sipa changed the topic of #bitcoin-wizards to: This channel is for discussing theoretical ideas with regard to cryptocurrencies, not about short-term Bitcoin development | http://bitcoin.ninja/ | This channel is logged. | For logs and more information, visit http://bitcoin.ninja
c0rw1n- has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
c0rw1n has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
zooko has joined #bitcoin-wizards
bsm1175321 has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
bsm117532 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
domwoe has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
Ylbam has quit [Quit: Connection closed for inactivity]
c0rw1n- has joined #bitcoin-wizards
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gabridome has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
c0rw1n has joined #bitcoin-wizards
gabridome has joined #bitcoin-wizards
domwoe has joined #bitcoin-wizards
zooko has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
Noldorin has quit [Quit: My MacBook Pro has gone to sleep. ZZZzzz…]
markus-k_ has joined #bitcoin-wizards
markus-k has quit [Ping timeout: 260 seconds]
domwoe has quit [Remote host closed the connection]
mdavid613 has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
domwoe has joined #bitcoin-wizards
rusty2 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
domwoe has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
el33th4x0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<el33th4x0r>
paging segwit experts for a quick question
<bsm117532>
I don't claim to be an expert, but I've been banging my head against it for a few days...
<el33th4x0r>
great, any help would be much appreciated. here's the question:
<el33th4x0r>
haha, i tried reading the BIPs and this is easier. also i'm getting older and lazier!
<el33th4x0r>
is it the case that, with the current soft fork implementation of segwit, that a non-Segwit-aware node is expected to ferry segwit transactions to other nodes?
<el33th4x0r>
they would appear as anyone-can-spends to them.
<el33th4x0r>
but i'm not sure if they (non-segwit supporting, minority nodes) are expected to be able to ferry them on the p2p layer to the segwit-supporting majority miners.
<bsm117532>
el33th4x0r: As far as I understand, that is correct.
<el33th4x0r>
"that is corect" -> they should be able to ferry them?
<bsm117532>
correct.
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 244 seconds]
<bsm117532>
AFAIK there is no reason non-upgraded nodes would/could censor segwit transactions in blocks, or in the p2p layer.
<kanzure>
el33th4x0r: are you in boston
<el33th4x0r>
ok, great, that's what i thought initially, but was not sure.
<kanzure>
or was that a one-time thing
<el33th4x0r>
@kanzure: no, boring old ithaca. are you guys licing it up at mit?
<el33th4x0r>
living*
<bsm117532>
But, please get a second opinion. I've only been looking at it for a couple days.
<kanzure>
yea lots of lice
<el33th4x0r>
haha
<el33th4x0r>
no lice or bedbugs i hope
<el33th4x0r>
there was some DAO event in Boston I gather, but I'm not part of it.
<el33th4x0r>
I emailed Eric Lombrozo and @gmaxwell
<phantomcircuit>
el33th4x0r, nodes which are not segwit aware will not relay the segwit data
<kanzure>
in general i would recommend asking on irc instead of emailing those two
<bsm117532>
busy bees bee busy.
<kanzure>
also #bitcoin-core-dev and #segwit-dev (although i think #segwit-dev is morally wrong)
<bsm117532>
short and sweet. At least he could have bought us dinner?
<midnightmagic>
lice is a big problem with kids fresh out of highschool. No clue how to keep themselves clean when their parents have been helicoptering for the prior 12 years.
* midnightmagic
shudders
Burrito has quit [Quit: Leaving]
domwoe has joined #bitcoin-wizards
el33th4x0r has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<el33th4x0r>
Sorry, back in discussion
<el33th4x0r>
So, segwit xactions will not be ferried by non-supporting nodes?
<el33th4x0r>
Even though they appear as anyone can spends.
<bsm117532>
So el33th4x0r AFAIK the transactions will be "ferried", meaning non-upgraded nodes will have an accurate UTXO set. However, the data to actually validate the segwit transactions is NOT ferried.
<el33th4x0r>
Oooofff. That's even more complicated than I thought
<el33th4x0r>
Phantom: do you agree?
<bsm117532>
The segwit data is definitely not ferried. The non-upgraded node sees a bunch of anyone-can-spends going to other anyone-can-spends. It's valid as far as the old protocol is concerned.
<bsm117532>
IMHO I would have deliberately built such a mechanism in from the beginning, if I were Satoshi.
<el33th4x0r>
Upon receiving such a transaction, the segwit supporting nodes would do nothing, right? They'd have to receive it from a segwit node, with the witnesses.
<bsm117532>
Please be more specific about "receiving such a transaction"?
<bsm117532>
Yes they'd have to receive it from a segwit node.
<el33th4x0r>
A new segwit xaction ferried by a non-segwit supporting node
<el33th4x0r>
Thanks, I read that but it wasn't clear on this issue
<bsm117532>
I *think* that is the p2p layer for segwit relays.
<bsm117532>
Seems rather thin, I spent exactly 0.5s scrolling through it. But then, that's not my concern at the moment.
<el33th4x0r>
So for segwit to activate and be useful, we need buy in from miners, plus we need sufficient supportfrom relay nodes so xactions can find a pathto supporting miners?
<bsm117532>
Ah now I see what you're getting at.
<jl2012>
el33th4x04: "ferry" means "relay"?
<bsm117532>
No, non-upgraded relay nodes will relay all soft-fork segwit transactions. (AFAIK, please someone correct or second me)
<el33th4x0r>
@jl2012: yes
<jl2012>
old nodes do not relay unconfirmed segwit tx, as they are non-standard to them. Same principle applies to CSV, CLTV, BIP66 softforks
justanotheruser has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
<el33th4x0r>
Ok, that makes sense.
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<el33th4x0r>
I.e not what I initially thought, but perfectly fine this way
<el33th4x0r>
Many thanks for all the help. Greatly appreciate it.
<jl2012>
for CSV vs. segwit, there is no difference in terms of tx relay. But block relay indeed has a difference
<jl2012>
because unupgraded nodes cannot relay witness
justanotheruser has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jl2012>
blocks could be relayed without any problem as new<--> new, old<--> old, new --> old; but not old --> new
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 250 seconds]
pro has quit [Quit: Leaving]
<el33th4x0r>
So an old node would never even encounter a segwit TX until it is encased in a block, right?
<el33th4x0r>
At which time, it looks like an anyone can spend
<jl2012>
yes, they will just ignore all unconfirmed segwit tx
<el33th4x0r>
Great. Much appreciate the clarity.
<jl2012>
same for unconfirmed CSV tx
Chris_Stewart_5 has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jl2012>
actually segwit softfork is similar in some way as the P2SH BIP16 softfork
dingus has joined #bitcoin-wizards
<jl2012>
for old nodes, segwit and P2SH both look like unsigned tx
<jl2012>
i.e. any-one-can-spend
<jl2012>
especially for the segwit-in-P2SH mode. It's property is very similar to the original P2SH softfok
<jl2012>
i.e. the tx is not anyone-can-spend, until it is actually spent
<el33th4x0r>
So it would be foolhardy to send a segwit TX before the soft fork had activated?
<el33th4x0r>
Because the non-sw miners can include it as an anyone can spend.
<jl2012>
bitcoind does not allow you to do so by default, for obvious reason
<jl2012>
so, only if you do it manually
<el33th4x0r>
Ok, that makes sense. It's be dumb to do so.
Chris_Stewart_5 has quit [Ping timeout: 258 seconds]
<jl2012>
and even if you do it manually, you can't get the witness data recorded to the blockchain, even for upgraded nodes
<yoleaux>
“I am afraid this manuscript may contribute not so much towards the field’s advancement as much as toward its eventual demise.” (@YourPaperSucks)
<yoleaux>
IACR to publish Standardization Bodies Revocation List. SBRL will prevent the use of standards from compromised Standardization Bodies. (@FakeIACR)