Quote from: achow101 on September 20, 2018, 02:40:10 AM

Quote from: ETFbitcoin on September 20, 2018, 02:29:06 AM

AFAIK Schnorr don't use similar method for backward compability.

Schnorr will be added via a new segwit version number. It will not require a transaction format change, there just be a witness version 1 in addition to the current witness version 0.

Just to confirm, does that mean we'll see address starting with bc1p (according to BIP page[1]) ?

1. https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0173.mediawiki#bech32

Quote from: theymos on September 20, 2018, 03:40:38 AM

Those were arguments that the anti-SegWit people used, but they're not true:
- SegWit's security doesn't depend on miners, but rather on the economy. (Otherwise the UASF attempt wouldn't have made any sense...)

Looks like i misunderstood, however what if all miners use non-SegWit nodes, others use SegWit nodes and there's transaction from/to Bech32 address? AFAIK this will make such transaction never confirmed/included by miners.

Quote from: theymos on September 20, 2018, 03:40:38 AM

- The signature is not removed. Between SegWit nodes, every transaction must be accompanied by its signatures or it's invalid.

True, but what i meant is the signature is stripped/removed when SegWit nodes communicate with non-SegWit nodes.