Bitcoin Forum

 SegWit, are we sure about this? I'm embarrassed that I'm a little nervous.  Dose Bitcointalk have any doubts or are you guys pumped for SegWit?

There are couple of good things that SegWit will bring to bitcoin.  Even if I am not in favor of this, I don't have the capability to contribute in bitcoin coding or propose and alternative solution to the current issue of bitcoin.  As I browse thru the benefits of SegWit, it will boost bitcoin useability, and even it will minimize the complexity of integrating smart contracts to bitcoin.  so all in all after SegWit activation, bitcoin as believed will be more open to future upgrades.

What exactly are you worried about? Segwit is the most peer reviewed change to date.

only time will tell. but i do hope for the best. we are at a point (and have been for some time) were bitcoin is so complex and big, that changes are slow and hard to see through. what is the worst that can happen? o yeah we burn a billion $$$ and learn a lesson. 

I think it's about time we had smart contracts for the most widely used cryto currency on the planet!

Personally waiting to see several sites I am on dive into Segwit. Like most, I will only be a bystander though!

Changes have to be slow, otherwise we are in for a ETH-like disaster where the only two choices are: 1) Accept a huge loss. 2) Become a bailout coin.

What are you talking about? Segwit has nothing to do with smart contracts. Look for Rootstock, that's where your smart contracts currently are/will be.

that is true and i do not want to suggest to rush things. my point was that even if everybody is on board with a decision it takes time to go through with it, but because of the many different opinions the process of agreeing on the way to go is a very slow one. 

We have nothing better for now and SegWit is really good. So yes, we are sure this is the direction we're heading...

I strongly support SegWit. It's a truly intelligent solution to enable scaling Bitcoin without sacrificing decentralization. It also fixes transaction malleability once and for all. So it's not only about scaling, but also about security. I already upgraded my node to 0.13.1 and given the adoption rate by other nodes, support is strong.

So I'm free of doubts and I'm confident that we will see SegWit activation by end of this year. Obstructionist racketeer Roger Ver will loose all what is left of his credibility and will be sidelined by the Bitcoin community.

ya.ya.yo!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UP1YsMlrfF0)

;D

I don't fully understand segwit but i could probably tell that it is good. Since we can simply monitor our outgoing transcations from the id and base on the veterans in this forum this is surely a good thing , we could try to at least innovate

he's reading from a script. not speaking from his heart.
like someone is telling him what to say.

---

now lets see gmaxwell talk about his companies agenda when someone mentions bitcoin having a dictating leader.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-SeHNXdJCtE

"for wallet behavior, clients non normative stuff, yes sure go fork, please go fork, stop bothering me." (context of the community wanting him to join consensus, and him saying no)

"we are vulnerable to people wanting to jam bitcoin, either traditional money system or another cryptocurrency system" (context of dictatorship control)

and ofcourse gmaxwell loves his altcoins(monero) aswell as being paid to make hyperledger(bankers cryptocurrency system) and being part of the group that owns bitcoincore, bitcoinj XT, knots green address, bloq and many more bitcoin wallets

---

when the horses mouth(maxwell) is telling you that if you want change that is not dictated by those paid by bankers, requires forking off to an altcoin to get momentum.. you start to see the problem

bitcoins single most best security feature is not the blockchain or PoW. its consensus.
the funny thing is gmawell hates consensus in bitcoin but loves it and concentrating on in in hyperledger
the funny thing is gmawell hates dymantic blocksize in bitcoin but loves it and concentrating on in in monero

funny how he pretends to say it keeps him up at night(context of banker takeover). yet he could always resign from blockstream and stop playing with altcoins and just do something positive for the bitcoin community. but im guessing he sleeps like a comforted baby and to use his words is looking forward to "the experiment failing".

he has lost all care for bitcoin and is happy in the banker camp of hyperledger who are slowly taking over and gaining ground with having ownership of well over 51% of code

---

as for segwit. its november 16th and after core said it needs 18 months for any other big thing to beactivated.. core are saying segwit by christmas. with code only pblicly usable ON BITCOINS MAINNET!! for a couple weeks.

as for the malleability fix.
does it fix double spends. nope. RBF, CPFP now allows double spends
did it ever have an issue for LN. nope because LN is a dual signing process. so a tx cannot just be manipulated after broadcast to then override the first tx. due to it needing second party signing on the second manipulated tx. thus the dual signing alone countered that.

as for linear/quadratic fix.
is there ever a need to have 1000 signatures in one tx? um no.. so limiting sigops could have solved it.

as for the 2mb debate.
is setwit preventing bloat to be well under 2mb. nope. it can go upto 4mb due to enough buffer space for payment codes and other features. BUT still hindering the transaction capacity growth.
yep 1.8mb block for ~4500 is the new expectation. the other 2.3mb buffer is for mondane non transaction capacity bloat features like confidential payment codes and mundate data to pair to a hyperledger sidechain

Does SegWit introduce known vulnerabilities? I imagine we can loosely say "maybe" for any change, but is there a pretty concrete risk associated with its code? Or are these just residual, vague concerns despite the peer review and testing to date?

oh you do know that 0.13.1 (released) is not fully segwit active. you will be required to download yet another version when active to actually use a segwit wallet features.

and then...

changing your funds from lagacy keypairs to new HD segwit compatible seeded addresses has risks
eg exchange/merchants needing to replace everyones deposit addresses and reaudit funds

changes to RPC calls has risks

this is why i laugh when people are screaming to just run segwit on mainnet and "trust" the devs have reviewed it. though only as an altcoin (testnet/segnet) not as a bitcoin mainnet node

dont expect smart people to run it blindly. they will all do independant tests. move funds, audit funds warn customers of different deposit addresses..

in short dont expect anything to change by christmas, or expect ~4500 instead of ~2500 transaction before spring.. well lets call it summer before anything actually starts to be noticable

As I got it from from the SegWit benefits (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/) (namely, from the part which I don't feel completely lost at), this update allows new nodes to raise the block size limit to about 4 MB (now it is 1 MB). If I'm not mistaken, larger blocks allow to accommodate more transactions, most likely 4 times the amount as of now. This has double benefit. First, it increases the network capacity to process more transactions and, second, the amount of miners fees will increase proportionately with the number of transactions when Bitcoin adoption eventually scales up...

There are probably other benefits associated with raising the block size limit

100 or so developers are surely gonna know more than i ever will about what's best for bitcoin. considering what's at stake these days then they must be very confident. i guess no upgrade is 100% impregnable but sometimes you need to take a step up whatever.

you got it wrong..
thats 4mb of data.. not 4x transactions.

the baseblock is still 1mb... and still limits capacity..

which if utilising segwit converts to about a maximum expectation of about 1.8mb of complete transaction data at best.

expect the average ~2500 transactions per block now. to be ATBEST ~4500 transactions.

the 4mb total weight is 1mb base and 3mb separate section(partly used by segwit signatures(the 0.8mb accounted for in the underline above))
the rest of the 2.2mb empty buffer space which core are allowing is not for more transactions. but other mundane data and features later on.

later on when new features are added.
it will still be ~4500 transactions but room to include payment codes and mundane data in that transaction.
eg
legacy 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value - signature  = total 1mb of 1mb for 2500tx
segwit 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 0.8mb -Witnesstxid - signature  = total 1.8mb of 4mb for 4500tx
future 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 0.8mb -Witnesstxid - signature... 2.2mb otherfeatures = total total 4mb of 4mb for 4500tx

you wont see the red (baseblock) change to allow more than 1mb.

though many would wish for:
segwit 2mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 1.5mb -Witnesstxid - signature  = total 3.5mb of 4mb for 9000tx
future 2mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 1.5mb -Witnesstxid - signature... 0.5mb otherfeatures = total total 4mb of 4mb for 9000tx

but that would require core to join a logical consensus and not back out and prevent that.. with something like 'we paid for the consensus round table to discuss possible bips, we organised who gets to attend. we even called it consensus, but when we turned up we pretended to just be janitors that cant code a solution so that after the agreement we didnt have to do what had been agreed at the consensus discussion'

It should be that way. For me, I personally want it to go as slowly but surely as possible. There is no need for a rush here unless there is a Bitcoin doomsday saying that the core developers must hurry up or else Bitcoin will break. The big blockers should also have the same view and must also be willing to criticize both segwit/LN and BU/big block implementation from an objective point of view.

Speaking of the Bitcoin doomsday, did Mike Hearn mention that unless Bitcoin hard fork's to XT, it will die by this time in his time frame? I was lurking this forum at that time so I am not sure.

I was just requested by my mobile client's automatic fee calculation to spend 17 cents as fee to have my transaction included in the next block. I hope OP is transacting now and is thanking for the creation of SegWit :D And we aren't even too congestioned.

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

also some of the RPC calls have changed so merchants will need to tweak their webserver to interpret the new RPC's and then translate them into a form that resembles the API quiries the webserver normally sends out to users. but please note some RPC's may give more info and as such some merchants may actually use the updated info from the RPC's, which means the user has to adjust to the new information.
but that all depends on the merchant and what API you are needing. best to check with the service your API calling.

there are a few other things to note. but i feel some fanboys are ready to pounce and declare segwit to be utopian perfection and that no one should worry, and simply sheep follow and obey.
so ill let them get their idolizations out the way before hinting at other issues

It sounds great and anything that can help with more transactions is a good first step, i dont think it is the final solutions tho

Remove the name calling and the insults and get to the real issue at hand. It would be fair for the people who know what is going on to answer to the issues raised because they will cause some inconvenience for the exchanges, merchants, and all the other Bitcoin based businesses. It will also be a nuisance for the users especially the people who are not updated to what is going on with Bitcoin. They might just find out one day when they cannot send or receive coins.

Maybe 5 years ago this would be acceptable. But not today because Bitcoin is getting more professional and its legitimacy relies on the fact that there should be no downtime.

I think there is always an issue whenever an upgrade or some modification is made.  But going back before bitcoin was adopted by merchants, it was far more difficult back then because every one is so new to bitcoin.  They even undergo this kind of process when they are into adopting bitcoin and yet it was been established.  I think this is just a common ground to an ever evolving or upgrading system. 


I agree to this, as long as it does not go against the main purpose why bitcoin is created, I think it must be pushed.

It does go against the main purpose.  It is an alt.  A bad alt.  It is a radical change and unproven.  It doesn't work (as a scaling solution). 

Post your vote now.  Even if you are not a miner, let the community know you are against.

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

It has been proven and it works (at least on Bitcoin Testnet). It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.

---

It is so sad to see either misinformed people continuing to spread lies, or users *sponsored by unknown actors* continuing to spread FUD and dissent. Here's a better view on the issue:

https://i.imgur.com/EhFaE6K.png

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

Just Curious.

 8)

to my knowledge segwit effects will impact the bitcoin network significantly reduce the transactional data by deleting a set of data called Witness of the traditional structure of the transaction. This is thought to reduce the likelihood of blocks reaches maximum capacity

To Increase BTC Transaction Capacity all they had to do was the following.
Increase BlockSize or Decrease Blockspeed , either or both would work



Whole Point to SegWit is install code where the Lightening Network can be used to replace BTC Transactions with LN Transactions
LN does not use BTC as it is OFFCHAIN it is nothing more than a representative trade value of BTC / IOU for BTC.
LN=Bank

 8)

I am doubt too about SegWit because of the miners won't support it, they have made investment into business mining with millions real assets and they won't be manipulated by the the people who not made investment on business mining.

dont oversell it.

that 1,8x old stat and the updated 2-2.1x new stat is ONLY TRUE. if 100% of people move funds away from legacy(old) keypairs and directs funds over to the new segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs, and 100% sticks with using segwit.

if not all users used segwit it WONT be close to your numbers. so dont oversell it

But situation where some bitcoins could be "lost in translation" while being send from old wallet of customer to new SegWit address on an exchange is not possible right?
Also is something could go wrong while updating HD Seed to SegWit beside exchanges being temporary out of service?

Yes, it is an altcoin.  I don't understand how you can argue that it is not.  Litecoin is more like Bitcoin than SegWit.
  It is clearly an altcoin.  Your shit is the FUD

Of course.  He is just another one of the Blockstream army of idiots trying to takeover the protocol.