pull down to refresh
11 sats \ 11 replies \ @aliceandthewonderland OP 8 Dec \ parent \ on: Bitcoin.org Owner Cobra Warns on Upcoming Bitcoin Soft Fork in 2025 bitcoin
While BCH’s existence may show that not everyone agreed with SegWit, it doesn’t deny the fact that SegWit was indeed addressing root technical issues like transaction malleability, block capacity, that were broadly recognized. BIP119’s aims may sound beneficial, but it’s not clear they’re solving a similarly core problem rather than introducing new complexity, without widespread agreement on its necessity.
SegWit was about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody. Covenants are about scaling bitcoin while preserving self-custody.
You need to look at the bigger picture and not get lost in the details.
reply
reply
reply
reply
No one was framing it around Lightning.
After the successful activations of OP_CLTV and OP_CSV, SegWit was the last protocol change needed to make the Lightning Network safe to deploy on the Bitcoin network.
It’s even mentioned in BIP 141 itself:
Unconfirmed transaction dependency chain is a fundamental building block of more sophisticated payment networks, such as duplex micropayment channel and the Lightning Network, which have the potential to greatly improve the scalability and efficiency of the Bitcoin system.
reply
What’s the vulnerability on layer 1 if your txid changes but you still get paid?
OPs premise:
I believe that BIPs should only be implemented to address critical vulnerabilities; otherwise, they are unnecessary.
In your rebuttal you mention SegWit and that it was introduced for scalability.
I am telling you your rebuttal is wrong because SegWit was primarily meant to address transaction malleability.
Lightning was an afterthought. And if Lightning did not exist, the BIP would have still addressed a critical vulnerability.
Just look at this
The very first reason says "Nonintentional malleability becomes impossible." NOT "makes lightning possible". See what I mean?
reply
Who says you still get paid?
Everyone who withdrew still got paid, the exchange only lost track of withdrawals because the txid changed so you could withdraw more than you had.
I am telling you your rebuttal is wrong because SegWit was primarily meant to address transaction malleability.
SegWit was a if not the most important part of the blocksize wars and proposed as an alternative to scaling on layer 1. As I see it, that’s literally framing SegWit around lightning.
The very first reason says "Nonintentional malleability becomes impossible." NOT "makes lightning possible".
The very first reason literally includes "makes lightning possible" as a bullet point
reply
Ok, I get that BIP119 can help secure self-custody in the long run.
But if we go down this route, isn’t there a risk of ending up with a similar split as the block size wars, where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
reply
There is. I’m arguing for covenants, but I’m not arguing for covenants right now via UASF.
where some nodes embrace the soft fork while others refuse, potentially leading to another contentious chain split?
Not if enough miners agree (MASF like Taproot), only if there is a UASF like SegWit which is probably what you mean.
reply