📅 Original date posted:2017-07-13
📝 Original message:2017-07-13 18:58 GMT-03:00 Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org>:
> If I understand correctly, my node will accept the incoming tx inputs
> but obviously will not perform any segwit related validation, thus those
> inputs are not fully validated. I don't yet understand how my node
> thinks they are valid at all given that it does not understand P2WPKH
> address format, so either it doesn't need to, or P2WPKH is somehow
> already valid. I know this has all been discussed in the past, so if
> someone can point me towards a document that explains it I'd be happy to
> read that.
>
>From your perspective, the P2WPKH will look like a anyone-can-spend
transaction, thus, valid no matter who is spending. So, you would be
basically leaving the security of segwit transactions to those who actually
are interested in and using them. If your fork becomes popular, it would
decrease the security of Segwit transactions to something akin to the
security model of the Drivechain currently being discussed: only those
particularly interested in that particular sidechain (and segwit witness
could be loosely categorized into a sidechain) will be responsible to
prevent others from stealing funds from the anyone-can-spend transactions.
--
Lucas Clemente Vella
lvella at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170713/71992a34/attachment.html>;
Lucas Clemente Vella [ARCHIVE] /
npub19k…0235g
2023-06-07 20:04:28
in reply to nevent1q…48e5
Author Public Key
npub19kh93sp86d62nty669ffmttlq6vedf95g2eep5dh5443s64x5rpq60235gPublished at
2023-06-07 20:04:28Event JSON
{
"id": "ca5e383d1949a0689d1c4d41b474b21baa0d69c1d7dc4f5012ec82f8d87fc96c",
"pubkey": "2dae58c027d374a9ac9ad1529dad7f069996a4b442b390d1b7a56b186aa6a0c2",
"created_at": 1686161068,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c3417a9d5ad76947acf26c6783addd471ca3bcc5d3ed57deae65203b0eaf5238",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"defeb5af6be92ed8007999cea2d679f2f59f83d42cdde4c0de252ca8f9a49371",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"46986f86b97cc97829a031b03209644d134b939d0163375467f0b1363e0d875e"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2017-07-13\n📝 Original message:2017-07-13 18:58 GMT-03:00 Dan Libby via bitcoin-dev \u003c\nbitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org\u003e:\n\n\u003e If I understand correctly, my node will accept the incoming tx inputs\n\u003e but obviously will not perform any segwit related validation, thus those\n\u003e inputs are not fully validated. I don't yet understand how my node\n\u003e thinks they are valid at all given that it does not understand P2WPKH\n\u003e address format, so either it doesn't need to, or P2WPKH is somehow\n\u003e already valid. I know this has all been discussed in the past, so if\n\u003e someone can point me towards a document that explains it I'd be happy to\n\u003e read that.\n\u003e\n\n\u003eFrom your perspective, the P2WPKH will look like a anyone-can-spend\ntransaction, thus, valid no matter who is spending. So, you would be\nbasically leaving the security of segwit transactions to those who actually\nare interested in and using them. If your fork becomes popular, it would\ndecrease the security of Segwit transactions to something akin to the\nsecurity model of the Drivechain currently being discussed: only those\nparticularly interested in that particular sidechain (and segwit witness\ncould be loosely categorized into a sidechain) will be responsible to\nprevent others from stealing funds from the anyone-can-spend transactions.\n\n-- \nLucas Clemente Vella\nlvella at gmail.com\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20170713/71992a34/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "af63b33b42fa258b109e678c3a25ceb392dbef9b5a9e26d98086d12746d5c1d9f70f03673fa46a78b4137b2bcc6c337a765ddff09d09f4a8eaf4b05ca4bdb446"
}