SegWit and the dispersal of the transaction

Jimmy Nguyen criticises SegWit on the basis that it breaks the signature of a contract according to US law. This is a reasonable argument to make but it is also not a particularly relevant one. In practice, this only matters in the context of a particularly vicious and time-wasting case. You could argue that all of them are, and lawyers will argue on your dime that you have to get this right. But actually, for the most part, in court, lawyers dont like to argue things that they know they are going to lose. The contract is signed, its just not signed in a particularly helpful fashion. For the most part, real courts and real judges know how to distinguish intent from technical signatures, so it would only be relevant where the law states that a particular contract must be signed in a particular way, and then weve got other problems. Yes, I know, UCC and all that, but lets get back to the real world.

But there is another problem, and Nguyens post has triggered my thinking on it. Lets examine this from the perspective of triple entry. When we (by this I mean to include Todd and Gary) were thinking of the problem, we isolated each transaction as being essentially one atomic element. Think of an entry in accounting terms. Or think of a record in database terms. However you think about it, its a list of horizontal elements that are standalone.

When we sign it using a private key, we take the signature and append it to the entry. By this means, the entry becomes stronger - it carries its authorisation - but it still retains its standalone property.

So, with the triple entry design in that old paper, we dont actually cut anything out of the entry, we just make it stronger with an appended signature. You can think of it as is a strict superset of the old double entry and even the older single entry if you wanted to go that far. Which makes it compatible which is a nice property, we can extract double entry from triple entry and still use all the old software weve built over the last 500 years.

And, standalone means that Alice can talk to Bob about her transactions, and Bob can talk to Carol about his transaction without sharing any irrelevant or private information.

Now, Satoshis design for triple entry broke the atomicity of transactions for consensus purposes. But it is still possible to extract out the entries out of the UTXO, and they remain standalone because they carry their signature. This is especially important for say an SPV client, but its also important for any external application.

Like this: Im flying to Shanghai next week on Blockchain Airlines, and Ive got to submit expenses. I hand the expenses department my Bitcoin entries, sans signatures, and the clerk looks at them and realises they are not signed. See where this is going? Because, compliance, etc, the expenses department must now be a full node. Not SPV. It must now hold the entire blockchain and go searching for that transaction to make sure its in there - its real, it was expended. Because, compliance, because audit, because tax, because thats what they do - check things.

If Bitcoin is triple entry, this is making it a more expensive form of triple entry. We dont need those costs, bearing in mind that these costs are replicated across the world - every user, every transaction, every expenses report, every accountant. For the cost of including a signature, an EC signature at that, the extra bytes gain us a LOT of strength, flexibility and cost savings.

(You could argue that we have to provide external data in the form of the public key. So whoevers got the public key could also keep the sigs. This is theoretically true but is starting to get messy and I dont want to analyse right now what that means for resource, privacy, efficiency.)

Some might argue that this causes more spread of Bitcoin, more fullnodes and more good - but thats the broken window fallacy. We dont go around breaking things to cause the economy to boom. A broken window is always a dead loss to society, although we need to constantly remind the government to stop breaking things to fix them. Likewise, we do not improve things by loading up the accounting departments of the world with additional costs. Were trying to remove those costs, not load them up, honestly!

Then, but malleability! Yeah, thats a nuisance. But the goal isnt to fix malleability. The goal is to make the transactions more certain. Segwit hasnt made transactions more certain if it has replaced one uncertainty with another uncertainty.

Today, Im not going to compare one against the other - perhaps I dont know enough, and perhaps others can do it better. Perhaps it is relatively better if all things are considered, but its not absolutely better, and for accounting, it looks worse.

Which does rather put the point on ones worldview. SegWit seems to retain the certainty but only as outlined above: when ones worldview is full nodes, Bitcoin is your hammer and your horizon. E.g., if youre only thinking about validation, then signatures are only needed for validation. Nailed it.

But for everyone else? Everyone else, everyone outside the Bitcoin world is just as likely to simply decline as they are to add a full node capability. We do not accept Bitcoin receipts, thanks very much.

Or, if you insist on Bitcoin, you have to go over to this authority and get a signed attestation by them that the receipt data is indeed valid. Theyve got a full node. Authenticity as a service. Some will think business opportunity! whereas others will think huh? Wasnt avoiding a central authority the sort of thing we were trying to avoid?

I dont know what the size of the market for interop is, although I do know quite a few people who obsess about it and write long unpublished papers (daily reminder - come on guys, publish the damn things!). Personally I would not make that tradeoff. Im probably biased tho, in the same way that Bitcoiners are biased: I like the idea of triple entries, in the same way that Bitcoiners like UTXO. I like the idea that we can rely on data, in the same way that Bitcoiners like the idea that they can rely on a bunch of miners.

Now, one last caveat. I know that SegWit in all its forms is a political food fight. Or a war, depending your use of the language. Im not into that - I keep away from it because to my mind war and food fights are a dead loss to society. I have no position one way or the other. The above is an accounting and contractual argument, albeit with political consequences. Im interested to hear arguments that address the accounting issues here, and not at all interested in arguments based on omg youre a bad person and youre taking money from my portfolio.

Ive little hope of that, but I thought Id ask :-)

Posted by iang at June 29, 2017 05:36 AM

