Timeline for What prevents miners from inserting fake transactions given SegWit?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
6 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 28, 2021 at 23:23 | comment | added | mczarnek | Got it, read multiple articles about this.. that explanation actually made sense. Short and concise, thanks. | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 23:17 | history | edited | Pieter Wuille | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 474 characters in body
|
| Jan 28, 2021 at 23:14 | comment | added | Pieter Wuille | You can trim signatures away because segwit outputs look like "anyone can spend" to old nodes. New nodes need the signatures. It doesn't improve bandwidth, it's a block size increase from the perspective of new nodes, but one with better incentive alignment as it makes the data that doesn't go into the UTXO set (which all nodes need to maintain) relatively cheaper. It was combined with other changes that make validation relative cheaper in some worst case situations, and introduce non-malleable transaction identifiers, which do contribute to scalability. | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 23:07 | comment | added | mczarnek | So how can you trim away the signatures if you still need them and how can segwit improve transaction bandwidth if all of the same data still needs to be sent every block. Or am I missing the whole point of segwit, because I thought that was it? | |
| Jan 28, 2021 at 23:07 | history | edited | Pieter Wuille | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 691 characters in body
|
| Jan 28, 2021 at 23:00 | history | answered | Pieter Wuille | CC BY-SA 4.0 |