Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Capacity increases for the Bitcoin system.

From: Mark Friedenbach <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 23:18:46 +0800

A segwit supporting server would be required to support relaying segwit
transactions, although a non-segwit server could at least inform a wallet
of segwit txns observed, even if it doesn't relay all information necessary
to validate.

Non segwit servers and wallets would continue operations as if nothing had
occurred.
If this means essentially that a soft fork deployment of SegWit will
require SPV wallet servers to change their logic (or risk not being able to
send payments) then it does seem to me that a hard fork to deploy this non
controversial change is not only cleaner (on the data structure side) but
safer in terms of the potential to affect the user experience.

— Regards,

On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón <[email-masked]> wrote:
>
>> This is basically what I meant by
>>
>> struct hashRootStruct
>> {
>> uint256 hashMerkleRoot;
>> uint256 hashWitnessesRoot;
>> uint256 hashextendedHeader;
>> }
>>
>> but my design doesn't calculate other_root as it appears in your tree (is
>> not necessary).
>>
>> It is necessary to maintain compatibility with SPV nodes/wallets.
>
> Any code that just checks merkle paths up into the block header would have
> to change if the structure of the merkle tree changed to be three-headed at
> the top.
>
> If it remains a binary tree, then it doesn't need to change at all-- the
> code that produces the merkle paths will just send a path that is one step
> deeper.
>
> Plus, it's just weird to have a merkle tree that isn't a binary tree.....
>
> --
> --
> Gavin Andresen
>

_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev