/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>17099836
a hash of a signature is not a signature, Segwit introduces a new vulnerability for no benefit.
A miner can attack the network by moving utxo's with hashes of signatures not associated with the utxo they're changing without a hard fork. It reduces the security by making it cheaper to attack the network because miners can stop signaling acceptance of segwit take segwit coins without a hard fork. In the context of competing sha256 coins some with limited capacity some not miners eventually become more and more incetivised to attack the limited segwit chain killing it and switching to the unlimitied stable alternative.
https://medium.com/@adam_selene/the-segwit-15-attack-b0ecbb926777
Craig said he was going to do this attack in may, obviously remains to be seen. If 50% of blocks are not bitcoin core in may I would not be holding any segwit bitcoins https://coin.dance/blocks/historical

transaction malleability is a feature not a bug.
Additionally signatures are legal objects that prove ownership. Removing this from transactions instead of just increasing the block limit is ridiculously risky.
https://www.coindesk.com/the-risks-of-bitcoins-segregated-witness-problems-under-us-contract-law

Segwit is also just another fundamental reason why btc is not bitcoin (pic related).
>We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures
It's hard to find a more specific sentence as to why