Bitcoin Forum

Since it was officially released bitcoin prices have shot up and some are claiming a cause and effect. Any word on how fast it is being adopted by modes and miners?

Segwit has not been released. You are doing an inadequate amount of reading. The code for Segwit has been released and merged. It will most likely come with the next Bitcoin Core version (0.12.2/3).

What is this -- a Master's class?

Well even if it hasn't been released, I think it has already had an impact on the price. On the testnet, segwit has proven to mine blocks higher than 3MB already, clearing any doubts of bitcoin scaling or not. It has also straightened the value of the Core devs even more, and has definitely killed the Core-Classic controversy, since Core devs are obviously the guys making the real advances. All of the good improvements in tech + the halving are going to make the price go to jupiter.

I doubt SegWit has anything to do with the latest price increase. I think a combination of good news lately are contributing to the rise in the price. We have seen the release of OpenBazaar and the

added interest that created, and on top of that the buildup to the Halving and the hype surrounding that and some rumours about Steam offering Bitcoin as a payment option. We might see some

significant price increases, if all of this comes together. Scaling problems temporarily solved.  ::)

When will those two version be released? I shall buy some bitcoin just before the release and make a quick profit.

I think the crowd has beaten you to it.

Nobody knows. Forcing the developers to work on a schedule isn't going to help anyone either, and could make matters worse (software - quality wise). I'd say within the next 3-4 months (since it is a minor release; these come quicker), unless a severe bug gets found.

Any estimated time before this to come ? Since the latest update was pretty recently, I doubt that we will see something in the near future.

You can clearly see that sometimes the amount of time between minor versions is very short.

I think SegWit is a big deal. Why do you think it will be released during a minor version? It is the biggest change for many years.

Maybe because I do an adequate amount of research before posting? The developers have stated that it is coming within a minor version and that other things are planned for 0.13. Keep in mind that the next major version isn't going to to be released soon (the aim is 6-7 months after each major release). I would also like to add that I can't be 100% certain in this case.

Sorry for reviving this topic but afaik today a segwit vote starts, am I right?
Are there any stats now?

No. Segwit signaling will start after the first re-targeting after 15/11 (which is today). The first re-targeting should happen around the 18th of November. Anyhow, soft forks take time to activate so don't expect everyone on board in the first few days.

---

I'm pretty confident that a successful activation is going to have a positive effect on the price, especially after >1MB blocks start getting mined.

That is if it gets activated. News are still swirled around that ViaBTC has 10% of all hashing power and that they are highly motivated to block Segregated Witness. They have valid arguments for doing so like the change in Bitcoin address requiring them to start with a "3". This will be an inconvenience to everyone and the Bitcoin economy has to literally stop for some time to update and audit everything.

No, not really. I have not read a single valid argument from them. Unless you think that switching to an implementation with almost zero QA and peer review is a *valid argument*.

That is not true. Nobody has to stop anything.

It doesn't matter whats the opinion of a pool is.
The miner can decide. When they decide that the pool isn't representing their opinion, they will switch to another pool.
Easy as that.

Also full node could decide to not forward found blocks of mentioned pool.

In other words: It doesn't count whats a pool says. The dont have any might.

Correct. Ver & co are trying to spin the story that the pools are actually in control, which is entirely different from the reality. Currently the majority of nodes are Bitcoin Core, and the number of Segwit nodes is also quite high (29%).

To expand on this Wind_FURY, look at the article (https://medium.com/@g.andrew.stone/a-short-tour-of-bitcoin-core-4558744bf18b) that I've just read. They have found 3 *bugs* to list to make it seem like BU team is competent and whatnot, while they are actually still running on a code base that is very far behind. ::)

---

Update: The article was refuted by several people who got heavily downvoted.

Posting here to see if I've got all this right ...

From the stats I see:
1) the difficulty period started about 13 hours ago.
2) 12 blocks signalled segwit, 78 blocks have not
3) in a few more hours at that same segwit signalliing rate, we'll have failed to activate in this difficulty period and next chance starts in about 13 days.

I say we will fail in a few hours because once there are 100 blocks not signalling segwit, we have the 5% (100/2016) which guarantees we can't reach the 95% required.

Delving into the blocks, I see that pools are not signalling correctly. For example bitfury advertises segwit support in their coinbase string, yet they are not setting the bip 9 bit for segwit. BTCC supports segwit (I believed), but is not signalling it. Obviously these guys didn't regard getting segwit activated asap to be much of a priority.

Am I on track with all the above?

While I've got your attention, is there a way for me to get all the voting info used above from my bitcoin node? I can't see rpc commands that yield the right stats.

edit: changed 'miners' to pools. spelling...
edit2: I see btcc started signalling correctly at block 43 (7 hours into the voting period). Too late tho ...
edit3: It's only 20 hours into the segwit voting, and we've failed. 100 non-segwit blocks cf 21 segwit.
Pools like bitfury now have 13 days or so to get their act together before the next period. Earliest segwit activation is now mid december.

http://api.qbit.ninja/versionstats

Signalling hasn't stopped, of course, so the average rate is interesting. But right now, lockin has failed and the only relevant signalling will be in the next difficulty retarget period starting in about 13 days.


Yep. This is what I was using. Together with coin.dance and blockchain.info to look inside the blocks to see who was signalling incorrectly.

are you sure about what you are saying because according to bitcoincore.org the signalling does not start until 20th which is tomorrow.

although looking at the site https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ they seem to have removed the date which was in the first line!

edit: yeap it is on 19th afternoon: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/49447/when-does-signaling-for-segwit-start-exactly

Nope. It's started (and finished already)

That post you're quoting was made 2 weeks ago, and was the best guess at the time for when the signalling would start.
The defining criterion for the difficulty retarget and therefore the start of the signalling is when the block number mod 2016 is 0
That happened yesterday.
The lockin succeeds if 95% of the blocks in that difficulty epoch signal segwit support; it fails if more than 5% of the blocks do not signal segwit. 5% of the 2016 blocks is just 100 blocks. That happened about 20 hours after the start.

Anyone keeping track of the pool's official position on segwit? Like AntPool, F2Pool, BTCC Pool etc..? Are they just waiting to implement it or do they oppose segwit?

The Chinese pools don't care. They are working on their own China-made solution. You're all gonna be so fawked.

I could not find any good resources on the internet listing mining pools and their stance (like the hashrate they own table) but there is this: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blocks/1 which has tags about which proposal they are supporting and you have to do the chart thing yourself.
these are pools that seems to be supporting SegWit:
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/blockversion/segwit
BitClub Network
Slush
BTCC

Bitfury is advertising segwit support in the coinbase string, but last time I checked (yesterday) they still weren't correctly signalling that support.
No hurry tho ... as long as they start before next week.

Fixed your quotes :)

What follows is my guess; I have little knowledge of miner/pool incentives:

A miner who politically supports segwit can get more fees (when segwit activates). That should mean incentives for him to move to a pool that signals segwit support in advance if his existing pool does not.
We're seeing this move away from ViaBTC already.

A miner who politically rejects segwit or (same thing) just doesn't know what's happening is making a statement. Most of these guys probably plan to switch to segwit just before activation.
Some diehards will, no doubt, remain on a non-segwit client (mostly that means old core, or BU) and forgo the extra fees.

So, hash support is what really matters, but pools need to go along with the hashers or lose customers. :)

Are you talking to some other bitcoin update or version like Bitcoin Unlimited. Or you have on mind completly different project, a new coin Chinese government announced recently?
Either way if Chinese miners will try do to something ridiculous and strange they would suffer the most as they invested more than anyone in bitcoin.

While it may just be variance, last 1000 blocks says SegWit support is under 19%.


Well, no. It is not 'very far behind'. It is bereft of the cruft that core has added that the BU community does not accept.

Spin it whatever way you want, you epically missed the point of the post.

No doubt the Chinese are flexing on the core devs. I don't like where this is going. We may end up with at least 2 chains, a China chain backed by Chinese Devs and a US chain backed by Core Devs.

I was talking about nodes here, not blocks. They are currently at 31.45%.

Yes, it is very far behind. There have been plenty of bugfixed and improvements between 0.12.1 and 0.13.1 (excluding those that 'BU community' does not accept).

No.

This is false FUD. Who are these "Chinese Devs"? ::)

Segwit support at 25% for the last 144 blocks.

https://i.imgur.com/fDgJ62wl.png

source of this graph : http://bitcoin.sipa.be/versions.html

Spin it whatever way you want, you epically missed the point of the post.

your crufty post is bereft
Lol!

Can someone explain this in easy terms? If you run a bitcoin node to are supposed to signal segwit support? how do you do that?

edit: Why would you not support or not support it? I thought it was a no brainer. Increased capacity more efficient etc. What am I missing?

Upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and your node will automatically follow Segwit rules after(if) it activates.

Ah ok, thanks

I found this http://segwit.co/



Only the miners can signal segwit through the mined blocks, your node will be counted only as a segwit node (0.13.1 bitcoin-core).

Just had a look at that link, still a way to go it seems

20% of hashing power currently supports segwit.
i would imagine that potential support for segwit (like this week) tops out at 30-50% ( way to many mixed feelings about segwit )
but who is this 20% hashing power supporting segwit
looking at the graph
it would seem like its two pools one of ~5% hashing power
and a monstrous pool of ~15%
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

who are these poeple?

So ... bitfury finally started signalling segwit correctly (rather than just in the coinbase string).
That should add about 8% to the segwit hash fraction, bringing it up to something like 28%.

Check it out here: https://btc.com/stats/pool/BitFury

Don't think it will matter much, it only takes one Chinese farm to stop Segwit.

I dont think so, ViaBTC will be forced to support Segwit when they are the last one, ore they will run out of business.

if ViaBTC is the last miner to update to 13.1, yes i agree they will yield

They won't have to yield
Segwit will be cancelled for another solution
 in  less than a year

If miners wanted it they would have taken it the hour it was released

This is completely and utterly false based considering the reality that we live in. Remind me again how long it took for the last Soft fork to active (that miners obviously wanted, since it's active). 1 hour?  ::)

---

Do you participate on r/btc by any chance?

I still don't understand why there are some people opposed to the SegWit implementation. Isn't it something that will make the Bitcoin ecosystem better? What are the arguments against this? Could it take more than a month for the consensus to be reached?

segwit is like an unwanted cock in the ass that doesnt allow users to use the main chain by making it prohibitively expensive
the blocks need to be larger .the solution is that simple ........

Go into r/btc and actually experience these guys first hand.
It's like walking unaware into a room full of staunch feminists and SJW's. Every word you say is taken negatively. Every word you MIGHT say is defended against by a preemptive attack. :)
Quite funny.
So, after several coup attempts over a couple of years now, they have redefined english, new ways to think, etc. Like 1984.

Deep diving into all that (shudder) and translating back to normal english reveals a basic issue, I think.
They sincerely believe that segwit locks in a future where only layer 2 solutions to scaling are permitted.
So they think blocking it is a good thing.

But that premise is incorrect. Segwit only opens up new options, scales some, fixes bugs, etc.
It's just obvious, but I can understand the confusion coming out of that place.

The blockchain is not anyones private property so obviously we  have a vested interest in making it impossible or prohibitively expensive to use, you may agree with that or not but L2 solutions are not an alternative to removing the anti spam cap

Let me try to explain it the way I see it. The problem the Chinese have with Segwit, is not so much with Segwit itself but with what will happen after Segwit. The Chinese are afraid that the side-chains the core devs are working on will take money out of their pockets by reducing the number of potential transaction fees in the future. So by blocking Segwit, they are blocking side-chains like lightning network. The Chinese want bigger blocks to collect more money in fees in the future. At least this is what I think, maybe I am wrong or maybe someone can explain it better.

Looking at the recent translations, it does not appear that there is any single monolithic entity 'the Chinese'. Rather it seems to me that there is a spectrum of attitudes amongst the Chinese miners. That said, your statement seems a reasonable representation of the concerns of some subset of the class 'Chinese miner'.

ViaBTC is not problem ... when global POWER of Bitcoin network rise at regulary rate. http://imagizer.imageshack.us/a/img921/7876/xna1gK.gif

https://bitcoinwisdom.com/bitcoin/difficulty and http://bitcoin.sipa.be/


They already loose the race against adoption.
Like all old miner on BIP66.
They will be exclude by force by the miners.

Because miner want a reward ... after all.
That's why miners don't control nodes.

blocking   ~33%  =  ViaBTC~6% + HaoBTC~6%  + F2Pool~14% + GBMiners~3% + Bitcoin.com~2% + Slush Pool~2%BU  

undecided ~36%=  AntPool~19% +  BTC.com~5% + BW Pool~10%  + Kano CK Pool~2%

pro          ~25%  =   BTCC~11% + BitFury~7% + Bitclub Network~3% + Slush Pool~4%segwit  

there's a 6% margin of error due to really bad rounding

read all about this : http://www.nasdaq.com/article/where-bitcoin-mining-pools-stand-on-segregated-witness-cm713991

i expect to see lots of action next week. i think segwit will probably gain >50%, will they wait for the other >40% to join them tho... they dont technically have too, all it would take is 0.13.2 ...

https://s12.postimg.org/q98sz910r/percentage_of_blocks_signalling_segwit_support.png

The growing support still looks good for now but I would expect this to plateau at some point and may start going down the longer Segwit stays inactivated. So what would be the next step for Bitcoin as a whole if it is not activated? Will we see some developers of Core leaving in disappointment? That is over a year of their work that might go to waste.

it won't go to waste...
we will have segwit in one form or another, at some point in time.... its unavoidable.
in anycase, all core really has to do is push out a 2MB HF ( and let miners vote on this BIP -_- ) and they win.
but let take it one step at a time, first we deadlock.

Yes that times a million. Its a business which they've literally invested millions into. If the block size is limited = their profits are limited. Thats why they want unlimited blocks  >:(
i'm yet to hear a single good reason against SegWit

https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ is showing ~30%

Also interesting read https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/where-bitcoin-mining-pools-stand-on-segregated-witness-1480086424 (https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/where-bitcoin-mining-pools-stand-on-segregated-witness-1480086424)

the hong kong agreement was increased blocksize first and foremost
segwit is smoke and mirrors
a bullshit over complicated solution and i think some of the miners can see this more clearly than others
moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue  in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first

That agreement was nonsense, stop referencing it.

That is an outright lie. Segwit is not as complex as the average (r/btc) Joe tries to paint it as such. Practically, the majority of the developers (non Core) support it.

Segwit != moving TXs to LN. Stop spreading false information. Segwit is a block size increase.

lol seems you have the wrong hat on today.

yet dynamic blocksize implementations have been publicly released AND RUNNING since last year..
but took core a 10 months to REWRITE their entire implementation.

cores implementation is not just a simple patch, it was a whole rewrite.
i really think its time you learn C++


firstly your playing semantics.. segwit is a BLOAT size increase(4mb). with a side effect of capacity increase (1.8mb-2.1mb)
the 4mb weight limit has no correlation to capacity. the base block and witness does..
which is having a one time side effect on capacity increase, but cannot scale. EG you cannot re segwit a segwit, so has nothing to do with scaling. its a one time boost. stop over selling it.

secondly your right segwit doesnt mean moving txs to LN. (but your just twisting 'why' its not directly involved with LN)
much like seeing a baby take its first step doesnt mean all babies should be entered into a cities marathon race event.

but without being able to take a certain step early on, marathons in the future would never happen.

lets atleast not think that marathons are made compulsory for anyone able to walk in the future.
lets atleast not think LN is compulsory for anyone able to use bitcoin in the future.

so i hope i never see you in the future talk about LN as the solution to scaling. or i will have to refer you to this post to remind you

No, I do not. The agreement ended up being a big waste of time.

I never claimed that it was a simple patch. However, it is nowhere near as complicated as the /r/btc and other misinformed people try to make it out to be.

It is a block size increase.

I know I am, don't worry.

At least some people can see this thing for what it is...
You can explain it to some people, but you can't understand it for them...  ;D

I have heard that explanation before, and it really makes very little sense because bitcoin takes a really long time to develop and evolve, and there are always going to be changes in one direction or another and various kinds of ways to tweak your own business method in order to attempt to increase profits or to make various bets upon the future.

Seg wit was largely a consensus driven development that has been considerably tested and has taken a while to get to its current stage of attempted activation.  Even with all of this, miners are going to be able to adapt in order to find profit models, and I doubt that any miner really expects bitcoin to stay stagnant or that their way of mining does not have to evolve with changes in software, fees and/or practices.

So after investing millions in technology which would possible take years to get a return on investment you're saying miners should be happy about instant (almost free) LN transactions which they can't profit from?

So let me see if i understand you correctly, now we are able to process 1MB of transactions every 10 min, after the upgrade we will be able to process 2.1MB of transactions every 10min. Which as you agree is a capacity increase, yet somehow it doesn't equate to scaling because babies can't run marathons.
Yes how can the rest of the world not understand that logic, the only reasonable explanation is a conspiracy by the big bankers.

You'd have a much better argument just straight up saying that you don't consider manual increases of throughput as scaling, and what YOU mean by scaling is AUTOMATED scaling e.g. where block size can be  adjusted unlimitedly up by the protocol i.e. BU. And your logic on why LN is not a solution to scaling, is most people think of scaling in terms of throughput/tps e.g. how many transactions can be made with BTC. Where your definition of scaling is the the size of the blocksize data structure in C++

See how easy that was, no that we agreed on terms there's no need to argue anymore  ;D

word games..

4mb not= 4x capacity
4mb not= relevance to capacity
the 2.1mb = capacity increase
the 2.1mb = relevance to capacity

LN should not be the compulsory end game solution to capacity scaling. it should just be an open choice/service on the side.

easy enough, and i only used silly analogies due to the person i reply to having silly analogies in the past. so i was trying to speak on their level

I am not saying that.  

I am saying that individual miners or even pool participants are not likely stuck in the mud with their "millions" in investment, and they are likely going to figure out a variety of kinds of ways to profit from whatever happens (some scenarios more favorable than other scenarios).... and even if they cannot figure out profitability right away, in most cases, miners probably already have enough insight to recognize that bitcoin has not been and is not likely to be either a static investment or a static industry.

That is merely pure speculation. Why? Because we do not have a final implementation of he Lightning Network yet. Basing that hypothesis on the early proposals, maybe it might hurt them. But it might not be in a big way like what you are trying to project. Do not forget that LN channels will and have to close at some point.

im sure there are some taint analysis groups that can spot things like satoshi dice-esq gambling sites, faucets, and other services that would happily utilise LN to save them costs while also running a hub to earn fee's from users to literally cost them nothing to settle.

and then make some statistics of projections of how much those services are using bitcoin to see the possible benefit if any if they used LN.

EG if these regular spending services dont do much compared to the rest of the community, we wont see much of a change.