Re: Segregated Witness legal flaw and its probable technical solutions
This is an unfortunate for me that I live in a very different time zone and right now I'm truly too exhausted to continue this discussion, but will do my best. After all it is a surprise for me that besides @GMaxwell one of the most celeberated contributers of SegWit, @Pieter Wuille , the inventor, simply does not admit that his proposal, which is going to be lunched (hopefully) in few weeks is simply about:
Guess what? These are the exact opening phrases written by the same @Pietre in his BIP 141 document.
Yes @Pietre, I do agree, several problems will be fixed but one problem will be created: the signatures that you think 'in particular are only required to validate the blockchain state ' will loose their immutability for this simple fact that they are not been hashed. right?
I do not understand why should we have any arguments here? It is so obvious: In Segregated Witness we do not 'freeze' signature data and there is no guarantee for this signature to be preserved , signatures will become just a transient passphrase for the transaction to be validated and confirmed. After the block has been confirmed and followed by other miners, all that matters is its role in the blockchain state, in other words, its impact on the UTXO.
After running SegWit there will be an opportunity for the nodes, full nodes, to store just the relevant, immutable transaction data and treat signatures transiently and temporarily as they are no longer hashed and are not immutable.
For now let's just check the integrity of my arguments. Am I in the right direction, @Pietre?
P.S. and forgive me if I can not follow your response immediately, it is getting too late in Iran and I need some rest.
Quote
The entirety of the transaction's effects are determined by output consumption (spends) and new output creation. Other transaction data, and signatures in particular, are only required to validate the blockchain state, not to determine it.
By removing this data from the transaction structure committed to the transaction merkle tree, several problems are fixed:
By removing this data from the transaction structure committed to the transaction merkle tree, several problems are fixed:
Guess what? These are the exact opening phrases written by the same @Pietre in his BIP 141 document.
Yes @Pietre, I do agree, several problems will be fixed but one problem will be created: the signatures that you think 'in particular are only required to validate the blockchain state ' will loose their immutability for this simple fact that they are not been hashed. right?
I do not understand why should we have any arguments here? It is so obvious: In Segregated Witness we do not 'freeze' signature data and there is no guarantee for this signature to be preserved , signatures will become just a transient passphrase for the transaction to be validated and confirmed. After the block has been confirmed and followed by other miners, all that matters is its role in the blockchain state, in other words, its impact on the UTXO.
After running SegWit there will be an opportunity for the nodes, full nodes, to store just the relevant, immutable transaction data and treat signatures transiently and temporarily as they are no longer hashed and are not immutable.
For now let's just check the integrity of my arguments. Am I in the right direction, @Pietre?
P.S. and forgive me if I can not follow your response immediately, it is getting too late in Iran and I need some rest.