The battle for the direction that Bitcoin will take is heating up when SegWit supporting pool BitClub chose to go rogue and instead of protecting Bitcoin with hash power, it has now made moves to attack it.
SegWit is too many changes in one go, one of them is that it tries to fix
A technique that changes a transaction as they were initially created to
still be valid, but the transaction-ID ends up being changed.
The direct effect of this is that some wallets or businesses can get confused for some days. Also financial transactions can get cancelled and need to be re-send.
The effect is not dramatic, the architectural problem has been in Bitcoin from the beginning and has been known for many years.
But today we learned that the BitClub mining pool is actively malleating transactions they mine. changing their transaction-id so the original sender may have problems. This is no accident, you need to write special software to alter those transactions so they don't break. And while the network as a whole will really not be bothered to much by this minor attack, we have to understand what this means.
On one side we have Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited arguing for reasonably sized blocks , and on the other side we have some people argue strongly for SegWit. Up until now the argument was always that the 1.7MB that SegWit offers should be good enough, but the market isn't buying it. The support for bigger blocks is now much larger than the support for SegWit. The SegWit support has been around 23% for months, while the BU blocks get about 32% support, which is just in the middle of a rather larger increase.
Now we have a change in strategy, BitClub is actually trying to cause a problem by actively changing transactions while openly supporting SegWit, which no doubt they will argue is the solution to the problem they just created.
The truth of the matter is that SegWit doesn't solve malleability, and what
it does solve comes at a great price.
What SegWit does instead is it introduces a new transaction type, with many problems at the same time, and only should users choose to upgrade their wallets and then actively use those new type of transactions will their transactions no longer be malleable.
Agreed, it is rather annoying that anyone can change your transactions and I agree we should solve that. For this reason I wrote Flexible Transactions (more here). It is new transaction type which doesn't suffer from the malleability issue.
The beauty of Flexible Transactions is that it doesn't pretend to be a block size increase, but it does solve 100% of all the issues that SegWit solves. And more! Additionally, Flexible Transaction is much safer to use and more future-ready than SegWit. Flexible Transactions has been running on its own testnet for months now and various alt-coins are integrating it.
In short, Flexible Transactions is a next-generation solution for encoding transactions, using a tagged system which is future-proof and allows unlimited future growth of Bitcoin. It generates smaller transactions, it is safe from malleability attacks and quadratic scaling attacks.
I would like to suggest to mining pools like BitClub that they realise they are actually hurting Bitcoin users and their actions are indeed annoying actual users that create Bitcoin transactions. Going forward, we do have a good solution for malleability and it is in the form of Flexible Transactions. Please don't be fooled by aggressive marketing techniques which will want to make you believe SegWit is the only solution. It is not the only one, it is certainly not the best solution.
I am saddened that there are those that hold the misguided belief that attacking your users is a good way to keep control over Bitcoin.
In Bitcoin Classic and Unlimited we support the users, we fight for normal level transaction fees, and we will never attack our user in order to try to prove some solution is needed.