SegWit – Possible Patent Infringements

SegWit – Possible Patent Infringements

SHARE

Research revealed Segregated Witness or SegWit is possibly liable for violation of two patents filed with the United States Patent and Trade Office. The SegWit protocol has been the subject of numerous discussions and debates during the past year as solution to flexibility issues as well as probability execution will enhance transaction throughput. This refers to volume of materials or data handled. The concept shuffles witness inputs generated by transaction hash and also breaks down the raw data. Debate about Segregated Witness soft fork has been persistent in the Bitcoin community since said protocol has not gained enough support for code activation.

Infringement on Similar Patents

The researcher continues to probe the likely relationship of SegWit to similar patents filed elsewhere. There are two of these patents that Segregated Witness may violate or breach. The patent inventor is Oliver Goldman.

United States Patent #8261082

United States Patent #8261082 or “Self-Signing Electronic Documents” was published sometime in 2012. Claim #11 seems applicable to the SegWit platform. What does the document contain? The computer-implemented procedure includes the following:

  • Received signed first electronic document.
  • First electronic document includes digital signature rights information.
  • Digital signature module and digital signature produced by the module.
  • Once the Digital signature module is loaded, it performs digital signature operations.
  • The first electronic document is accessed by one or more computers in a user-application.
  • Validate the digital signature in the electronic document (1st) using the digital signature module in user app.
  • Access the second electronic document which is different from the first electronic document.
  • The second electronic document is identified by the first electronic document.
  • Digital signature operations are performed on the second electronic document.

This is highly technical stuff but the bottom line is all features of the claim are present in SegWit with respect to the first and second electronic documents.

United States Patent #7370206

United States Patent #7370206 was published in 2008 also under the name of “Self-Signing Electronic Documents”. According to email messages from the prober, it likewise seems that Segregated Witness may contravene Claim #1 of Mr. Goldman’s intellectual property rights. The provisions are similar to the above-mentioned inclusions. Claims submitted to Bitcoin.com disclosed the intense discussions whether or not SegWit infringes the two patents will eventually lead to court litigations. Recent debates have also focused on User-Activated Soft Fork or USAF and SegWit 2X Working Group.

SegWit 2X Working Group

Well-known Bitcoin developer and BLOQ chief executive officer Jeff Garzik introduced another plan seeks to put together Segregated Witness and the 2 MB Block size increase. He detailed the BTC community about his ideas on the existing throughput issues of Bitcoin and the recommended intentions of solutions for scaling. This is a totally expected and preventable outcome.

Discussions for Bitcoin scaling have been ongoing in the past few years. At present, there are various talks about possible scaling methods such as:

  • Alternative implementation of the crypto currency code
  • USAF or User-Activated Soft Fork
  • Extension blocks
  • Emergent consensus
  • Idea of Barry Silbert

Barry Silbert of the Digital Currency Group is the agreement based on the SegWit 2MB proposal of Demian Lerner, RSK chief scientist. Mr. Silbert asserts he has the support of more than 84% of hash rate and 56 firms.

Meanwhile, Mr. Lerner advocates side chains that can handle difficulties of developers in expanding Bitcoin capabilities. He is also working on procedures to place extensions in the Bitcoin official code base. The scientist proposed the code that adds functionality to Bitcoin. Jeff Garzik is working on the Consensus SegWit 2X that signals on Bit4. This can be seen on GitHub, an online GIT or Version Control Depository and web hosting service provider. Some developers are discussing the proposal and checking the code. Some programmers do not approve of the concept completely or portions of the idea. On the other hand, certain experts support the compromise suggestion.

Block Size

The base block size has not been increased. There was extensive planning regarding the upgrade with many years to stay away from the outcome of high fees scaring users and use cases away from the Bitcoin currency. The failure to boost the interim DoS limit or base block size has quantifiable and direct adverse negative economic results. This developer said it’s not important on who were involved and what they did. The thing is the goal to upgrade block size did not take place at all. The computable data has and will remain cutting through absurd theories of conspiracy. The Bitcoin community must depend more on results of efforts instead of such theories.

SegWit 2X Working Group has specific charter and goal. Segregated Witness + 2MB base block size increase. The Bitcoin community must judge these initiatives depending on the outcomes. Mr. Garzik says he looks forward to the community judging by perceiving those who take action and turn out quantifiable outcomes. This can be far superior to opting for personal attacks and opening out conspiracies.

The blog post of the developer was sent to a lot of Bitcoin forums while some were submitted by Mr. Garzik himself. Needless to say, some stakeholders have an aversion to the idea. Of course, some people advocated the idea of moving scaling and reinforcing a compromise. One particular Bitcoin developer, steadfast supporter of the user-activated solution, Mr. Eric Lombrozo voiced out his option about the matter. Everything is beyond repair. He will continue to support BIP148 or the User-Activated Soft Fork.  Yet, the DCG founder Barry Silbert immediately disputed with the statements of this Bitcoin developer. Mr. Silbert stated it was wrong to mention, “beyond repair”.

Now, it is upon GitHub to give other people the chance to give feedback such as comments and complaints for improvement. It seems difficult to predict the result of the scaling debate and if the Bitcoin sector will advocate the proposal of SegWit 2 MB.

SHARE
Previous articleBitcoin Price Pressured Under $2700
Next articleEvent Report: Bitcoin Wednesday Amsterdam
This is Lutpin, and I edit, review and publish articles for CryptoNews. Sometimes, I also write them myself. I started being interested in bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as far back as late 2012/early 2013. A year later I dropped out of the scene due to losing interest. Since 2015 I'm back in and involved deeper than ever. Besides writing articles, I'm a huge fan of gambling, preferrably combined with cryptocurrencies. Another big interest of mine are physical bitcoins, I know everything about them. Besides Crypto-News and Crypto-Games, you can find me mainly on bitcointalk.org

NO COMMENTS