Bitcoin Forum

On November 16, the exchange and the large pool Bitcoin mining BTCC COO, Samson Mow revealed that the institution Distincts Witness (SegWit) was ready. BTCC officially began SegWit run client on November 17, to support the Bitcoin core team development solution scaled on the channel.
SegWit is great for Bitcoin. It brings more transaction throughput, resolve fabricability, defragments the UTXO kit makes hardware portfolios safer and more importantly, it makes lightning that will bring direct transactions of low cost Bitcoin to the world. BTCC team have worked hard to make our SegWit pool and mining services ready.

The technical advantages of SegWit

Mow and the rest of the BTCC team recognize the technical benefits and benefits SegWit brings to the network. It solves the feasibility transaction, increases block capacity, makes lightning and improves the security of hardware portfolios.

segwit is the bait to introduce dual-managed transactions (LN) removing peer-to-peer(no middlemen) and replacing it with peer-custodian (hub middlemen)

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html

as for cheap transactions. read the open office spreadsheet linked in the "results" part of the link above
and then click on the "marketing conditions", "prepaid" both suggesting 0.006 btc pre-pay LN fee

if you check the other tabs. it only becomes a cheap fee if you are using it every second. however using it just once a day.. not cheap

to use LN users need to PREPAY 0.006btc which based on a 10day locktime
and it actually costs you more to not be spending. EG dont expect to get 0.0059xxxx back if you only do a couple transactions in those 10 days.

$4+(0.006) 'pre-pay' is a barrier of entry.
would you pay $4 every 10 days just to use a service?? which then charges you for not using it, and only works out beneficial if you are doing lots of transactions a day.

if yes then if you want to do grocery shopping. prepare yourself for scanning one item at the cashiers desk and paying for that item, scanning another and pay, scan another and pay just to get the best deal for the end transaction cost when the 10 days are up.

oh and if you want to close the channel early hoping to avoid paying a time compensation. forget it. there is a penalty for closing the channel early too. also by not signing in a convenient time (measured in seconds) you are penalised aswell.

seems LN have not thought about using code to mitigate risks of DDoS, errors, blackmail. but instead used greed of economics to find the penalty/prize values of avoiding DDoS, errors, blackmail.

LN is more about making the hubs money by users entering into a dual-signed address where the user then has less independent power of their own funds, while costing the user for not using LN efficiently.

dont think LN is going to be the saviour of cheap transactions.. its a bait and switch.. its just about faster method of 'trust' that the funds will be paid, while continuing to push the fee war on to make bitcoin have less utility due to cost of use.

if only these devs can stop playing the economics game of bankers and instead use actual code to mitigate risks, instead of fee's
seems devs think fee's are the answer to security. and forget that code can do the job much better

I sure hope it stays

SegWit is a fucking scam.  It is not Bitcoin.  It is some bullshit to help Blockstream pull off their altcoin 'sidechain' crap.  Fuck Blockstream. 

At this point I don't think we have something better in store for us. SegWit might not be ideal solution but no one proposed anything better so far.
Think of SegWit as lesser evil. Miners will decide if they want to switch to SegWit or not - so far most of them decided to support it.

most?

4 days: 3.6%
https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

dont expect activation by christmas
definitely dont expect anything to change a minute after activation.

you will need to download yet another implementation to actually make a segwit transaction using segwit compatible HD seed keypairs
meaning users, merchants and pools will yet again need to test the implementation and move funds around.

If at each retarget there will be 101 not-segwit blocks .. then SW will not pass to the nexts status, which is called locked.

Yes, of course it is good for Bitcoin. Every technological improvement is a good thing for Bitcoin.

its called the placebo effect wait a year and come back and see the difference

so far segwits features are not active. it requires users to download another version after activation before anything is noticable

SegWit is an AltCoin.  It is not Bitcoin. 

Not only that, it is a fucking stupid alt coin that is being pursued so BlockStream can enable their proprietary side network.  It is a scam folks.  Don't buy it. 

Based on what I've read so far it seems a lot more like SegWit is some sort of offshoot that is an attempt at making money off of a normally free (or relatively) free service. I'm not a fan of this so far and currently it looks like a lot of the alternatives I thought would be bad are becoming more and more palatable when I see things like this.

I'll see, but I am incredibly skeptical right now.

segwit would be using the bitcoin network. so segwit is not an altcoin but features of it and who programmed it does rub very much against the ethos of what bitcoin is, the way it bypasses node consensus. the lack of concern of diversity, etc.
but LN is definitely a different kettle of fish.

however segwits abilities and promises are not going to be met, compared to the utopian dream plastered out last year
EG
malleability fixed. you need to ask what was the end user experience that malleability was causing in the first place.
1. double spends.... um RBF, CPFP have been added to make double spends possible... so the fix solves nothing
2. LN working.. well LN is a dual signing mechanism. so if someone wanted to create a malleated tx with higher fee, after signing the first tx.. LN wont allow it anyway because the second tx needs dual signing anyway just like the first tx did, and the peer wont sign a second tx. so malleated transactions wont even reach a block due to not having dual signatures. in short, a peer would reject a malleated tx simply by seeing their counterpart trying to make one.

EG
TX fee
its said that the tx fee will be 75% cheaper. more accurate numbers are 40% cheaper. and due to the transaction price going from 3.5cents last year to over 7cents today. its not really making transactions 'cheaper' (not below 1cent like in 2012) but still at 3cent+ which will rise quickly due to other fee war pushing mechanisms added to the new implementation

but hey. everyone will argue that using real code to fix problems of bitcoin is meaningless because soon LN, soon sidechain will save the day.. (facepalm) pushing the problem down the road and into a different direction rather then dealing with it

It is time for  Miners Makes Decision.
Bitmain, HaoBTC, BW, GBMiners and F2Pool plan to mine by Bitcoin Unlimited, according to Haipo Yang, ViaBTC founder and former Tencent employee, Facebook / Twitter from China, where he worked Linux-based C + +.
In combination with bitcoin.com, they represent about 60% of the hash rate of the network, making it almost a super majority in favor of Bitcoin Unlimited, the rank and long-term solution on taking the scalability chain .
A Bitmain representative in response to my request for confirmation or denial of ViaBTC's statement that they have no comment at this time. A Bitbank representative, in response to the same question, responded with a link to "a statement from members of the Bitcoin Community", which is a $ 1.2 million grant fund for the Bitcoin protocol announcement development. Other miners have not yet replied.
As far as I know, only a small number of SegWit mines support, and most pools are private or public, unlike SegWit.

all core need to do is simple.
dont do a miner vote and then users node adoption later for 1mb base 4mb weight(pushing segwit into activatatioon before usernodes are readily available to be full nodes)

but instead do
users node adoption vote for 2mb base 4mb weight (meaning segwit still happens but as hard fork) where nodes are readily avalable as full nodes before activation
then miners vote to activate it

then everyone is happy.

I would like to see a counter argument from the core developers or from the people who know the technical ins and outs of the Segwit and the Lightning Network. For me, everyone should be open to criticisms as long as they are contructive and informative that would benefit the community. I see some posts from people who have no clue what Segwit even is.

I see franky1's post about LN is valid. That is good for all to learn and see. What is good about the whole thing is Blockstream's implementation of LN is only 1 of several. I believe others also have their own ideas for off chain transactions which could or could not be better. At this point it is all at vaporware phase. The best time to criticize is now so that changes and improvements can still be considered.

don't talk shit, of course SegWit and Lightning is Bitcoin.
Why are you so hate bitcoin? Does goverment pay you for your posts?  Or is it because Lightning is gonna kill all altcoins, and you bought a lot of this scum?

Calm down, this is a debate about the Pro's and Con's of this technology. So far, I can see features in SegWit and later LN that might not be

beneficial for poor people in developing nations. If what Franki1 is saying is true, then this is definitely something we have to consider, to

prevent a barrier to entry for poor people. The alternative to dump this, also has it's down side.. { scalability problems } We can also not

just increase the Block size to try and solve this problem, because that has threats of attacks too.  ::)

At this stage it's mostly speculation.  I don't think anyone can truly know whether Segwit (and by extension, Lightning) is good or bad for Bitcoin until we see it in action.  There are still concerns over maintaining direct access to the blockchain by individuals, so users can keep transacting directly on-chain without relying on third parties.  For those who believe the advent of this technology could result in users being forced off the chain onto more "custodial" services, then it's fair to see why they're skeptical.  To echo others, this clearly doesn't make it an altcoin, but it is potentially a significant change in ethos.  On the plus side, it is optional and, if it doesn't work as advertised, there is still the nuclear option of a hard fork away from it.  

For what it's worth, I'm interested to see Segwit and Lightning up and running so that we can all make an informed evaluation of the pros and cons.

However, I will say that (despite usage being optional) if people feel they are either being forced to transact either less frequently, or off chain, due to prohibitive costs, or if the off chain transactions start redirecting fees away from the miners and towards some newly created middlemen, causing incentives to become misaligned, then a fork would be all but inevitable in my view.  People won't support a system that doesn't support them.  Give it a chance, but not carte blanche.

SegWit has yet to be accepted by the miners. I am skeptical that the 95% agreement will be reached in the one-year polling phase.

you do know that ASICS do not have a hard drive, or store the blockchain, or validate transactions.
all they literally do is SHA hash a small piece of data unrelated to your transaction.

SHA hashing in a ASIC has not changed in any way and has nothing to do with any updated node software, or transaction formation.

segwit will not do anything to the average time of solving a block.
the only difference you may notice with segwit are more transactions per block.
and the time YOUR node validates and stores a block of data.
NOT solving a block.

again nothing to do with confirmations at all.
you experienced something that is not attributed to what segwit does bt due to placebo, have deemed it to be a effect of segwit.

thats not how bitcoin works, your trying too hard to make a placebo effect appear to be segwit related.

segwit is NOT letting in any extra transactions in. segwit is not activated to do that.
secondly next year when it is activated it doesnt make 4 blocks get solved in 15 minutes. or mess with the 'average' timing

segwit has nothing to do with the asic miners hashrate to make blocks

SegWit does not appreciably help with the scaling problem.  The only thing SegWit does is get the network ready to become the Blockstream Lightning Network where you have to pay a private company to use their 'sidechain channels'.   That is the only true purpose of SegWit.

SegWit is a conversion of Bitcoin to a privately owned crypto 'managed' by Blockstream.  Oh, and they are taking the name 'Bitcoin' to put on their system because they control commit access as Core developers.

Fuck those fucking fuckers.

if segwit can help keep bitcoin secure and give it more of a better future then I say welcome it.  some people might thing it not good but we just have to wait and see what happens to the price of bitcoins and if it the mining community helps it grow. 

basically the admins of this forum !

I do not believe it is all speculation from the people who are against Segwit/LN. It is also political because they have a different set of beliefs on how Bitcoin should be taken forward and has divided the community into their own camps. The people in each camp who point at each other accusing that greed and control is the primary motivation of the solution of either Segwit/LN and bigger blocks are hypocrites. Both camps each have their own self interests at hand.


I agree. I am also interested what else can be done with LN. The most interesting use case is the possibility for it to become a bridge to other blockchains.


True but it will not stop the miners from creating payment hubs. I see it as an opportunity for them to gain more power in the system.

Core is implementing segwit through softfork, that is by lying to old nodes to realize compatibility. This brings significant technical risks and hefty tech debts.

With bottom layer data structure altered, Core wants to lie to old nodes so as to fool them into believing “nothing-has-changed”. This is just as difficult as the twisted hand in the pic above. The risks and debts behind it are so self-explanatory. We can already expect tremendous difficulty in the future development that will be based on this twisted hand.

Why Core says “SegWit almost changed every line of Bitcoin’s codes?” (They wanted to brag about the workload).

Based on the HK consensus, the segwit should have been out in Apr. and online since Jul.,why is it so late in Nov. even under the pressure from consensus and miners? Because core wanted to build a twisted hand.
segwit is bad for bitcoins