pull down to refresh
987 sats \ 3 replies \ @petertodd 1 Jun 2023 \ parent \ on: Too Embarassed To Ask - Your Bitcoin & Lightning Questions Answered bitcoin
They don't. From their point of view segwit outputs are weird scripts that anyone can satisfy – anyone can spend outputs.
That's basically how all soft forks work: we tighten the rules on something that previously didn't really have rules. Eg my own soft fork, CheckLockTimeVerify, reused NOP3, which previously did nothing at all.
Thanks for your answer. But I am still confused
They don't. From their point of view segwit outputs are weird scripts that anyone can satisfy – anyone can spend outputs.
Isn't this a contradiction? They think anyone can spend it but they don't think they can? I think that's where my confusion is: Wouldn't legacy wallets show a false balance by including these "anyone can spend" outputs as spendable outputs?
For me, a node validating transactions is similar to a wallet checking which utxos it can spend. Or is there something wrong with this analogy?
reply
You're assuming Bitcoin nodes have intelligence that they don't. They don't "think". They're computer programs that follow rules. Pre-segwit rules allow those outputs to be spent by anyone; post-segwit rules don't.
As for wallets, they would never create such scripts so they'd never show those scripts as part of their balance.
reply
You're assuming Bitcoin nodes have intelligence that they don't. They don't "think". They're computer programs that follow rules. Pre-segwit rules allow those outputs to be spent by anyone; post-segwit rules don't.
Okay, this makes sense and clears things up, thanks!
As for wallets, they would never create such scripts so they'd never show those scripts as part of their balance.
Okay, interesting. Thanks! I have to look more into how wallets behave
reply