SegWit

I don't think so.

I think that's basically around the crux of what SegWit was about.

So SegWit or Segregated Witness, the whole point was to fix, or

sorry, the whole point.

One of the main goals was to fix transaction malleability.

Excellent.

Thanks, Merch.

If you're curious, I think, I guess you could sum up the answer from Peter Woolley here as sort of maybe not saying the what so much as like the, you know, sort of design considerations around TXID, WTXID, and SegWit.

Okay, what do I see for Bitcoin in the next 10 years? I mean, there's a big challenge that's starting to appear with Bitcoin is how secure is ECDSA going to be? We have quantum computers and AI both making very large strides toward breaking ECDSA and Bitcoin has a history of not evolving very quickly when there is a big technical change to make.

That was the case with Blocksize, Segwit.

That was the case with...

I mean, every time there's a big fight, typically there are two camps that throw insults and attacks at each other.

With the Mongoks case, for example, I spent almost one year in being detained pending trial.

From when I was arrested and starting to be detained, people were fighting about Segwit and Blocksize.

And one year later, when I managed to post bail and be free, people were still fighting on block size on Segway.

So the whole thing didn't move one bit despite me being away for one year.

That's what makes it interesting.

So obviously, in the time I've been in Bitcoin, the big changes were Segwit and Taproot.

Taproot especially, you didn't need that for security.

Do you think the idea of upgrading Bitcoin for wants rather than needs is now gone? Take aside a real imminent quantum threat where we need to make a change.

But I had another issue after that though, which was that like I had Ledger.

In the time I've been using Ledger, it started with like a legacy wallet and then it moved to like a native Segwit one.

And when it came back, um, I kind of like went to try and try and get the funds.

And I was on Sparrow boom, like put in all of the C words and in the wallet.

I was like, okay, no, that was me sweeping the funds.

In the end, what I realized is that what I'd done is I'd swept.

I've kind of moved one of my older wallets all onto that cold card, but the native Segwit, or I think I'd moved the native Segwit off and the other wallet was still there.

I can't remember which way it was around.

an input does not contain money it is a reference to money that already exists paired with proof of authorization each input carries out point the output being spent identified by a transaction id and an output index script sig the data that satisfies the output's locking script in seguid transactions this data moves to the witness instead end sequence a number field whose role comes up again under time locks Witness.

Signatures and other spending data, kept separate from the rest of the transactions since SegWit.

Bitcoin SCRIPTAs we already established, every output in Bitcoin transaction isn't just an amount, it also contain a program that defines the exact conditions under which the output can be spent.

That program is written in a language called script.

And so if I was an attacker, I'd be just going down the rich list from top to bottom.

You look at previous Bitcoin upgrades like Taproot and Segwit, those took three to four years to activate.

So when we're looking at a quantum migration now, I think we can at least say it'll be slow, it'll be complicated, but when can people realistically expect Bitcoin to become quantum resistant?

It'll be years for sure.