squatter. so much fail in your statements i think your just twisting things for entertainment
saying that a full node not signature validating deserves a "so what" response. goes to show you dont even understand the concept of being a full validation node.
saying that a full node not signature validating deserves a "so what" response. goes to show you dont even understand the concept of being a full validation node.
I see your strategy now. You throw out walls of text riddled with dishonest statements and inaccuracies, then you neglect to respond to any of the arguments other people make.
This is what I said:
Legacy nodes can't validate the signature of a Segwit transaction. So what? They still validate the POW, the inputs and outputs, the scripts, etc. Everything is validated the same way as before. Legacy nodes are just 1) accepting and propagating valid transactions from/to the network or 2) receiving valid outputs that have already been accepted by the network.
Your fundamental issue here is with how the Bitcoin protocol works, not Segwit.
Your fundamental issue here is with how the Bitcoin protocol works, not Segwit.
Legacy nodes validate Segwit transactions in numerous ways. You obviously take serious issue with how Bitcoin scripts work. It upsets you that there are Bitcoin scripts that nodes validate to true without verifying a signature. That's an issue you have with the Bitcoin protocol.
This dynamic was part of Bitcoin's design since inception. Satoshi spoke about this in 2010:
The receiver of a payment does a template match on the script. Currently, receivers only accept two templates: direct payment and bitcoin address. Future versions can add templates for more transaction types and nodes running that version or higher will be able to receive them. All versions of nodes in the network can verify and process any new transactions into blocks, even though they may not know how to read them.
In other words, if you want your node to fully understand every aspect of all transactions, then you should upgrade your node.
Refusing to upgrade to a compatible node isn't a matter of consensus. As long as all different versions remain forward and backward compatible, consensus has never been broken. That's why we're all still on the same network!
as for saying one node sends an output to another node.. shows you dont understand what gets transmitted or the whole blockcreation, relay, validation. process
When you make a groundless statement like that, you should elaborate and explain how it works.
Then I can pick apart the inaccurate/dishonest statements.
