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

digitsu at gmail.com digitsu at gmail.com
Sat Dec 12 05:13:48 UTC 2015

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. 


On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón <jtimon at jtimon.cc> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151211/63cf45aa/attachment.html>

More information about the bitcoin-dev mailing list