consensus rules dictate that miners validate all the signatures, and breaking that model requires a 51% attack. While that may be true, the security model has undeniably changed. The interwoven integrity check has been discarded and replaced with a complete reliance on miners, rather than having both types of security. This is akin to wearing a belt AND suspenders for years to make sure your pants never fall down, then one day taking off the belt and proclaiming “I’m still wearing suspenders, what could go wrong?”"
I'm not sure why you replied to me or what your point is. I'm a BCH is Bitcoin guy, but in BTC, it's still true that legacy nodes are validating everything they think needs validated and that current nodes are validating everything, which is all I said.
I replied to you for the same reason you replied to me. (Did you not... READ? REEEEEE! j/k) I never said SegWit signatures aren't validated. I said they aren't validated with the transaction. The quote shows that my (and your first) description of the situation were correct. Your new description of the situation after talking to pokkst seems less correct. His original description was different from ours but also correct, but his new description of the situation after arguing with you about it is definitely incorrect. You have led each other astray.
I went back and read that article (again? seemed familiar...), and it puts me where I was, a hash of a collection of signatures isn't a correction of signatures. However, if the hash is in the transaction and the signatures are in the blocks, it still seems like semantics (albeit a definitive change in consensus rules regardless).
Обсуждают сегодня