<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1r3san9v5njl6798hvauyu9ntm6r9c7u8s0t65wls58gpfdcvqp5sa48d0u</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-12-12&#xA;📝 Original message:A segwit supporting server would be required to support relaying segwit&#xA;transactions, although a non-segwit server could at least inform a wallet&#xA;of segwit txns observed, even if it doesn&#39;t relay all information necessary&#xA;to validate.&#xA;&#xA;Non segwit servers and wallets would continue operations as if nothing had&#xA;occurred.&#xA;If this means essentially that a soft fork deployment of SegWit will&#xA;require SPV wallet servers to change their logic (or risk not being able to&#xA;send payments) then it does seem to me that a hard fork to deploy this non&#xA;controversial change is not only cleaner (on the data structure side) but&#xA;safer in terms of the potential to affect the user experience.&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;— Regards,&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 1:43 AM, Gavin Andresen via bitcoin-dev &lt;&#xA;bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&gt; wrote:&#xA;&#xA;&gt; On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 11:18 AM, Jorge Timón &lt;jtimon at jtimon.cc&gt; wrote:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; This is basically what I meant by&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; struct hashRootStruct&#xA;&gt;&gt; {&#xA;&gt;&gt; uint256 hashMerkleRoot;&#xA;&gt;&gt; uint256 hashWitnessesRoot;&#xA;&gt;&gt; uint256 hashextendedHeader;&#xA;&gt;&gt; }&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; but my design doesn&#39;t calculate other_root as it appears in your tree (is&#xA;&gt;&gt; not necessary).&#xA;&gt;&gt;&#xA;&gt;&gt; It is necessary to maintain compatibility with SPV nodes/wallets.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Any code that just checks merkle paths up into the block header would have&#xA;&gt; to change if the structure of the merkle tree changed to be three-headed at&#xA;&gt; the top.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; If it remains a binary tree, then it doesn&#39;t need to change at all-- the&#xA;&gt; code that produces the merkle paths will just send a path that is one step&#xA;&gt; deeper.&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; Plus, it&#39;s just weird to have a merkle tree that isn&#39;t a binary tree.....&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; --&#xA;&gt; --&#xA;&gt; Gavin Andresen&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;_______________________________________________&#xA;bitcoin-dev mailing list&#xA;bitcoin-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org&#xA;https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20151212/68adbb6a/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>