaction hashes match? As you know verifying signatures is very time consuming compared to verifying txid. So if verifying txid is not available anymore, that would dramatically increase the CPU load for any validating node.

Anymore? It was never done in the first place. Verifying the transaction has always been checking the signatures because the creating and verifying signatures involve the hash of the transaction.

Quote from: jl777 on March 16, 2016, 08:24:00 PM

Before I go making new threads about that, let us wait for some clarity on this issue.

I think if the witness data is assumed to be there permanently, then we dont increase the CPU load 10x or more to have to validate sigs vs validate txid, so it would be a moot point.

It won't increase the CPU load because that is what is currently being done and has always been done. In fact, signature validation in Bitcoin Core 0.12+ is significantly faster than in previous versions due to the use of libsecp256k1 which dramatically increased the performance of the validation.

I was told by gmax himself that a node that doesnt validate all signatures should call itself a fully validating node.

Also, I am making an optimized bitcoin core and one of these optimizations is rejecting a tx whose contents doesnt match the txid. The thinking being that if the hashes dont match, there is no point in wasting time calculating the signature

not sure what libsecp256k1's speed has anything to do with the fact that it is still much slower to calculate than SHA256.

So my point again, is that all witness data needs to be stored permanently for a full node that RELAYS historical blocks to a bootstrapping node. If we are to lose this, then we might as well make bitcoin PoS as that is the one weakness for PoS vs PoW. So if you are saying that we need to view bitcoin as fully SPV all the time with PoS level security for bootstrapping nodes, ok, with those assumptions lots and lots of space is saved.

However, with such drastic assumptions I can (and have) already saved lots more space without adding a giant amount of new protocol and processing.

So this controversy has at least clarified that segwit INCREASES the size of the permanently needed data for fully validating and relaying node. Of course for SPV nodes things are much improved, but my discussion is not about SPV nodes.

So the powers that be can call me whatever names they want. I still claim that:

N + 2*numtx + numvins > N

And as such segwit as way to save permanent blockchain space is an invalid claim.Now the cost of 2*numtx+numvins is not that big, so maybe it is worth the cost for all the benefits we get.

However on the benefits claims, one of them is the utxo dataset is becoming a lot more manageable. this is irrelevant as that is a local inefficiency that can be optimized without any external effects. I have it down to 4 bytes of RAM per utxo, but I could make it smaller if needed

It just seems a lot of unsupported (or plain wrong) claims are made to justify the segwit softfork. And the most massive change by far is being slipped in as a minor softfork update?