Replying to Avatar ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ

schnorr signatures solved the signature malleability problem that instead that gave us segwit - and it was only a year or two later that schnorr's patent expired

segwit's signature malleability was the main problem that stopped LN

imo people are a bit in denial about segwit as it really did weaken the protocol more than it strengthened it
Avatar
21 Stackage 🦡 2y ago

I have a lot more research to do. I heard accounts that SegWit was disruptive to development but didn't look much further into it

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 2y ago

the malleability problem was a big obstacle for making an interactive protocol like LN

i'm pretty sure it's one of the major benefits (other than faster computation) of schnorr signatures

Avatar
ᴛʜᴇ ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜ ᴏꜰ ᴍʟᴇᴋᴜ 2y ago

https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/69317/why-was-transaction-malleability-fix-required-for-lightning-network

https://medium.com/bitbees/what-the-heck-is-schnorr-52ef5dba289f

This concludes the ECDSA signing and verification algorithm. Even though the process is simple, there are few limitations of ECDSA like non-linearity, signature malleability, etc. These issues do not exist in the case of Schnorr signatures. Schnorr is inherently non-malleable and is linear, which opens up the door of a lot of cool new cryptographic tools in Bitcoin like MuSig, Adopter Signature, Cross-Input signature aggregation, etc. In the next section, we delve deep into the signing and verification algorithm of Schnorr signatures.