Segregated Witness Explained

Segregated Witness Explained [Segwit] (Litecoin/Bitcoin)

Shares

Segregated Witness declares A thank you to Luke Dashjr & Tom Zander

Submitted by Franklyn German translation of Bay6 Translations, Maik Beyer Segregated Witness (Discriminated witness) It is great as Bitcoin’s solution has been to fix a variety of problems, celebrated From the elimination of subsequent changes to transactions up to the scaling

However, not to have been angry without the resistance of ‘miners’, browsing its activation threaten due voiced concern about the technical and economic complexity They hope to find a better solution In “Segregated Witness” or also called “Segwit”, is a profound change, having the structure, the blocks on the “Block Chain” changed Blocks are composed of several components, these are: The block header It contains the version of the block, the hash of the previous block, hash origin, Timestamp, destination and the nonce

In addition, the transaction counter, and finally a list of individual transactions A block is limited at the moment to a size of 1 megabyte and each component takes something like this to complete The majority of this place, well over 99 per cent is reserved for the transactions, which in turn have their own components, namely inputs and outputs: Inputs are where the money came from units and outputs where they are going The signature requires most space, it is located within the inputs This signature makes 65 percent of the space required, within a transaction, and is proof that the sender controls how high should the amount to be sent

Segregated Witness singles and shifts the signature of the input in its own structure, also known as a “witness” This makes a calculation of the transaction ID much more predictable and in some cases prevented, but not all, the modification of transactions, if a person should try to change the transaction ID In addition, this allows an extension of the block size of one megabyte to slightly below 4 megabytes Each byte in a “witness” in a Segwit transaction counts as a unit, while every other byte from the transaction than 4 units is one

Since the blocks but do not consist of 100 per cent of these “witnesses” data and further Increases in data size, added transactions in Segwit, it never reaches 4 megabytes Instead, you end up effectively at an upper limit of 2 megabytes or double BB code capacity Removing the signatures of the transaction inputs, however, resulted in incompatibility problems The hash originating from the block header, allowing the block to confirm transactions, without the main part, so the transaction information to know It arises by taking each transaction ID of the block and splits it twice and to a “hash tree” merges

This continues until only one number remains The hash origin The data of the “witnesses” are then not longer part of the transaction ID, however, must still be included in the transaction Otherwise, the block will not be valid, Therefore, you need a separate hash tree for which complete data of the transaction

By appending this to the first transaction, the data of the witness can connect successfully with the transaction And thus Segregated Witness (Discriminated witness) also backward compatible Due to this new block structure, older nodes are these continue to recognize as valid, Nevertheless, as with every update of Bitcoin itself, these blocks will not be fully understood However, new Segwit node will be able to confirm these observations blocks properly, since they are familiar with the new rules and to know how this new block structure can be seen Segregated Witness is implemented by a “soft Fork”, that means 95 percent of the “Miner” must Segwit have compatible software to run on, so that it can be activated

We do not know how many “Miners” Segwit run on, but if we refer to these statistics, we see that only 85% of the network “core” use nodes which are the major proponents of Segwit This has led to predictions of many people who see no successful consensus for Segwit On the other hand cautiously optimistic people who foresee a consensus to Segwit activation end of the year or in 2017, because its advocacy is currently underestimated It is only fair to point out that it is Segwit, indeed to is a profound change, but it shall, in the end, the foundation for further changes And not just with respect to subsequent modifications and the network capacity

Because of these profound changes, there are a number of risks, including: Firstly, the introduction of bugs in the system, either by errors in the development or implementation There is also the possibility of a user error, through confusion in the use of this system Along with interactions in the Bitcoinumgebung where there may already solid assumptions, against, could be, then violated by this update Second, transaction fees Very often it is the case today, that demand exceeds supply

As such, given to those who pay more, priority over those who pay less With the increase of network capacity, at least in the short term, there could be a reduction in transaction fees Consequently, less credit for “Miner” and less security in the network, they should no longer be able to profit to “mineral” and be forced to take some equipment from the mains Although it is likely to develop so that the transaction fees continue to rise or at least stay the same, as the additional capacity provided by Segwit, will cover swiftly through the steady demand Thirdly, serialization

Transactions and blocks are currently arranged so that their information can be rebuilt later, if necessary This also helps, added echoed the block chain and to transmit data over the network again helps Segwit hits the thing by hanging on a message to the base of the block transaction, which causes 32 to 47 additional bytes in the transaction And depending on the type of transaction, further -1 to 19 percent, of information per transaction, appends Fourthly, block acknowledgment time The time for confirmation of blocks will also increase, as more processing power to Calculate, is required by the new Segwit transactions and the new witness-data of the hash origin

However, this should be negligible and the block to expand more than 7 kilobytes So about one-tenth of a second on commodity hardware Fifth, technical debt Segwit could possibly, to the existing technical debt of Bitcoin, contribute Technical debt refers to program code which, although today corrects problems, but it could cause serious problems in the future, unless you write it again, which slows down the development time In eingen cases it would still receive permanently, as a bad design, as it may cause a subsequent amendment to that users would lose access to your money units

Sixthly, Larger blocks (UTXO) have a faster growing UTXO database, and not to transactions result This database is important because it confirms the complete node and verified transactions When an input is not present in the database, then it means that the transaction is not valid It is expected that the database will grow even without UTXO Segwit She currently has a size of 1

5 gigabytes or 10 gigabytes uncompressed in memory With Segwit this database would grow twice as fast That sounds not so big problem, until you look concerned about it, as everyone has to use this hardware to store get Therefore, it can potentially long, for many users, be impossible to store this information and lead to the greatest centralization in the network Seventh, Long-term scaling

While Segwit once increases the network capacity, it is not a long-term or medium-term solution to the scaling problem However, it allows a Layer 2 network solution and fixes a serious Square growing hash scaling bug This could future adverse effects in development, in the field of scaling, oppose, as they arise Evaluations and tests are, of course, been carried out by many individuals and groups to find problems in the publication The core developers have been very open to it, all of these problems, on their side, perform and how they plan to address each of these

No matter how unlikely they may be, However, there still exist Core developers and well-known people who are in this matter on the one side or the other and each person has their own reasons, for representing views Including Jameson Lopp, of BitGo who argues that the network has to run like a well-oiled machine Others want people who insist stubbornly on Segwit, leave and instead do not vote it, choose but a method for updating, which can not be undo, also known as “Hard Fork” Although there are many other reasons would be a “Hard Fork” over a “soft Fork” to choose in this situation

Nevertheless, it is a common belief, to force some developers that no individual or group has the right to such a change in the network A “Hard Fork” would have the consequence of this, unless a significant number of users would agree to this change Bitcoin developer Jeff Garzik argues that Segwits perseverance, to introduce a “soft Fork” leads to an overly complex system that does not provide enough benefits to the users In contrast, argues Bitcoin developer hatch Dashjr that a “Hard Fork” for Segwit, represents only a significant improvement, if it makes existing “Wallet” ‘s incompatible, including the destruction of all Bitcoins that may be stuck still on the network, up to a planned “Hard Forks” There are of course alternatives are being worked on

Of particular note were here “Flexible transactions” or the “Bitcoin Improvement Protocol 134” by Tom Xander Again, not without critics, but not without supporters We deal possibly another time with this subject Should Segwit ultimately have problems in its support, it can rise more than one possible answer for Bitcoin’s problems And then there is the suggestion Segwit remodel so that you can change the block size outside before and focused on more welcome changes

The vote on Segwits implementation should begin on November 18 From then on, it has to find a consensus one year before If you can not find consensus at this time, is Segwit, not active in this way, and the Bitcoin network would be in the same position, as will find a year ago, However, now, with the search for a new solution A thank you to Luke Dashjr of “Bitcoin Core” and Tom Zander of “Bitcoin Classic” for help writing this video and the Sources

They were a great help, even if they represent two sides of the same coin Nevertheless, I knew whose insights greatly appreciate knowing You can find links to those as well recognized projects in the description below Among “Bitcoin Knots”, when it is Luke’s version of Bitcoin, with his improvements and Tom’s “Flexible transactions model”, and all sources of this video

Please take a look at it, subscribe to us, and we will meet again next time

About the Author Dancake

Hey hey hey. It's Ville and welcome to my blog. I am a tech enthusiast and always looking for ways to generate new income streams. At the moment Bitcoin cloud mining is one of the most promising ones and that's why I created this website. Hope you like your stay. If you want a quick start guide about making passive income with cloud mining check out this guide.