Segwit may yet cause problems ahead.
I don't know why but I always had a strong feeling that Segwit was a bad idea.
Then I read this scrolling through some youtube comments on a Segwit video today.
"The [Segwit] upgrade is less secure, That is the point of it. You have to make it less secure so you can add another layer of miners to the network topology (lightning network and other "L2" tx-processors that will be required to be licensed due to the awesome responsibility they have taken upon themselves), and have them process the "extended block". If you keep all the data in the block, then mining can't be monopolized by banks, and other legacy financiers that are rich enough to pay for the money transmitter/custodian licenses they'll need to acquire from every state they operate in.... Now you know why we have SegWit despite the fact the vast majority of miners said no to implementing it for over 2 years.."
I have heard reports that anti-segwit speech is quickly deleted from the internet..
is anyone else Instinctively sceptical about this fundamental change which was forced upon the network despite being resisted for some time? They now put the transaction signatures and pub keys in a separate 'extended block' what is to say in 3-4 years people aren't able to monkey around with the extended blocks even remove them.. and then where would be the proof that you ever received the bitcoin?
This was never a problem before as the signatures from your private key were always packaged in the same block as your transaction.. anyone else able to elaborate and help me shine light into this dark corner of Bitcoin's development?
P.S. (to be clear I am talking about the 'segwit' (segregated witness) upgrade that has already come into effect.. not the proposed, and now abandoned/cancelled Segwit2x fork)
Satoshi (the real Satoshi!! :) ) apparently even mentioned in the White Paper that, "a segwit (segregated witness) transaction is not a bitcoin transaction"
I also offer this video on Segwit for those wanting to look into this subject more,
On page 2 of the white paper, Satoshi Nakamoto explained:
"we define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures"
That's what Satoshi wrote.. my concern is that if we use segwit to broadcast a transaction we will be voluntarily removing one of Satoshi's key protections which is: having the Transaction Hash, previous owner, new owner's pub key and signature all in one immutable place.
If Bitcoin is "a chain of digital signatures" and you move the location of the signatures to a block attached to the chain (but not technically within it) then what are you left with?
I don't know what it is but I know it's not Satoshi's Bitcoin. It's not the Bitcoin that some of the smartest and brightest people on the planet got so excited about just a few years ago..
I strongly wish to be corrected in my analysis and I dearly hope that I am wrong... but, alas.. I fear I have stumbled upon a real problem in the road ahead...
Congratulations @astralant! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP