Conversation
Notices
-
!cryptocurrency Segregated Witness has successfully met the signaling consensus threshold to be adopted on the bitcoin blockchain, in the form of BIP-91. Miners have approximately 2.5 days to switch their software to SegWit-compatible software or risk having their mining rejected by the network.
Because this change is user-signaled but ultimately enforced by running a node full-time, which most people are not doing, it is possible that miners could still reneg, and if 51% do so, the network could still split.
- Hallå Kitteh likes this.
- Hallå Kitteh repeated this.
-
@moonman BIP-91? And here everybody was waiting for the big Aug 1.
-
@moonman This is so confusing. It's like "You can't softfork me! I softfork!".
http://www.coindesk.com/coindesk-explainer-bitcoin-bip-91-implements-segwit-avoiding-split/
-
And how can there be a BIP-91 in May 2017 when we've seen BIP-101 in 2015?
-
Do they leave gaps in the series, like with BASIC line numbers?
-
@moonman I'll have to read more about it. I came away from that article pretty confused whether SegWit will kick in within 4 weeks of BIP-91/141 lock-in or not.
-
@marsprobe @clacke it's really fixing multiple things at once, bitcoin transactions consist of a portion that describes teh financial transaction, and a cryptographic signature to prove that the transaction isn't a forgery. segwit takes the structure of a bitcoin transaction, and removes parts from the signing, and moves the signature to the end. Functionally this makes the transaction size, in bytes, smaller, and it also changes what is signed and verified so that it is no longer possible to create two transactions with the same information but different transaction id. This bug was being used to spam the network and it prevented other impriovements from taking place. The "witness" is the transaction signature and the "segregation" means the moving of the signature to a place where it can be pruned when not needed after verification takes place by a node.
Sorry that this explanation is both too technical for a layman and not technical enough to accurately describe the change.