Bitcoin Forum

I thought it should be out in April-May but I don't see anything about it yet so I was wondering if It got cancelled or they are planning to run it on June ?

No, not to my knowledge. As far as I know, it would take a certain % of consensus to enable this feature, but we are seeing some delay in this consensus to form, but then again I never fully understood how segwit was going to be deployed into the main net. I think 0.12.1 already has segwit but it's just not deployed yet? something like that.

0.12.1 does not include segwit. It includes the soft fork salad of "CSV" which is comprised of BIP 68, BIP 112, and BIP 113. CSV is facing somewhat slow adoption by miners and is a prerequisite for segwit which would probably be 0.12.2.

There are rumors that miners will not activate segwit until Core has coded a HF blocksize increase for them... given Core's lack of desire to do this... it could be a VERY long time before anything happens. I would be shocked to see any additional capacity before the halving comes and goes.

Is there any source for this? Are you referring to P. Todd's tweet?

Peter Todd's AMA on the chinese forum.

Thanks.

So if nothing changes, there's no capacity increase happening anytime soon. Unless they push through 2mb + AsicBoost patent blocker in one hardfork.

Future is not looking very bright.

Just check the Bitcoin Core roadmap (https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-core/capacity-increases-faq) which still includes SegWit... So no, it isn't cancelled.

No. The ETA was April for the code to be released, not merged (!). There's a huge difference here and it seems like users do not know. The code is being thoroughly tested while also some missing pieces are being added. The last time that I was looking into this, the information pointed towards a release in Core 0.12.2 which is the next version.

There's a difference between releasing code and merging it. From what I understand, the people that were part of the HK agreement are currently working on a proposal and it should be released in < 2 months.

Yeah, the difference being whether it has some impact on the capacity of the network, or none.


So Core is planning to author a HF pull req that they have zero intention of merging... I'm sure that'll go over well with miners.

Here's what the guy with 25-30% of the hashrate says:
https://i.imgur.com/wSe5vDI.png

All this year, by you and others, we were told "Segwit in April!"

Now, you say < 2 months... Is this some kind of twist on the BFL "2 weeks" strategy? 

Sounds about right lol.

---

---

No segwit is not cancelled. SegWit is critical for LN to work which is critical (in addition to not raising the maximum block size) to blockstream ever becoming profitable.

That "< 2 months" has nothing to do with Segwit. It was the time left until the HF had to be proposed (as per agreement it was 'up to 3 months after SW code was release'). I can't tell you any exact dates, and I doubt that anyone can. Pushing something too early could end up being a huge disaster.

---

---

Update: No. Stop trying to manipulate with word-play; that's not what I was talking about nor what your reply was about.

Has anyone from the Blockstream actually clarified on what's their revenue generation model yet? I reckon they must have pitched to investors with something bigger than LN.

Let’s connect some dots here. Don’t worry, I’ll guide you.

If miners will not activate segwit until HF code is released, tested, and compiled for use (see above statement by 30% miner, he could block segwit himself)… Your < 2 months applies to both segwit and the HF binary releases.

See? So it doesn’t have nothing to do with segwit, it has everything to do with segwit.

---

---

Update: No. If anyone is manipulating with word-play… it is you, and those that you do PR for. “Release” magically morphing into “Pull Req”, for example.

Is segwit cancelled?

No, (not yet) just not made yet, just not tested yet, just not released yet.



How can it be thoroughly tested while still adding "missing" bits?

I doubt Blockstream can profit from LN, as anybody can use similar features, just look at Thunder alpha testing from Blockchain.info - and their online wallet definitively have most Bitcoin users, so Blockstream LN could not even compete here to be most used. I guess you have to look elsewhere for Blockstream investments revenue model.

About the SegWit, bit delayed but Im confident in one or two months it become activated by miners after most wallet implement it - no point now anyway when wallets not ready.

Either you are, or you misinterpreted my initial words. What I initially said "< 2 months", i.e. my statement had nothing to do with Segwit, but the release of the HF code as per HK agreement. Aside from that, I'm not particularly interested in "I won't do X, until you do Y" games nor the correlation between the releases.

That would be my cat. My cat does not make mistakes.

Take a look at the to-do list (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910).

---

---

Update: Again, I have never said that there's no correlation between the HF code and Segwit. I said that there's no correlation in my post, which there isn't as it was solely about the time remaining until HF code needs to be released.

And I just helpfully demonstrated to you how the two are intimately and inextricably linked together. You apparently just want to just stick your fingers in your ears and say “lalalalalalamycat”…

I will leave the decision up to you, gentle reader, if you wish to do the same.

"* Do tests in a mixed network of upgraded and non-upgraded nodes."

That should take a while.
Then when all these parts are put together, all that will need testing.
Far more than a small block increase, which is more predictable.

Part of the problem of promising something that still needed making.
With no back up plan for delays, proper testing time or lack of general adoption.

You see just what you want to see. Jihan Wu might just mean no SegWit activation until fully tested and ready (in wallet as a feature to send coins using new SegWit transactions). It would make sence. And if no hard fork delivered as promised around July, miners can just merge BIP109 or some variation of this like with longer grace period + higher voting treshold as there is consensus between miners + market for this, so no big deal anyway.

For the scrolling impaired:


Maybe I'm just reading what Peter Todd wants to see? I guess it's possible.

Jihan's tweet was in reference to the word-play that Core and their PR team is now using, where "release" = "pull req".

Gregory Maxwell called Adam, Luke, Peter, BlueMatt all dipshits for even agreeing to a hard fork in July 2017, and you think it is easy peasy to get done... Well, I guess optimism can be good trait. Delusional optimism? not so much.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.msg14835202#msg14835202

That Lauda Girl is a joke.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4k8rsa/maxwell_the_vandal_calls_adam_luke_and_peter_todd/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4k74cr/maaku7_i_dont_know_anyone_who_is_actually_working/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4khh07/hello_china_hello_chinese_miners_what_are_you/
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/4kipvu/samsung_mow_austinhill_blockstream_now_its_time/

are people even listening to lauda..

he doesnt even know C++,

proof he has to seek guidance from his blockstreamer buddies


he even thought bitcoin-core was coded in java... (http://bitcoinstats.com/irc/bitcoin-dev/logs/2016/01/17#l1453062298.0)


meaning he cant even recognise java to know core is not java.
he has no coding experience nor personally used segwit testnet.. all he has done was got info from blockstreamers about how many unicorns it can handle flying through the clouds

he is just a blockstream PR guy, on the side of theymos..

I suspect that reflects the bias of the site owner to employ such people.

No definitive, or even defined explanation on segwit here.
or anywhere.

Remember though, Carlton says,
" If you're unaware of the [core segwit] scaling plans and their level of progress/acceptance, you only have yourself to blame."

slightly edited.

lol carlton. lol another PR guy that cant quote stats or realistic information and tries the word twisting game.

but in the fluffy clouds of testnet, segwit is perfect...... carlton and lauda will tell you segwit is perfect, without them even personally knowing a single line of code.

not only did lauda fail at coding but carlton could not even explain the basics of uninstalling a program in linux..
so when i see them two mouth pieces talk.. all i see is the words "blockstream PR department word of the day"

its truly funny how blockstream are dead against 2mb of block data using traditional transactions along with linear signature validation..
but blindly think that 2.85mb of segwit+confidential payment codes+other features is acceptable.. while only allowing the same amount of transaction capacity as 2mb of traditional transactions.

and also funny that their roadmap allows for 5.7mb blocks when blockstream decide its ok for the hard fork.. yet they cant explain what network bandwidth restrictions are currently preventing 2mb now but weirdly and suddenly not an issue for 5.7mb next year...

if i was to type blockstreamers mindset into a program.. id get endless logic errors

What do you estimate the best case for segwit to have any effect on tx backlog, tx's that I presume are supposed to keep growing.
(remember bitcoin adoption?)

Anyway, 6 months minimum before segwit has any effect on tx backlog, probably, most likely longer.
Then, even worse, segwit will be rushed and effectively released untested.

Who has access to this segwit/presegwit testnet?

(a)IF segwit was active in 2016 (before LN, before CPC is a thing) then segwit possibly could handle 1.8x current block capacity..(for 1.8mb real data)
(b)IF segwit was active in 2017 due to the request to include the 2mb hard fork aswell (making the 5.7mb total bloat with CPC or 3.6mb without CPC) then the capacity would be ~3x current capacity

now for the backlog question..

no one knows how many people will transact in the future..

imagining lets say only 2500tx average are let in a block currently[1] .. but where 5000 people doing individual transactions every 10 minutes (backlog example)
[1] estimate based on block 412946 (https://blockchain.info/block-height/412946) & block 412945 (https://blockchain.info/block-height/412945) being recent and offering around 2500tx for 998kb

segwit in 2016 would still not quite allow all them transactions in.. (average allowance increases to 4500tx)
segwit+HF 2017 would (as the capacity is about 7600tx per block) as long as popularity stayed below 7600 people making tx per 10 minute(average).


its available for anyone to download the testnet release on github.

so no segwit benefit for ages yet?, if ever.
(you lost me a bit there, need more time to compute)

But can anyone test such theories as (i think yours) a miner including a segwit block, pre segwit, to then activate later?
Or would that be off scope/unpredictable to achieve in test mode.

I nominate Lauda to be the official spokes person for core. :p

Agreed.

http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/images/07-minister.jpg

my first scenario(2016) was under the guise of pools processing segwit in 2016 like the original promise was (plan pre-roundtable)
.. after all many thought that all this soft fork promises meant that people could see segwit blocks on mainnet this summer...
.. remember those funny days when blockstreamers said softforks didnt need network consensus as they were 100% compatible and perfect..
..
my second scenario(2017) was under the guise of pools processing segwit only when a HF is also active (plan post round table)

Thanks for those facts.

I really dont get the logic - how could a HF be in the roadmap  and is soooo dangerous right now? How will this 'HF fear' be eased and selled in 2017?


BTW:  THE  HF  is already in the making.  The comunity is hard forked and btc forked  into eth ....

Fees are higher now, yes - but if peace & adoption & price would be higher, miners would be happier.

Happy days!

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753

That is definitely not a position that one would enjoy being in.

I wouldn't call them facts.

Welcome to Drama-Land, where instead of trying to push forward, we try to keep stalling. I'm now curious as to how this one is going to play out.

Easy to fix. Majority wants the entire package incl HF, so it will be done w/o any real issues.

Leads to reunion and peace.

Happy days

You may still for it. NOt everyone wants SW as soft fork:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753

Exactly how did you measure this "majority"? Please enlighten me.

Agreed,

Who the hell wants a delayed, buggy segwit at this stage.

It isn't neither delayed nor 'buggy' at this point either. I don't recall anyone 'promising' a merge in April.

Unfortunately it is impossible (or nearly impossible) to measure the "majority" in bitcoinland. There is simply too diverse of a population of stakeholders to possibly be able to accurately be able to poll all of them, in addition to the fact that the various stakeholders of Bitcoin may have competing interests and may not be in line with the best interests of Bitcoin. Some stakeholders may not even own nor use Bitcoin currently.

I would personally opine that major economic companies (collectively, not individually) should be the ones who decide if a HF (or features for a potential HF) should be adopted, as they ultimately are the ones who give bitcoin it's value and they are the ones who can best measure the opinions of Bitcoin users (as if several large of their customers are in favor of, or opposed to a certain proposal they would know, and they would be able to easily filter out sockpuppet type opinions because they can easily measure by transaction volume). I would also say that the opinions of the miners should be given fairly strong weight due to the fact that (as of now) they have invested heavily in what is essentially the success of Bitcoin and their best interests are generally going to be in line with that of Bitcoin.

I would say that it looks like that they figured out that Blockstream et al. doesn't have any intention of actually delivering a HF that increases the maximum block size, and they want to be sure that they will not get tricked into giving Blockstream et al. what they wanted and not get what they bargained for in the end.

Bingo

That's why statements similar to the statement from the person that I've quoted are ridiculous. They are (usually) backed up by nothing.

Seems like things are going in the right direction. Not.

It is also why I think it is a bad idea to say that we need a "super duper" 99% majority of every type of Bitcoin stakeholder to agree to a change in order to implement a HF, and call this "consensus". This is going to result in absolutely nothing ever getting done, and will only result in uncertainty. There are simply too many potential entities that can veto any HF proposal. It would be much better to define "consensus" as a majority of each stakeholder-types have a super majority of similar entities agree to a HF, and have it be so that not even a single stake-holder type can veto a HF proposal. For example, "consensus" would be better defined (in the context of Bitcoin) as being 75%-80% of major economic companies, minor economic companies, miners, bitcoin experts, ect, and that no one of these groups can veto a HF (so if the miners do not like a HF, but everyone else does, then tough luck).

It looks like to me that we are not getting even a HF proposal to raise the maximum block size (let alone an actual maximum block size increase) - not that this was ever going to happen, and nor will we get SegWit. Unfortunately I would not be surprised if some alternative to Bitcoin comes along that is scalable.

I'm understanding you so well! It isn't cancelled but it's taking so much time that an average person is forced to think that the whole thing has been killed. I'm not expecting it before the halving.

I would say that the chosen threshold is dangerously low.

Says who? There are certain people that are still working on the proposal and there is still enough time. Actually, anyone could make a decent HF proposal that would have parameters that most Core contributor would not instantly reject (e.g. low consensus period; low grace period), but people here prefer complaining.

This deserve an entry in the book of the most ridiculous statements regarding software development. Underlying logic: If project is taking much time ⇒ project is killed.  :D

If it isnt going to arrive and work before halving, we might see bitcoin strangling with demand closer and just after halving, when more ppl are expected to buy and sell btc. Blocks area already full as of writing this (https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/), people start complaining about delays more and more.

I think this struggle is going to continue for coming months and even years. This will be the biggest challenge of bitcoin development and once it is solved we should see a smoother sail. This is also why the price has not been moving up even with the reward halving just round the corner.

Right now there are two pools have ~>24% of the network hashrate, and three additional pools have ~>10% of the network hashrate. The threshold that I propose prevents any one entity from being able to veto a HF. Do you think that any one person (or an entity) should have the power to veto a HF?

Please note that several groups of people would need to be in 75%-80% of agreement, and it would not be 75%-80% of the miners alone. 75%-80% of the miners would need to agree, as well as 75%-80% of the major economic companies, and 75%-80% of other major stake holders.
I have looked at the facts and have come to that conclusion. To me, it has always been clear that a serious proposal to HF the network to raise the maximum block size will never be released. Based on what AntPool is saying, they will not support SegWit without a HF, and AntPool will most likely be able to prevent SegWit from activating. 

This is the game theory nonsense that was supposed to justify a certain HF. While they might be able to prevent a HF for a while (keep in mind that the miners are able to switch pools) it is in their best interest not do so if everyone agrees with it.

You have looked at nothing relevant. The people that have signed the agreement haven't really voiced themselves much besides Luke-jr, who was trying to gather information as to what would be acceptable in the HF.

There was never any guarantee of the price going high (even though it is much higher ATM than late 2015). You only have a bunch of people with primary school knowledge of economics predicting pretty much any random number (example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1481171.0)).