Bitcoin Forum

We must put an end to SegWit.  SegWit is an altcoin.  Protect Bitcoin by stopping SegWit. 

Cant see this going down well here, making a statement like that without even giving a legitamite reason as to why you feel that way is not going to help either   ::)

since you dont even try to argue about why we shouldn't support segWit, i'm gonna take this as trolling...

user nodes cannot veto it out.
and now you see why blockstream went for a soft fork.


all blockstream needs to do is coax 15-20 pools

so far they tried it by doing fully paid all inclusive weekend meetups..
they already had 4 this last year..
unless they were hoping the 'scaling bitcoin' in Milan this October would have been enough. (should have picked somewhere warmer)

but hey, theres always the new year to plan a nice tropical spring break to kiss some ass

anyway blockstream have a year to coax pools. no need to rush.
but here is a hint listen to the community: dynamic blocksize+segwit
like promised last year
heres another hint:

dynamic blocksize: default starting at 2mb base 4mb weight.

that way its both segwit and actual scaling.
and yes 2mb base 4mb weight DOES actually mean 1mb base 4mb weight is acceptable

do it as a 2 stage consensus
1a)usernodes, 95%(yes it might take upto a year, but nothing will happen before that so no harm in atleast releasing he code to give a choice)
1b)followed by a 2 week grace period.

THEN
2a)pool 95%(yes it might take upto a year, but nothing will happen before that so no harm)
2b)followed by a 2 week grace period.

so its win win

knowing the time of (1b)->(2b) than enough time to reduce the 260(5%)nodes of 5400 that didnt upgrade at (1a) by them upgrading

yep thats right the nodes get to have a say, after all they are the ones doing the validating, relaying and storing the blockchain. only fair they get to be part of activating something by being full node ready to accept it by the time it activates.... not after

unlike segwit is doing the opposite. which is going to wait for pools to activate and then waste a few weeks twiddling thumbs before actually releasing 0.14 that actually has segwit (and wallet) features fully utilisable.

but hey..
segwit thinks christmas seems "safe".. so they should not argue about any timescales.
especially knowing a real consensus upgrade wont actually activate without node consensus, the way it should be

i feel pity for anyone that may reply to defend blockstream and the 90 unpaid interns. purely "because blockstream rules".
i feel pity for anyone that may reply to defend blockstream and the 90 unpaid interns. purely "because blockstream should dictate".
i feel pity for anyone that may reply to defend blockstream and the 90 unpaid interns. purely "because blockstream owns bitcoin".

those types of people have no clue

You said it.  Blockstream cheer squad is worse than a gaggle of little high school girls. 

Just because they sit behind a sign that says 'Core Devs' doesn't mean that their new coin is somehow original Bitcoin.  It is an altcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin. 

Bitcoin with 4MB blocks - is Bitcoin. 


Let Blockstream start their altcoin the same way everyone has to start an altcoin, on their own miners/chain.  Hijacking Bitcoin to launch an alt is pure and simple treason.  Just because they were able to sucker a few miners into agreeing with them, they now own Bitcoin. 

SegWit is an alt!!!!

Wrong. Even franky1 realizes that this is far from the truth and the definition of an altcoin. While Segwit is far from being some perfect solution, it most surely is no altcoin. Here's a more healthier stance on the matter:

https://i.imgur.com/mTKarK5.png

Lightening Network can't work without SegWit being activated.
LN is a Offchain system that can be used instead of BTC OnChain Transactions,
while it is not an altcoin it is also not Bitcoin. An Alt Payment system might be more accurate.

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

 8)

segwit was a blockstream project under the "elements" codebase, unrelated and incompatible with bitcoin in 2015-mid 2016.
 
it was put onto its own sandbox (altcoin testnet) in the spring 2016, totally not emulating bitcoin, but thrashed about until it kinda resembled what bitcoin does. it did not even get a chance to be on a bitcoin emulating sandbox (testnet) until june 2016.

this means just to get basic bitcoin-esq functionality it has only been in bitcoin-esq ability for 4 months (june to october). even the latest release 0.13.1 is not a final, fully functioning version just waiting to be activated. it requires a further download after activation..

so TKEENAN, has got some things right as do the others with differing opinions on both sides. it is not the same 2009-2016 bitcoin we knew,
it is just an implementation that has been made compatible to then divert people away from the traditional bitcoin keypairs and data store methods for those that choose to use it for that possible one time capacity boost.

---

its been 1 year since their scaling promise(that also promised dynamic blocks) and they have only released activation parameters for a onetime boost. where that one time boost is only possible if everyone drops their standard private-public keypairs and moves funds to segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs.

it has required users to download 4 different implementations to get to a stage of even being close to activating their one time boost.

lets atleast hope that by the blockstream devs saying 'its all ok'. they are currently this second preparing that 5th download to include dynamic block sizes along with the actual segwit wallet capability to actually utilise segwit. so that everyone can get what they want.

after all, they obviously have spare time to work on dynamic blocks now they believe segwit code is ready and have nothing else to do.. right!?.

Yup i could understand the point of author if there was a point. But there is not.
Segwit is now our only scaling solution out there.
Maybe blockstream is too much involved in this, maybe its not pure intentions but we have no choice now.

The segnet was announced right on the new year on December 31st (https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-January/012195.html). IIRC it was running before the post to the mailing list.

That is simply not true. Segwit was built on top of Bitcoin Core. It was not an altcoin that was modified to do what Bitcoin does, it was Bitcoin modified to do segwit stuff. However, the elements sidechain was probably completely incompatible, but that codebase was not modified to become Bitcoin but rather the other way around.

Segwit actually activated on testnet block 834624 (https://tbtc.blockr.io/block/info/834624) which was in May.

Not entirely true. Segwit fully works with Core 0.13.1 and you can do segwit transactions from the RPC. It does not have segwit wallet support unfortunately, but other wallets will. (If you couldn't tell, the Core devs tend to focus more on the node aspect of Core instead of the wallet.)

That is just completely and absolutely false. There is no such thing as HD seeded keypairs. Segwit works only with the normal ECDSA keypairs, regardless of whether those keys were derived deterministically.

What 4 different implementations? Users have only needed to download one implementation, the one that was released.

---

---

Please stop with the FUD and trolling. Actually fact check your statements before you make them.

It's the morons that always roll-over and take it up the ass.  I'd rather fight it.

I agree and the miners especially from China will not be support for this project, and will become long debates without solution although the coindesk has wrote about this problem.  http://www.coindesk.com/why-arent-bitcoin-businesses-talking-segwit-protocol-upgrade/
The best solution is SegWit project be stoped.

SegWit is not alt. It's upgraiding for Bitcoin. Bitcoin will be stronger than eva! And from what I gather, you are just bitcoin hater. You are too puny to become it's enemy

Op is a huge troll ore he doesnt know how to make Bitcoin mainstream. He thinks that Bitcoin will be ok with just 2 mb blocks....

We need something like 1gig blocks to make a good shot for mainstream, now lets sink that in...1 gig vs 2 mb  :o

There is nothing wrong with bigger blocks but to handle mainstream adoption we will need Segwit/Lightning.

SegWit is not an alt. The only way to upgrade a decentralised system like this is to push it out to every single user. That's basically what a hardfork is.

I believe SegWit is for the better of the bitcoin ecosystem.

and how many versions of segnet testnet did they go through.. 1,2,3,4 oh wait.
your talking about the first segnet back when it was the elements design..


im talking about in spring, you know march2016.. spring... you know the time after december, but before may/june... when they were thrashing about with it to get it to be bitcoin compatible.. so they could possibly use it on a bitcoin testnet

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

so if it was bitcoin -> segwit.. like your trying to suggest, then ask yourself..
why do segnet(testnet) first, second, third, fourth, to get it then compatible enough to then open the bitcoin testnet to then see if it would work with bitcoin transactions and bitcoin legacy nodes..

again.. if it was bitcoin first.. it would have run on a bitcoin testnet first. and then developed to be more segwit-esq later...
(chicken and egg! comes to mind.) but the observations are simple.. it was segwit first

they activated on the 13th may.. but lets see when they actually organised some proper tests

so tests didnt really start properly until the 23rd. i call that closer to JUNE than the start of may.. oops i meant december 2015(like you imply as your right answer).. but screw it im a week and a half out.. boo hoo.. now your getting pedantic..
im secretly laughing by you "hinting" it was bitcoin compatible back before the december 31st announcement.. i really am
MOST tests that could be deemed bitcoin related (bar a week and a half) were done in JUNE onwards..

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/
they then met up on the 20th.. to discuss for 3 days what tests they should do
https://bitcoincore.org/logs/2016-05-zurich-meeting-notes.html
link is them spending 3 days reviewing code and discussing what test to do on the bitcoin testnet..
EG not doing official tests before this date

i say june.. u say december.. actual quotes say may 20th-23rd ish...before they started officially testing

and you think im more in the wrong?? please!!
december----/may/june whos closer..
im one and a half weeks out.. your... 5 months...... come on


i emboldened your words that explain my words. thank you its now self explanatory within the quotes. i even colour coded it
note the underlined future tense of achows response "will" and my future tense "after"
achow being pedantic yet again

ill add this just for fun
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/


if there is no change to the wallet... why withhold the wallet. :D
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/


how many bips needed to be activated just to help segwit along.. think about it..

yea someone in 2018 does need to download all the 0.12's and 0.13's they can skip to the latest.. but im talking about people in the past needing to in the past dowload previous releases, to push bips into activation just to get this far.


FUD??? nope. just not pedantic nazi inspector specific enough for a white paper scrutinising committee.
but im still laughing you thing it was bitcoin compatible in december 2015.. you made me laugh so i thank you and wish you a good day

The first segnet was not the elements design. It was based on Bitcoin Core. At that point in time, segwit was not ready or polished enough to be tested on testnet, so they created segnet.

During that time, it was already bitcoin compatible, just not polished or ready for testnet, which is why the segnets were created. It was most certainly Bitcoin compatible by segnet3 since I was doing testing on segnet3 with normal Bitcoin transactions and it all went perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure that it was bitcoin compatible in the previous segnets, but I personally did not try them out.

The public version of segwit that is up for activation began as a fork and modification of Bitcoin Core. The concept started on elements, but it was not the elements code made compatible with Bitcoin. The reason it was not deployed on testnet when they began implementation was because it is a consensus change and the developers wanted to test their changes without fucking up anything used publicly (i.e. testnet). The segnets were for "private" testing of segnet so that they could break things without causing major problems with other developers who were using testnet. Breaking testnet would mean that testnet would need to be reset, a much larger and harder task than resetting the segnets.

Tests were being done on the segnets long before it was deployed on testnet. Why do you think they would not test it beforehand before deploying it on a semi-important network? They had to be confident that it would not break the testnet so they did testing on the segnets.

There is a change to the wallets, but not in the way that you are describing. The change is related to output and script creation, not to the ECDSA keypairs.

Also, the wallet part of Bitcoin Core does support segwit. You can have it create the segwit address for an address in your wallet and it will know to track it and how to spend from it. What it doesn't do now is default to using segwit addresses by default (i.e. it just doesn't give you a segwit address when you ask for a new address).

There are 4 BIPs that are being deployed that are related to segwit (peer services, consensus, transactions, GBT). However that does not mean that there are 4 different implementations. There is one implementation specified in 4 documents so that the changes to those things are clearly defined.

ill leave you to argue with yourself .. just read what you wrote..
how can something be compatible, but not compatible but is compatible but isnt.. all in 2 sentances

Polished and ready IS NOT THE SAME AS compatible.

Maybe you don't understand what I am writing, I'll try to break it down for you.

With the segnets, you could do all of the things that you can do NOW with Bitcoin. You couldn't do all of the things with segwit that you can do now on testnet, and some of those things that you tried to do could fail in a horrible way. But it was still compatible with Bitcoin, it did not break anything that you can do with Bitcoin NOW. Segwit was not polished and ready meaning that doing certain segwit related things with the implementation at the time could fail horribly or not work as expected.

LOL i see your: offtopic ECDSA mention
and i hint you: ripemd160->SHA256

im guessing your forgetting all the 0.12's and the 0.13's

That change has nothing to do with what your original statement was:
The ripemd160 to sha256 for p2wsh outputs has nothing to do with keypairs.

No 0.12.x release contains any segwit implementation. 0.13.0 and 0.13.1 contain nearly the same segwit implementation (the consensus implementation is not changed). So yes, perhaps you could call it two implementations, but that would be a stretch. Furthermore, you can't even use 0.13.0 with segwit on mainnet, so there is really only one segwit implementation in Core if you want to use segwit on mainnet after deployment.

you are pedantic,,

to use segwit keypairs.. you have to use different keypair creation mechanism,
then say the traditional (private key that begins with a 5 and then used ripemd160 in the middle which later results in an address ending 1)
(yes it also has other bits in the middle im just not trying to overcomplicate things by mentioning everything)

the bit inbetween changing the private to public is changing.. for segwit

segwits new high deterministic seeded keys will have the new key making mechanism where sha256 is used instead of ripemd160

in short. a segwit keypair is different to a traditional keypair.

people using traditional keypairs will need to change and fund segwit keypairs


0.12.x has bips in it that are NEEDED to have even made segwit possible.
yes 0.12.x was not a final version of segwit ready code.. but it was a stepping stone to get segwit ready.

so include the 0.12.x's into the count.. and you get 4 downloads..
you are being pedantic, megatime

can i give you a hint...
you are being pedantic, at first i thought you were just a snob because i was not buzzwording everything to a satisfactory level of techno-jargon that makes no sense to common man.

i then thought you would realise i am trying to speak layman on purpose. not due to not knowing the techno buzzwords. but because common man prefers to read common words. and what i say is just as valuable to others as it is to just you. so its best to keep things laymen for the communities sake.

but now im thinking you are the one that doesnt understand the concepts, and are just trying to defend blockstream but tweaking things and make arguments.

goodluck in life..

---

separate subject
oh and ages back i seen you and lauda take a fee from a guy who had issues with bitcoin core. i see you didnt fix his issue and instead took his funds got him to reset his wallet and give him back the funds minus a fee you shared with lauda..

called a workaround. not a bug fix

did you do the right thing and report the bug to bitcoin-core. or did you just take the fee and walk away
i hope you reported it. otherwise that makes you useless aswell as pendantic

Support to Bitcoin Unlimited speeds up in China, where a meeting was held in Shenzhen, Beijing and Hong Kong.The meeting in Shenzhen brought together representatives from Bitbank, BW, Bitkan, ViaBTC and Sosobtc.the Beijing meeting brought together Bitmain representatives, Others, while the Hong Kong meeting was followed by ANX, an exchange and debit card provider Bitcoin Bitcoin.

The topic of discussion was particularly the technology related to a presentation on parallel validation by Peter Tschipper, an unlimited developer Bitcoin. Depending on the presentation slides rather than the split block perform validation in the main processing thread, we do the validation in a separate thread. The thread can continue processing incoming messages while allowing more than one block to confirm a time. "

He told those present that they could manage up to four blocks in parallel, which could resolve an attack vector where large blocks can be created that take five or ten minutes to confirm.
Andrea Suisani an unlimited developer Bitcoin, presented to the rapid spread block in Bitcoin unlimited xThin specific blocks, a mechanism to which the bandwidth of information according to the presentation, compression is visible in the compression area "between 95% and 97%." In other words, a block of 1MB is reduced to only a few KB.

Andrew Clifford made a general presentation on the fight against Bitcoin unlimited direction on the scaled string. He explained the consensus that emerged, stating:

"Consensus emerging on the best block boundary will occur for the Bitcoin network when the whole node software follow four simple rules." Always follow the string-tip with the most evidence of the work. Extract (MG) Use oversize block to delay acceptance (EB) Use acceptance depth for delay time (AD) ".

By following these four rules, Clifford argued, can not reach the network, "which can never the central planners.

Roger Ver, an early adopter Bitcoin and vocal supporter of digital currency strongly supported against censorship, including free and open discussion needs allowing individuals to express their views and opinions in a democratic manner.

He further stated that Bitcoin does not have an official version and other development teams, such as Bitcoin Unlimited, should be encouraged as it allows for the diversity of innovation, which is highly desirable for the Bitcoin of the " Industry.
The three meetings take place, while the Bitcoin ecosystem, and miners in particular, are invited to choose between two very different visions for Bitcoin's future. On the one hand stands segwit that capacity increases to 1.7MB, but requires the lightning network ecosystem, which is still in development and are not tested for use in a real environment. The main advantage is that the resources needed to fatten Bitcoin block chain slowly support, defenders, Bitcoin block chain can not scale.

At that time, a segwit attracted about 25 percent of the hash network rate, but some miners, including ViaBTC, are very high, they will not support segwit.

The other alternative is Bitcoin Unlimited, a local customer developed by many early adopters Bitcoin and fervent proponents of digital money. The first version was launched for classic Bitcoin in order to solve the problem of long-term maxblocksize is achieved by the same mechanism Bitcoin always used when increasing the soft limit before the 1Mo cap.

Bitcoin Unlimited attracted a lot of support this year donated half a million dollars by an unknown entity and a $ 1.2 million fund established this month to support the alternative development teams of Bitcoin with means By which many minor Bitcoin and businesses.

A third alternative is a combination of the two or raise a more centralized maxblocksize, perhaps, 2MB, plus segwit, in line with the Hong Kong-chord. However, some developers have said that a maxblocksize increase has no chance, some believing that maintaining the 1MB limit is fine if lightning can still be started without segwit.

As such, it is still difficult to know how this deadlock will be resolved as Bitcoin continues to operate under the most demanding conditions ever, but there appear to have been attempts for independent funded development teams by supporting the Bitcoin community, incentivizing directly to developers to work in the importance of the entire ecosystem.

My favorite part about this is the people who start the fight usually have no better viable solution to a quite real problem.

But... they have a solution. Bloat the block chain with every transaction under the sun! Make sure everyone who wants the security of a full node has to deal with keeping track of all the precious spam until the end of time!

They literally don't see this as a real problem.

It's beyond time for them to simply craft a block bigger than 1MB and start using that chain. They need to put their money where their mouth is.

LOL
nah what you see is most blockstream hero's try to poke the bear and start debates to side step the solution purely to make people forget there was one.

such as

What?! NO. YOU ARE COMPLETELY AND ABSOLUTELY WRONG!! THERE IS NO SUCH CHANGE AS THIS IN SEGWIT!!!

There is no change between getting a public key from the private key. It is still using the standard ECDSA key derivation algorithm. No hashing algorithm is even used for deriving the public key from the private key.

Where are you getting this information? It is absolutely wrong! There is no such specification for such a thing in the BIPs. Do me a favor and reread the BIPs, they do not specify any such change to ECDSA.

What you are also referring to here is the Base58 Check Encoding procedure which does not use the Ripemd160 hash at all. Instead it is a Sha256d and only the first 4 bytes of that are used as a checksum.

The change only change from ripemd160 to sha256 is not really even a change at all. It is for Pay to Witness Script Hash Outputs (an output type that currently does not exist). This "change" is to use the Sha256d hash of the redeemscript instead of the hash160 (and it isn't really a change at all, just a departure from the hash160 we are all so used to).

P.S. I am not being pedantic here. There is absolutely no change to the keypairs. You can in fact create a valid witness address from any currently used public key.

The only additional BIPs that 0.12.x included are BIP 9 (which does not need the separate activation anyways), and the BIPs for CSV. CSV is not a prerequisite for segwit.

I am not being pedantic. I am stating that you are incorrect. The two statements that you made in your post (keypairs and prereq bips) are completely incorrect. I completely understand the concepts and I have studied the source code and the BIPs.

Care to point me to the thread about that? IIRC the problem was not a bug, but rather user error. He sent the wallet to me and I was able to recover his wallet without issue on my machine. I was going to send his funds directly to his new address from the wallet file he gave me but Lauda swept the funds into his own wallet then forwarded it to the user. Neither of us had any issues with opening the wallet so we left it at just user error rather than a bug in Core.

Now if you are talking about the issues people had with the "reset options" button and custom datadirs, I researched that bug and wrote a fix (https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8487) for it which has since been merged for a while.

The average user of Bitcoin is not obsessed with either SegWit or BU or whatever the developers are doing, they just want faster confirmation on their transactions and a way to scale Bitcoin to allow for that. This fighting between the different groups are damaging Bitcoin and it is not beneficial.

Let's have one last showdown, where the two groups battle it out in public and get it over with. So that we can move forward. ^grrrrr^

ok for everyone else

lets say for laymans quick understanding..

that for using bitcoin addresses there's technical steps involved like
A->B->C->D

a user puts in A, it goes through a few processes and get D
knowing achow is going to be pedantic i will inform him i know there are more than 2 processes in the middle.. i just dont mention them all as they have not changed.

for mr pedantics sake i will name ABCD
private->ecdsa->ripemd160->public

again its not the full list of the mechanism im just keeping it simple.

i was trying to concentrate on an easy ACD where me and him both know C has changed.. mr pedantic twists it to talk about B.. where the stuff im on about segwits new HD wallet seeds (before he got pedantic)
and how they are different than the older traditional stuff.

so lets get back to simple stuff
A-C-D
private->ripemd160->public
changes to
A-X-D
private->sha256->public

again for mr pedantics sake i know there are other bits between A and D but thats not the point and thats not related to whats changing in segwit.. so not worth mentioning and getting to complicated over.

if you want techno jargon and white papers, go to the development category.
this category is for general discussion that tries to avoid techno-jargon to help the community understand things in simple terms

edit to avoid new post and told hold for prosperity

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/release-0.13.1/
^ oh look its bitcoin cores own website ^

edit 2:
ohhh i see now.. he is thinking ECDSA keypairs.. and not the extended more secure BITCOIN KEYPAIRS that have extra things involved... no wonder!!

im ending mr pedantic's offtopic misdirecting charades .. before he makes everyone fall asleep and begin to Schnorr :D hint hint

---

back on topic.

You are still wrong and this is not pedantry. I'll use layman's terms because that is all you can understand.

The public key never uses ripemd160.

The process for getting the public key is just private->public. The process for an address is (in your simplified terms) public->ripemd160->address.

Segwit does not use HD wallet seeds, I don't know where you are getting that from.

Segwit does not change the ripemd160 step to sha256, I don't know here you are getting that from.

Segwit does not change anything in address encoding.

Segwit address are created using the same process which multisig addresses ('3' addresses) are created. They are identical to those multisig addresses.

How about you link a source from which you are getting this information? How about you stop being a spoiled little brat who thinks that only he is right and everyone else is wrong?

There are alternatives to make it work.

No, that is false.

Anther useless question by a failed troll.

The best solution is for toxic people like you and OP to stop using Bitcoin.

Isn't it all ironic how they cry out for on-chain scaling and yet completely attempt to block such improvements to it? For those that are reading, increasing the block size limit is not a solution of any kind.

LOL, you did not answer the question.  ;)



Getting Grumpy , makes it sound like you are losing, maybe you need a nap.

Actually looking at the latest % you are losing, segwit has lost some % .  :D
https://coin.dance/blocks
Classic Support (1.3%)    Unlimited Support (8.1%)    8MB Support (11%)    SegWit Support (21.5%)

 8)

FYI:
95% sure seems a long way from happening. ;)
SegWit is not an improvement but an inroad into making BTC like the Banking system.

The answer is no. Your logical fallacies are not surprising considering the things that you're involved with.

No, that is called 'variance'. Observing over 24 hours is not exactly the *best* measurement, and even franky1 can tell you this.

Segwit was 25% for quite a while and has been dropping, support is waning, maybe you will believe it when variance is below 15% in ~ 2 weeks.   :D

 8)

FYI:
Did you know your Boss Theymos was trying to get Proof of Stake added to BTC and make it a Hybrid?

How many times do you have to be warned to stop trolling? You are breaking the forum rules. Anyhow, here is a chart showing Segwit adoption: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

https://i.imgur.com/g0Guk7A.png

Blue line is primarily variance, while the red one shows adoption over a much bigger trend.

If you bother to look at your own chart you can see that blue line is headed down.
https://coin.dance/blocks  was Last updated 14 minutes ago. So forgive me if I trust it more.

Since when did disagreeing with Lauda become breaking a forum rule?

As a member of Staff, don't you think you are abusing your position by being so one sided?
(I mean even if you were paid, you at least need to make it not be so obvious.)
(A Pretense of Contemplation would make you seem more believable.)

 8)

You are not disagreeing with me (for that you'd need to have proper arguments, which you don't), you're trolling in several threads now while prior having very little activity in this section. Are you trying to subversively promote your shitcoin?

There is nothing to trust here, it's simple graphical representation of mined blocks. That website is as biased as it gets. As I've already mentioned, that is called 'block variance' and thus 24 hour periods should not be observed. If the hashrate support for Segwit is dropping, then that should be observed soon in the chart that I've linked as well.

I have only mention BTC in this conversation , you are the one trying to deflect and get me to talk about another coin.
Which I only do , if you spread a falsehood about it, then I will defend it, otherwise no need to mention it.

Which with that , I bid you farewell, and leave you to earn your pay by promoting SegWit & LN.
Odds are 95% that segwit will fail activation.

Good Day.   ;)

 8)

Just having a way to scale for a solution is the wrong approach.Scaling has to be done the right way!
And that is without losing decentralization! A simple 2MB block increase can't be the solution.Especially if you will have to increase sooner or later again if you follow that path.That's just a question of time.
Sure seem people in the space might not give a damn about Bitcoin ending like a Paypal 2.0. But I do!And many other here as well.
I'm in for SegWit as this lays the ground for second layer implementations!And then we can hardfork to other 2MB blocks.
This whole situation has become way too much political! This is very sad.

with just a few lines of code, you can change 1MB to 4MB and all will be happy for another 3 years until a real scaling system can be developed.

you do know "second layer implementations" are paypal2.0.. right

LN is going to be pushing us away from permissionless peer-to-peer and into permissioned hubs with fee's, penalties, settlement delays, and chargebacks

permissioned: LN= dual signed multisig ...buzzword: 'bidirectional channels' managed by hubs
fee's: open channel onchain fee, LN swap fee, multihop fee, hub management fee, close channel onchain fee
penalties: not signing in acceptable time fee, denying payment fee
settlement delays: coin maturity after confirmation onchain (CLTV)
chargeback: output revoke codes (CSV)

atleast learn why CSV and CLTV are going to be used.
do you really want to close a channel (like closing a paypal account) and see the funds arrive (onchain confirm). but then it not showing as available balance for days/weeks (CLTV maturity lock similar principles to blockreward coinbase maturity lock)
where even after the close session is confirmed onchain. that unavailable balance (maturity lock) allows time for the paypal(LN HUB) to chargeback(invoke their CSV code) and make the funds theirs

oh i must add LN are conceiving to add 'demurrage' concepts to LN  (minus interest rates)

as i see it segwit is only an alternative way to have 2mb, so in the end it will be like we have 4 MB when 2MB will enter in play isn't this good? why yuou say an altcoin, when it's still need to be activated anf require a certain consensus to do so?

the person calling it an outright altcoin is saying it i presume. for the same reason core devotee's are calling anything not core an altcoin.
even when other implementations have been running on bitcoins mainnet for atleast a year.

the base of segwits code (the concept) did not begin in 2009 from satoshi's vision. segwit began separately as an altcoin as part of blockstreams elements and then tweaked into being bitcoin compatible version

it changes alot of things 'under the hood'
how data is stored on peoples computers, how its relayed between nodes, even how the transactions and blocks are formed.
though its bitcoin compatible. its alot different to the original vision.

many say if certain things change in bitcoin. like if stupidly its suggested to change bitcoins coin cap and difficulty retarget patterns to emulate say litecoin. then bitcoin is no longer bitcoin.. even if the 7 year historic data still continues growing and all nodes are connected to that same chain of data that goes back to satoshis genesis block.

so although its not an "altcoin" in the traditional sense (separate network) the direction its taking us in is far different than imagined in say 2009-2014

(thats about as unbiased as i can word it)

The world is moving forward and so is Bitcoin. Back in 2009 segwit wasn't on the table because there was no need for it.
Just because Ford didn't think of putting seat belts in his car when he designed it doesn't mean that Fords with seat belts isn't Ford.

but segwit is not an adjustable seatbelt.
segwit is putting 4 wheels on a motorcycle to emulate a car, but get special permisson to use the bike lane.. to then advertise 2 wheel motorcycles in the future that require the passenger on the back to charg you for his time to let you use the carpool/bike lane simply because 2wheeled bikes are faster.

Ok, I've been reading the topic since I've never heard of SegWit and after finishing, I still have no, fucking, clue what segwit is. I saw someone said that segwit is an bitcoin upgrade? like a software upgrade or the code upgrade? Can someone explain?  :-\

It is a change to the consensus rules (which implies a major code change and thus software upgrade). You should read https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/ and https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/ to learn more about segwit and what it does for Bitcoin.

You know that is bs. Read the whitepaper without making up stuff like the pay pal 2.0 that people have been saying to you is wrong over and over and over  and you still don't look up the facts.
Is Bitcoin BU really that bad that you have to make up stuff to make it happen?

so the original purpose of Segwit was to fix transaction malleability and to fit more transactions into a block reducing the transaction time, right?

Basically. It increases transaction capacity so more transactions can be included in a block, not really reducing transaction time.

oh, ok, also as much as I understand miners are the biggest problem for implementing and starting SegWit since all of the miners have to use the segwit compatible software? besides that I don't see what's all the fuss about SegWith that much.. maybe I just don't understand it fully...

EDIT: nevermind, I've found a good explanation of SegWit on youtube.

lol white paper??
blockstream stopped following satoshis whitepaper in 2013-2014.. even just a few months ago they actually wanted to edit it to suit their new rhetoric
https://news.bitcoin.com/revising-satoshi-white-paper/
https://github.com/bitcoin-dot-org/bitcoin.org/issues/1325

its only toxic to the banker paid devs that want to change bitcoin for the worse.. not toxic for citizens of the world that want some something that remains open and border/controll less.

---

as for the LN white paper.. that has been outdated too. the current concept does have penalties, spend-ability after confirm delays and revoke funding (chargeback) facilities..

but you just have to learn what CSV and CLTV do to see it plain as day.
think about the reality of end user experience of the 'service' they receive with CSV and CLTV included.

forget the shady buzzwords. actually think of real world utility and real world experience of using them.

Well, not quite. Segregated witness itself just segregates the witness data from the remainder of the transaction data. This allows making the remainder of the transaction data determinate, which fixes the malleability issue. However, it does not fit more transactions into a block. Indeed, as each transaction must be correlated with the corresponding witness, the data needed to maintain this correlation actually decreases the amount of complete transactions including witness that will fit in a given number of bytes (e.g., a 1MB block).

The so-called 'block size increase' enabled by The SegWit Omnibus Changeset is really accounting legerdemain. The data occupied by the witness is given a 'discount' in size calculation, when determining block size. This discount is yet another magic number invented for this purpose. In this manner, a '1MB' block can contain more transactions , but that '1MB' block may actually be up to 4MB in actual size, as measured by the amount of data required to flow over the wire and/or be stored by a fully-validating node.

Make no mistake, while part of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, this accounting trickery is not part of segregated witness itself, nor is it required for the resolution of the malleability issue.

BTC will die if it won't be updated :)

Maybe you are right you are right,but if SegWit be actived something will be happening with bitcoins
1. SegWit and lightening network would freeze onchain scaling.
2. Lighting Network will cause centralization in offchain payment nodes, then the government could easily apply regulation.
Must use other ways except Segwit for updating and the miners won't be support for segwit.

@Lauda

Told You So.
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Nhogooc9-jE/U5X92CYCFII/AAAAAAAAIQ4/__k3uGjhVkA/s1600/rofl-smiley.png

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/12/04/bitcoin-core-developers-work-new-2-mb-hardfork-proposal/
Bitcoin Core Developers Work On A New 2 MB Hardfork Proposal

 8)




FYI:
By the Way , Guess who called it First.  :D :D :D
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1704658.msg17086859#msg17086859

there is already a BTC centralization  and regulation too.

segwit is not a solution. its just pushing the same stone down the road. while devs work on hyperledger (LN/sidechains)

back in 2009-2013 the community knew about the 7tx/s possibility of bitcoin. yep 4500tx back then.

and now if segwit activates and everyone uses it.. yep everyone.. the expectation... 4500tx 7tx/s
like i said it's not a solution. its just pushing the same stone down the road.

Well we can't really do anything about it because other people don't really believe that SegWit will take over bitcoin then as i thought about that SegWit its not closest to bitcoin recently but its a process but they have a long way to go if they end bitcoin and well bitcoin is well protected from the creators or the users all we need to do is to use bitcoin in our entire life because that's how we help bitcoin and we must not go in to altcoins but if you wish too just go but for me i am a full bitcoin user so i helped the bitcoin company to get more and more stronger until they will reach the top and no one will ever reach them as that altcoin so just chill and use bitcoin ^_^ have a nice day to you :D

Let's face it, SegWit has very little to do with tx throughput improvement and everything to do with Blockstream enabling their private lightning network.  Suckers are going to let SegWit into the Bitcoin protocol and then Blockstream will be able to offer their congestion solution for a fee. 

Looks to me for now SegWit if failing big time with acceptance.  Probably not going to get near 95%.  I guess this means we stopped it successfully?

/matrix meme

What are you trying to tell me, that the limit needs raising to 1Gb

No neo, I'm trying to tell you that when you are ready you won't need a blocksize limit