pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 8 Dec \ parent \ on: Bitcoin.org Owner Cobra Warns on Upcoming Bitcoin Soft Fork in 2025 bitcoin
You sure?
It’s even mentioned in BIP 141 itself:
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