Bitcoin Forum

Even if we have some idiots still don't understanding we need segwit, the price is still rising and we are soon going to pass 778. If we had segwit activating faster, this would be more fuel for our rocket and we would reach moon 10 times faster. But the upraise cannot be stopped no matter what. ATH in new year guaranteed.

No need to rush things. It may take longer than people think, but eventually we will definitely get the price to touch the magical $1000 barrier.

All the volatility as result of the panic dumps allow traders to increase their coin count, and thus for that reason I am happily taking advantage of this opportunity.

All signs are bullish where only one of the major Chinese exchanges getting "hacked" with tons of coins getting lost can get the price to go down badly.

True, but all im saying is, if we didn't had roger ver with is anti segwit agenda, we would be rising way faster, once segwit gets activated and people see the benefits and 0 negatives, and once we have segwit we could even consider a blocksize increase, but we have idiots stagnating bitcoin's progress right now.

well, there's gotta be a little more to it than one non techy agitator holding things up. i dunno how many miners and pool operators can understand a word he's saying anyway. they'll have done their own thinking and sums. i'd like to know what their conclusion was.

this is also my speculation and i strongly believe in it. i say if/when the block size issue is resolved (with any suggestion not only segwit but anything that currently is available or may be suggested in the future) when it actually is accepted the price will see a huge rise and i will be waiting then to enjoy the ride to the fullest.

Just to be clear "some idiots" are more than 70% of the network?

Seems to me there is probably a bit more to it than a few die hards.

I don't know... Are there really no negatives for anyone? Is that even possible? If the blocks are less full wouldn't the miners' fees be less?
It's only been out, what, a few weeks? People aren't going to rush to change if it's going ok for them.

Segwit has only been partially activated for a couple of weeks. I predict it'll be mid 2017 before we see segwit adoption, or late 2017 before people give up on it completely.

There is tons of resistance against SegWit.

If you think implementing Segwit can lead to the price reaching 4 figures quickly, think what increasing the block size would do.
Unfortunately, we have idiots blocking that as well.  :)

it has been a lot longer than that, the signalling officially started recently (a couple of weeks ago) and "people" don't have to change anything it is miners who are signalling the change and should change to it not nodes.

p.s. i also think we would have broken $1000 resistance if Segwit was released.

This is reasons why the miners won't support for activation of segwit
SegWit and lightening network would freeze onchain scaling. And
 Lighting Network will cause centralization in offchain payment nodes, then the government could easily apply regulation.
The miners have made large money on mining business.

Why is faster better?  Each time we get overheated and skyrocket we crash and burn.  And each time this happens, it spooks more people away from bitcoin and it takes longer for the market to recover.  Please tell me you are not just in this to get rich quick.

Forget Segwit, Swgwit dont move markets, marketmakers do.

https://i.imgflip.com/1fp0j1.jpg (https://imgflip.com/i/1fp0j1)via Imgflip Meme Generator (https://imgflip.com/memegenerator)

that was obviously because of halving hype. the second block reward halving happened in July (2016-07-09 to be exact) and before that there were a long period of FUD to keep price down around $450 and accumulate and then the big pump came, if we want to see that again we need something as big as halving and if not the price will continue rising slowly as before.

You are misguided son. Never dismiss the power of the marketmaker aiming for new highs. The force is strong and very hard to fight. Let's see what happens in 20 days from now.

/u/RemindMe! 20 days ;D

Maybe we would, maybe we wouldn't. For now I think that it is beneficial to keep a steady pace and make sure everyone understands what it is before just diving into it. Some of the concerns put forth are legitimate (mostly based around the control given to the small group of devs), but I do understand a lot of the sentiment with wanting to push it through and change to segwit.

i somehow doubt that. because price was and it still is in $700 range and we have been here not for a long time and there is always a slow and boring period before any rise, it can not happen without it and also a $300 rise is not an easy task to achieve.

then add to that the fact that $1000 is somewhat iconic price that many are waiting to cash out at that price which will make a period of instability which makes breaking the $1000 resistance a lot harder than it should be.

Read about SegWit poison pill. If we hadn't Blockstream, now we would be sitting at 50K.

And if MtGox was still using its bots to pump the price with non existing money, then we would sit at $100K right now. That kind of talk doesn't make any sense. Fact is that we are sitting at very comfortable price levels right now. Who beside a few noobs do you see complaining? No one. Current price is a very fair reflection of the current situation and progress. There are zero guarantees of course, but at the time Segwit gets activated, then we (with a high probability) can expect the price to pump even further. But as it is right now, there is no date set for the activation.

In the Indian local exchange market the Price of Bitcoin have touched above $1000+ when Indian government banned 500 and 1000 Rs notes , that time the bitcoin exchange price boomed and it gone over the international market price. But today it is back to normal exchange price.

Did you even take the time to read my thread? I said we should look at increasing the block size, but only AFTER segwit is implemented. Increasing teh blocksize BEFORE segwit is a big MISTAKE. What part of this can you and the rest of people blocking segwit while wanting a blocksize increase can not understand?

Let's get segwit activated so we can keep improving bitcoin in a safe way.

OP could be right.If SegWit would already been activated the price could be higher due to excitement which created news and that would give us again more attention.
However I'm pretty satisfied how far we've come in terms of price this year.And I'm also very positive that SegWit will get activated no matter what Ver and his dumbsters are trying to stop it from that happening.
Maybe there is still a possibility to touch the $800 this year.Even if it is just for a short moment.Still 3 weeks to go.

If we didn't have idiots blocking a block size increase, we'd have had it a year ago.

(Maybe. Maybe not. But equally as unprovable an assertion)

Putting the brakes on Bitcoin adoption in its early stages seems pretty damn unsafe thing in my book. It's like they want to give governments time to wake up and crack down on it. To be decentralised, Bitcoin needs to be used by millions of citizens willing to riot in the street if it is banned. It needs to become as ubiquitous and essential as the internet.

Core should have gone to 2 MB a year ago, and there would be literally no problems, everyone would be happy, all businesses would be reassured that the devs are willing to scale Bitcoin... but Nope, they are completely unwilling to compromise, they choose idealism over pragmatism and to hell with the proletariat who might want to actually use Bitcoin.

Boy... somebody is greedy for profit... you almost sound like all the other failing prophets here.

Not really, you're the one that sold out at 10$ per coin you dolt and now you hang around here to do god know's what. If you bow out gracefully and blank off you'll have a spiritual betterment sometime soon. Show us proof of your recent purchases of bitcoin and we can talk and I don't mean fabricated stats.

It require some time for people to shift towards segwit and start supporting it, but sooner or later i think segwit gonna activated. Price is already booming so no need to worry about price dump for now. We will see steady growth which is better than sudden pump.

Looks like segwit is going to stall out at 25℅ adoption.  I doubt the protocol will ever change at this point.

I support of SegWit to full activate as it has benefits for bitcoin users in terms of security transaction.
I agree that increase block size could make transaction faster but why developers didn't do it, I thought Mr.Satoshi already figured it out since he created blockchain technology. Don't you know that larger blocks make full nodes more expensive to operate and lead to high fees. Bitcoin may look unattractive to new users with high fees. High fees may stop or reverse global adoption, investment, development, support and centralization. Have you read about that? (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy/)

Smaller blocks lead to people paying higher fees to beat the competition and be included in the next block. We need larger blocks to accommodate all transactions. Let miners choose to not include transactions with fees too small. More tx = more fees for miners. Hard drive capacity is not an issue. Hard drives are cheap.

Big news will bring btc to 4 digits not segwit..

And that would be?? Segwit full adoption and Activation?  Well that is Big News. :)

---

Well i agree with the other person about a marketer moving the price to $1k.  Marketing is very powerful tool that boost adoption or even increase the demand resulting to higher price.  But marketing still needs facts to market :D.

Agreed

Roger Ver has spread enough propaganda with his delusional logic behind how bitcoin is not being used because he can't buy starbucks

You didn't click that red link right? Larger blocks mean high fees and hardwares for mining are not cheap.
Miners need powerful ‘Application Specific Integrated Chips’ (ASICs), GPU, PSU, lots of electricity are needed to mine bitcoin, that's all ain't cheap.
When building a DIY mining rig, it doesn't make sense to save money by buying a cheap PSU. Any instability in the power supply could hit performance, or even cause a system crash that will lead to downtime, so do invest in a high-quality unit.
 Read here (http://www.coindesk.com/information/mining-profitability/)

Wrong. The likes of Andreas Antonopoulos are against raising the block size before we activate segwit, because raising the block size before activating segwit would open space for exploits and attacks. So you are calling Andreas Antonopoulos an idiot? Get real. He agrees with Core devs because they actually know how shit works. Not to mention how dumb it is to complain about lack of scaling while blocking something that actually adds capacity to bitcoin while solving problems we need before we continue scaling.

There is never going to be a block size increase before segwit because it's just stupid, so if they keep blocking segwit, bitcoin will stay as a safe haven and not a viable currency. If you don't like this then blame those that block segwit.

Just do the right thing and REJECT SEGWIT. It is a secret bankster takeover.

I have switched from Core to Bitcoin Unlimited because BU allows me to define my own maximum block size limit that my full node is going to accept. SegWit is an ugly hack that will scare away new contributors from the project. Just look at this video about segwit (https://vid.me/kz1s). It explains perfectly why it should be discarded. SegWit is a trojan horse.

I'm against SegWit because I know how this goes. You can't throw a frog right into boiling water because it immediately jumps out from the water. But if you slowly warm up the water until it start boiling the frog won't notice and will boil to death. Same with Bitcoin. SegWit is the beginning of a slow temperature rise. It will gradually get worse and worse until at some point the code is an absolute mess and the only party who knows how to decode it are the Core/Blockstream guys. At that point they are the owners of Bitcoin. Then, Core team is to Bitcoin what Ethereum Foundation is to Ethereum. They start slipping in bailouts, they start reversing transactions and who knows what other evil shit.

The United States imposed income taxes briefly during the Civil War and the 1890s, and on a permanent basis from 1913. As you can see, income tax is a rather young tax and if I'm not wrong then in the very beginning it was only something around 1%.

The opponents of the income tax were extremely hostile towards it and their main argument was that next year it is going to be 2%, then 5%, then 10% and so on. And that's why income tax should not be allowed at all. And the opponents were right but the people didn't believe them. So the cat got out of the bag and the income tax became immorally large rather quickly.

You have to look farther into the future with these things. SegWit itself might not be THAT bad but it is a step in the completely wrong and unwanted direction. If we allow SegWit to go through then you can be sure it won't be their last ugly hack. And with each such "enhancement" the power over the Bitcoin protocol gets more and more centralized around Blockstream. Who knows, they might even want to change the license of Bitcoin from open-source to proprietary. They can't do it right now but after delivering hundreds of changes to the code it becomes plausible.

But the worst thing about SegWit is the fact that it is totally unnecessary. Just make it possible for each node to configure their own maximum block size limit and we'd have a small and elegant fix to the whole scaling problem.

If you don't buy that then try to follow this line of logic:
1. SegWit adds enormous complexity to the Bitcoin software.
2. The more complex code the bigger the risk of introducing a critical vulnerability.
3. I have a lot of bitcoins which I don't want to risk in the hands of the Core team.
4. Especially if the risk is not justified (a simple and elegant alternative exists)

I'm promoting BU because it is currently the only alternative to Core. Ideally full node devs would also be decentralized so that no team has more power than others over the Bitcoin protocol. If BU support starts nearing 50% then I'd prefer to use a third alternative and so on.

SegWit is like a deceptive box of bad apples. It is filled with rotten fruits but on the top there are some nice fruits. I would like have those good apples without the rotten ones. Whenever I see tactics like that it's a BIG RED FLAG for me. Banksters and corrupt politicians are infamous for these methods. They "smuggle in" the vile laws with a bunch of righteous ones. Why did they make such a bundle? That's why I don't support it. Core devs should offer the features one by one and let the public decide which ones they like and which ones not. The fact that they attempt to smuggle in their foul code in a bundle of all kinds of features is dirty playing.

So yes, SegWit has all the marks of a sinister agenda. If it looks like a bankster takeover then it probably is. Better safe than sorry. And more decentralization (regarding full node devs) wouldn't hurt Bitcoin anyway.

Segwit must be rejected and fortunatey most of the community are rejecting it in favour of a proper scaling plan  ..

Is that a challenge?

you think that the price will rise to 50k if so that is ridiculous first and foremost never think about what is not possible and never cry out for the way bitcoin is right now.Everything happens for a reason .

Roger Ver just said on ts.whalepool.io that he is "Segwit agnostic" and that if there was 6% remaining to activate segwit he would switch his pool.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5i7sut/roger_ver_just_said_on_tswhalepoolio_that_he_is/

I have never been against blocksize increase. I feel a better alternative is to let the network scale proportionally with txs, having a small cushion above what is required to keep coins moving, but not to just outright jump to 8MB blocks. Perhaps something similar to difficulty retargets, but based on transactions larger than dust. Anyway, I agree fully with all your arguments against SegWit. It introduces thousands of lines of code to an already complex system, and NO code is 100% bug free out of the box. This is an unnecessary risk that will require a lot of heavy modifications and maintenance. I do still use core, but only out of habit and trust of the guys with the most experience in working on Bitcoin.

Almost 5 days in. 15 days to go.  ;)

The Great Debate | Lombroso/Petrov/Potter/Ver hosted by Whalepool.io


https://soundcloud.com/elux-2/the-great-stakehodler-debate-lombroso-petrov-potter-ver

So Andreas Antonopoulos is supporting the banksters too?

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/733702311306887168

Sorry to burst your bubble, but no one that knows how Bitcoin works is supporting BU, which is funny that is often brought up as the solution for the "segwit complexity" when BU only adds more complexity to the protocol when they find problems.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/

BU has already been debunked as unstable piece of shit. Nobody with a brain is supporting it, that's how it is. I hope that you are at least getting paid to shill BUllshit. It's funny that you take this narrative of Core being pro bankster when Core has the real crypto anarchist legends like Adam Back on board while the rest have total nobodies and some guy that got lucky and bought a Lamborghini with Bitcoin and calls himself "Bitcoin Jesus" while not knowing shit about Bitcoin.

Sorry to burst your bubble but that's a really pathetic reply. I hope you at least get paid for your bullshit you little core pawn.

Actually this reply was pretty pathetic lmao, he actually posted a reply

DAFAR ROFL more like JAFFAR  ;D go back to your den

You keep ignoring how Andreas Antonopoulos is on our side. Answer: Are you going to call Andreas Antonopoulos a bankster? A Core shill? A blockstreamer? What are you call him now that Andreas agrees with Core's roadmap? Or you will keep ignoring the fact that the best experts on the field are all supporting Core's roadmap? What's your call on this? Is Roger Ver better than all of them you say?

Let me put this really simple for you.

I am against SegWit, not necessarily pro Bitcoin Unlimited. It just happens that BU has taken philosophically the correct approach to the problem.

The core should separate their enhancements into small packages and present each one to the community separately not in a foul umbrella package known as SegWit. Also I am against ugly hacks. The scaling fix should be simple and elegant aka just increasing the maximum block size.

This is becoming more interesting from day to day, opinions are divided and what will be with some alt that are in segwit are they gonna increase price get more support i mean on litecoin and viacoin. Will segwit be activate sooner on some altcoin more then on bitcoin, and most important is it good thing at the end?

This!

I agree but BU is not better than Segwit.

BU can be capped at any size by miners and nodes
Segwit is ugly and would cripple range protocol forever

Okay so let me get this right. What you are saying is, we should go against the opinion of experts such as Andreas Antonopoulos, which tell us how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit, and instead listen to your opinion, or Roger Ver's opinion, because you somehow know better? Is this a fucking joke?
Nobody with a brain and invested money in Bitcoin is going to value some no nobodies opinion above Andreas and Core dev's. Get real.

BU cannot make Bitcoin mainstream with just bigger blocks, you cannot hardfork from 1mb to 1 gig  :o The internet cannot even handle 1 gig blocks, so BU dev aint skilled enough for that, BU is just a short-term fix.

Claiming Segwitt is ugly and woud cripple is false it fits for BU better.

Bitcoin needs extra layers to make it mainstream, Segwit will fulfill that job.

Listen to the "authority". Obey your master. They are THE EXPERTS THEY KNOW BETTER. Get real, you're so oblivious. I'm educated enough to make my own decisions and apparently I have chosen to vote against SegWit in its current form. AA is blowing bubbles out of his mouth when he says how stupid it is to raise the blocksize before activating segwit. Only uneducated people buy his reasoning. So what was the main argument here? That bigger blocks would allow DOS attacks on full nodes because then TXs could somehow have more signatures that need to be checked? Okey then! Let's have a fix JUST FOR THAT AND NOTHING ELSE. That I would welcome very much. But why oh why don't they offer just this one fix without their complete and utter mess aka SegWit? Because SegWit is evil. AA could be talking what he is told to, we don't know. That's why one should not just listen to any "expert" and take what they are saying as the ultimate truth. BTW nodes could just drop the blocks that take too much time to verify. If I can think of a fix to the alleged DOS vulnerability regarding bigger blocks then those experts should be able to come up with a solution without any question. I think AA is fudding the shit out of the technically inept bitcoiners to promote SegWit trojan horse.

Ya but 1000 isn't going to happen this month. Look at the huge resistance from the tiny raise we had these past few days! I wouldn't count on it until segwit is in full force.

I think he is asking you to engage your brain, understand the situation, and make a decision for yourself instead of making an appeal to authority.  But I suppose that might be difficult if you don't have a strong background in CS, economics and game theory.

Adding a 1mb transaction size limit would fix the only legitimate issue I have heard about and would allow blocks to scale.  Segwit is too big of a change to take lightly.  It should be deployed on an alt coin first to allow testing.  When it does come to bitcoin, it should be done as a hard fork so as not to leave nodes on the network who think they are fully validating when they are actually not.  Or, the software could be changed to allow you to delete just the witness data as an alternative to pruning entire blocks, which is already supported.  There is no reason you couldn't store the transaction chain without the witness data today.  The only thing you gain with segwit is the ability to check block hashes after you delete witness data.

Lmao this is the ultimate reasoning that /r/btc nutjobs can reach. And then when they claim blockstream and segwit is a "bankster trojan horse" then that's perfectly fine to say and it's not conspiracy theory nonsense. Always the same fucking bullshit. When /r/btc says something like that it's legitimate and not a conspiracy.

Get real, the fact people that know better than you all agree on segwit needing to be activated before a blocksize increase doesn't mean that they are all together against you and are all bought by "the banks". In fact, if someone is working for banks, then that's Roger Ver and the rest of people wanting to raise the block size to make the network less decentralized by making running nodes way difficult for common people, and by not activating segwit which would give us endless possibilities to make bitcoin more anonymous. But you keep thinking you are a smartass and AA and the rest are all compromised by the banks lmao.

Luckily the market will decide itself. No central authority for Bitcoin to appeal to. No need to generalize people or make ad hominem insults.

The current status is the market voting against Segwit and a HF block size increase. When the need is really there the deadlock will be resolved.

....someone is getting desperate...  ::)

I'm not saying AA is necessarily corrupt. I don't judge people by what they say but what they do instead. He gives really good lectures, this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu5Mtvy97-4) for example. However, there is no way for me to know the absolute truth about AA. I just cannot blindly follow him. For that reason I have done my own research about SegWit and the block size issue and I have come to a conclusion that SegWit must not be accepted as a package of many features all at once. Instead, those features should be judged one by one by the community. So I reject SegWit, I hope it never gets accepted in its current form and I will do everything I see rational to prevent it from happening.

Ideally, the Core team would discard SegWit and deliver a fix to TX malleability in an elegant hard-fork style. Nothing else. Just that. One by one they should offer the enhancements to the community. I would like to have TX malleability fixed, then a large TX DOS attack vector (signature verification CPU consumption), followed by the block size increase. Hard fork is totally OK and there will be consensus when the bug fixes are offered one by one.

There is nothing wrong about fixing TX malleability and signature verification DOS vulnerability. I don't think anyone would oppose them. So let the Core team deliver a fix to these two as a proper hard fork. After that we can start thinking of ways to increase the block size. There is absolutely nothing to be afraid of regarding hard forks if they are activated only after super consensus is reached. Detection of super consensus is rather trivial anyway.

So, all in all, I just see through the bullshit regarding SegWit and I oppose it. My vote is against it because I do what I see best serving the Bitcoin network. I don't take this debate personally. I do what I see best fit for Bitcoin and you feel free to do what you think is the best for Bitcoin. In the end we "count the votes", see whose opinion was amongst the majority and we move on with our lives, hoping that the majority made the right decision.

Well my xmas wish is an announcement of block size debate consensus....right about NOW would be nice...that would make all this moot as seg witness would be next
on the list of chores along with such consensus

Then again the whole block size debate has me confused and the supposed hostage taking of seg witness....that 'probably' imho the only way you'd get consenus from
anyone in BTC world is to basically make people hardfork all the time

(its like hearding cats)

Bitcoin wont grow huge just because of segwit. But it will because its proven to be trustworthy.

btc to the moon soon.

I doubt that bitcoin "to the moon soon". Bitcoin will ridge higher that is for sure, but the price can't be huge, government will just not allow it to happen. The maximal price that I can't predict about bitcoin is 2000$, but that's only after next halving after 4 years.

This is matter of opinions i believe, first both sides telling that they are good and other are bad. This is not good at any point of future mining.

From what i have read it 50-50 maybe little more on BU rather then Segwit but if this continues this wont be good for anyone or any side. At the end it will be dark for both of them if they continue to do this.

If the bock size is increased to 2MB or higher, the segwit will be activated sooner.

Sooner or later they're gonna have to make a decision and commit to it, and I hope that this would be done constructively.

True and that is the realistic. When the consenus is working for a better system no one could be stopping it for their own benefits. The demands will make them getting throw out of business when they are not ready to adopt the demands of future. So, there would be some delay which is inevitable but it is going to happen for sure.

The OP should buy some miners and vote for the SegWit.

If we had activated classic or xt 1 year ago, we'd be seeing $5000 already now.

Time is  ticking; if Segregated Witness is not supported by majority of hash power by November 15, 2017 the whole project will be ruined.
I suppose if SegWit was introduced only by Bitcoin Core developers and not Blockstream we would have different discussion now.

bs


They wouldn't have introduced it. We would have bigger blocks and maybe even some kind of *real* on-chain scaling solution.

Yes that is true one will prevail over other no question about it, think here is also divided some are for Segwit other for BU so this will be very hard battle and i just hope for best out come for bitcoin community in global. Dont think that if they argue who is better/worst will solve problem it will only create new ones, maybe it best for them to find some mutual arrangement in this matter for us all.

The elegant solution is segwit precisely because it doesn't require a hard fork. There's nothing cool about a hard fork, it's the opposite of elegant. Also you are asking for things that don't make sense technically. Segwit is everything that's needed to fix transaction malleability and so on, and it will make the LN better and allow us to have Schnorr sigs and other cool stuff that anyone that isn't a troll or stupid would agree to add at a protocol level.

This is your 9 day left reminder, and things are just about to get very interesting. #2016bitcoinmoon

Clearly you know nothing about software development. Hard forks are always times more clean and elegant than soft forks. The only problem with hard forks is that nodes which fail to update are going to be left behind for sure. SegWit's soft fork is no better than a hard fork because old nodes won't understand segwit transactions and they will just ignore them. For that reason SegWit is even worse than a proper hard fork.

SegWit won't activate unless there is strong consensus reached. Guess what? An elegant hard fork can also be made in a way that it won't activate unless a strong consensus is reached. Then why we have a soft fork hack called SegWit in the first place? There is no good reason for that. It's just dumb. They propagate this "soft fork" idea as if it was any better than a hard fork just to find more acceptance. It's a clever marketing. Why do the Core devs need sneaky marketing? So many questions, I'd say they are doing foul play. My own writings have now made me realize that I hate SegWit even more than before.

Good point. Trouble is transaction times are so nasty now, they become a true nuisance. 2 years ago the block size was fine, but not anymore.  :(

segwit does seem to be prima facie complex arguably make bugs more likely.

On on had you want dev, on the other is it being done right?

BU seems apealing as it allows a market rate.

Some blocksize seems reasonable as a way to allow the volume of transactions become more attractive for btc rewards. This seems to build on itself as the individual transaction can bare a fraction say 1/4 of the cost but the miner could take 2x btc if blocks get 8x bigger.

Still looking interesting with 2 days left.

I agree with this

I think segwit introduces more complexity to the system than its fixing and reversal will be  too difficult and dangerous to take the chance....

Thankfully there are other scaling offers on the table we can consider, including bu's gradual scaling approach  and the new solution from lead devs called "teechan"  definitely is worth considering before we do anything hasty like segwit

Don't disagree. But the other thing that comes to mind...is the bigger the bitcoin network and the money involved the LESS likely to get everyone on board to do a hard fork.

Just saying the 'herding of cats' to a hard fork 'could' be quite the task. The sitting back and groaning about bitcoin devs and their seg witness code install without a complete

hard fork..may just happen by the apathy of default.

Again have no real position in either camp..but having a hard time seeing a "hey everyone we are having a hard fork for block size increase....re-do everything or lose you BTC"
would go over very well at this point in time.

anyway how I see the process at this time

Well according to this article about "teechan" http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/12/25/teechan-can-potential-solution-bitcoin-scalability/ (http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/12/25/teechan-can-potential-solution-bitcoin-scalability/), they are offering an easier scalability solution for the Bitcoin blockchain.

Now with this this will be very hard to choose on what to go on. Only one problem is with teechan, only Intel’s Skylake range of processors is equipped with Software Guard Extension, which makes it impractical until such solution becomes an industry standard, and this may be problem for implementing it in future.

hardware centralization imho ..same problem ..wearing a different coat.....

eh those idiots rightly believe that segwits may introduce some unknown security hole to the bitcoin environment, because it was not fully tested yet and bug can also appear at some point

if some sort of bug/exploit will emerge then you are forced to hard fork anyway, it's a gamble, it's better to directly hard fork to 2MB anyway

That would be the elegant solution....have seg witness choke in some manner..fix such with a hard fork and thus have some sense and do the block size hard fork
at the same time an or asap. Thus BOTH camps of this dispute could claim victory. The seg witness bitcoin core fork that seg witness is then repaired and next
step the lightning network and the block size quick fix folk on perhaps hardforks are NOT as passe as bitcoin core seemed to imply.

This claim is false. Once the developers figured out how to deploy Segwit via a soft fork, they've started developing it for Bitcoin (it was already a Blockstream project, but required a HF prior to that). They've released a Segnet (specific testnet for it) around last New Years Eve. Over time, there have been 4 versions of Segnet (IIRC), after which it was deployed on the testnet and actively tested/developed around April/May.
We're talking about 1 year of testing (up to today), 4-5 Months on a special testnet, and 7-8 Months on the Bitcoin testnet. That's as close as it gets to having it live on the main chain.

Similar, not 'same'.

---

I do believe that adopting Segwit or something similar that boosts TPS will have a positive impact on Bitcoin and it's price.

We may try the scale method used by other cryptnote coins such as the Monero. I think they are very elegant.

Definately ,elegant scaling that scales up or down according to use such as  monero uses seems like a winner over some arbitrary block limit cap that needs to be raised via some fork every time we hit the new ceiling

if we could scale to 1.1mb for a while  then 1.2mb etc that would be great ,miners will not make a massive block because it would simply orphan by the other 99% of network so that fearmongering simply isnt true

developers i have spoken to have said this and LN implemenation can be done without segwit  safely and without
changing the underlying fundamentals that took us this far

i checked the list and i already have a compatible processor and it wasnt very expensive even a year ago (i5-6400)
 
the thing to remember is not every bitcoin user needs to have an intel cpu ,afaik its only miners,businesses and full nodes who would need one ..........they dont cost a lot and ordinary bitcoin  users would benefit by default (roughly 2400 tx/ps )

I also think the bitcoin should adopt the Monero style of block size scale. There will be no argument later.

How the hell did you call this?

Here we can see that SegWit won't have any positive impact on the Bitcoin's ability to achieve 4 digits. We are already at 4 digits and we have achieved this WITHOUT SEGWIT. This proves that SegWit is not necessary for Bitcoin to soar in value.

This is a ridiculous train of thought. It could also be said that the fact that we are about to smash the last all time high proves that nobody gives a flying fuck about the block size anymore (which I personally think it was always the case... people only wanted to rush a block size increase because they thought it would trigger something like what we are seeing right now, only to find out that we are seeing it with still the good ol 1MB limit)

Im sure if someone makes that claim, you and the big blockers will come and say "bbut its in spite of the small block size.. if we were at 8MB blocks we would be at 10k!" or some ridiculous shit like that.

I personally think this applies to segwit, we are at 1k, but we would be at 2k+ if we had segwit, because segwit means blocksize increase incoming and more importantly, all the new cool features that come with it would be getting ready too.

Guess what's also "arbitrary", the 21 million coin limit. 1MB has been good enough, the node count is right now at 5k ish, this point out to 1MB being good enough for the current average hardware out there. Of course, in the future we will increase it further, but I don't see any other way but doing it "manually" through a roadmap.  Once we get segwit, we will get 2MB. If we never get segwit, we may never get 2MB, because hard forking without segwit is a mistake, a lot of people aren't going to go through with it, so you can thank those that block segwit for any lack of further blocksize increases.

A dynamic blocksize may seem elegant at first, but if you study it further it appears to have severe exploitable problems.

so it's "ridiculous shit" when it goes against your politics, and sensible otherwise. Lol.

Either solutions, small or big blocker, would dramatically help the price, and for most speculators the subtleties are uninteresting. However, SegWit is NOT the solution. Lightning Network is the proposed "solution" and that will be a long way off even with SegWit enabled. Which is why we should have had a stop gap block size increase long ago, simply to demonstrate that the devs actually give a shit about the users.

Yes its actually very impressive that price continues to climb, even in the midst of the blocksize debate (argument?)
Imagine what could be achieved if we were able to reduce transaction time, one of the main roadblocks for many business models that might consider accepting Bitcoin.

i admit i did not see this happening 20+ days ago. apparently i need to change some of the mentality i have about this market to understand it better.

Respect. 8)

Deploying Segwit on a live altcoin network would be MUCH closer to having it on the main chain.  Testnet coins have 0 value.  Until there is value at risk, there is no reason other than ego to search for a flaw.  It is utterly irresponsible to put a 18 billion dollar network at risk when the value of the networks it has been tested on stands at exactly $0.

Why don't we change the max coins to 7,000,000,000 so EVERYONE can have a Bitcoin?

That is how I feel about SegWit, block size increases, etc.

I am so sick of all the FEAR, people thinking Bitcoin won't scale or whatever. Just Leave it Alone already. If Bitcoin is flawed as is, then let it fail. If you think Bitcoin can be better with changes, then make your own Alt-coin.

It is working JUST FINE and has been for 8 YEARS.

More people = Slower confirmation times = HIGHER fees. This is GOOD for the Free Market and rewards Miners.

People will pay higher fees to get confirmed faster. Some people will be fine waiting 24 hours for a confirmation.

Just relax folks. You don't need instant dust transactions. There can be microwallets and altcoins for that.

+1

I would be okay with a market determined blocksize (i.e. BicoinUnlimited), but I don't think it is necessary for bitcoin to succeed.  However I feel it would be safe because miners won't make (or build on) blocks that don't pay enough to cover the long term storage costs.  They aren't running a charity.  A hard limit was only necessary initially because the cost of orphan risk was essentially nil.  Now it is quite expensive to have your block rejected by your mining peers.

More complex changes are too risky.  If we blow up bitcoin, we may well lose our shot at gaining an honest monetary system.

Agreed - this is why altcoins can be useful, and shouldn't all be generalized as shit[coins].

While I want bitcoin to succeed, I'd love to see how big miners react if btc was suddenly destroyed  :o What would they even do? Imagine the rage...mass suicides...what would come of the mining farms? 

forking without segwit is not a mistake if most people want higher block size.

This guy gets it! Let the free market sort it out, or should I say "fee market" ?  ;D
Now that we have child-pays-for-parent and dynamic TX fee estimation BTC is just fine the way it is. You can do your beggar's microtransactions with doge, eth and other shitcoins. Leave BTC for the lambos. However, I'd really like to see the block size also be determined by the free market the way Bitcoin Unlimited sees it. If your block is too big for the network to swallow it will be orphaned which gives incentive for the miners to use effective block sizes. I don't know what's wrong with the brains of the SegWit boys, they just refuse to see the light.

They would mine ltc or something else....

$75 million cheque from AXA and a weekly wage is the only thing that is making them try to funnel the tx's into something they can control and  charge for.....

Their hardware is worthless for every altcoin except namecoin.

poeple will fork bitcoin...

look at Dogecoin and you see why we don't have billion coins. and also remember that currently the max number of coins are not 21 million bitcoins, but there are 21million*10^8 coins available, more than enough for everyone.
people seem to forget that there is no such thing as "bitcoin" and there is only satoshi as far as code is concerned.


yeah everything is ok if you are a miner with old computers not willing to upgrade. and want to earn higher fees because of the fee wars.
and yeah i am sick of the fear too, i am also sick and tired of all this drama for block size.
and yeah bitcoin has been fine for the past 7 years but it is starting to not be fine anymore.

wait a while and let more people adopt bitcoin, start making more transactions and when mempool started being at 60K transactions and when you had to pay 0.01BTC for your transaction fee let's meet again and see if you still feel the same way.

But two high fee will deter new users. We need to expand the market first.

SegWit and technologies built on it are grossly oversold (http://www.deadalnix.me/2017/02/27/segwit-and-technologies-built-on-it-are-grossly-oversold/) (Posted on February 27, 2017)

Final nail to the coffin of SegWit. It is now proven to be not delivering on its promises. Check out the above article.

I hope SegWit gets rejected fast because it's holding back bitcoin from boosting into 5 figures. SegWit is like a sore loser who is unwilling to get out of the way when obviously the majority does not like it and wants it gone. It will never get activated it will just sit on there and hold everything back like a douchebag.

The author of that article is an outright and delusional troll. It was refuted easily by Maxwell: http://www.deadalnix.me/2017/02/27/segwit-and-technologies-built-on-it-are-grossly-oversold/#comment-357655

I've no clue on who is correct on this block size debate..I will say again that from what I can tell the bitcoin core devs have no care about transaction fee rises nor confirmation times or other stuff that makes BTC anything remotely like being used as currency..they see BTC as a store of value (gold) only it seems to me...thus as long as price rises and no protocol to go over the current block size...they will call it a win and move on imho

not a happy camper about the lack of talk between the 2 camps on a solution ..but again feel as long as price of btc rises and works as a store of value...bitcoin core folk will just putter along with their vision..thus stalemate on this issue far into the future

maybe bitcoin core is correct and it don't matter ..but the FUD just sucks on the lack of even discussion on somehting in between..but again don't code nor know zip on which camp is right nor even if it matters....just what I THINK I am following from the bleachers...from the actions of all involved...it kinda looks lame for the above reasons to me anyway..this lack of any real movement or attempt to work it out

You are very wrong on that. The opposing side thinks that BTC should fight vs. Visa. However, Bitcoin can not compete vs. the likes of Visa in this regard. LN solves your fee and throughput concerns. You lock-in funds once by paying a higher fee, and afterwards you can do a infinite number of TXs (in theory) within LN. Fees are smaller and TXs are faster.

You do realize that the fees were higher sometime in the past? You can't artifically force down the market-driven fee-rate every time Bitcoin's value goes up.

The Core team is by far bigger and more experienced. In comparison, Classic has 1 developer, BU has 4-5.

The only way bitcoin can compete with visa is through the second layer solutions, there is no other way to do it, so we can only hope that we get LN as soon as possible, and segwit too since segwit improves the LN experience.

We will see what happens, but either BTC gets second layer solved appropriately or it will remain a better gold.

In a perfect situation SW and LN will be what will drive Bitcoin faster than ever to mass adoption since it then is able to compete with the centralized big boys. But we all know how diffitcult it is to reach concensus among pools to even accept SW, how will that be with LN which certain "high level entities" and pools also don't seem to be a huge fan of as they believe it isn't Bitcoin anymore. For now it's waiting to see pools reach consensus to see how Litecoin adapts to SW once implemented. But again, reaching concensus forms a familiar obstacle...

Everything SegWit claims to accomplish can be accomplished without SegWit. What is more, it can be done in a clean and elegant manner. For some reason Core devs have taken a route to implement all those nice features in a really ugly and disgusting manner, all messed up in some freakish pseudo-soft-fork. This is not how Bitcoin should be developed. A proper protocol upgrade is needed which would not be backwards compatible with the old protocol. SegWit isn't backwards compatible anyway, they just deceivingly call it as such.

Anti SegWit position does not equate to anti Lightning Network.
Lightning Network can be enabled in way that it would not depend on an ugly hack called SegWit. Bitcoin protocol should be correctly upgraded to support payment channels. This should be done separately from other features. All the fixes and enhancements SegWit has bundled should be delivered to the community one-by-one. That way the Core devs would have no excuse to write ugly and unmaintainable hacks in the code. They would be forced to actually improve the architecture of Bitcoin properly. If you care about the future of Bitcoin, reject SegWit. SegWit is not the only solution to Transaction Malleability. It is just one of the many ways how to do it and it is one of the worst ways for sure.

Just because we don't have better alternatives right now on the table does not mean we should accept such an abomination. It is critical not to accept SegWit because that step cannot be taken back. In these kinds of situations where steps cannot be taken back later on it is absolutely vital to take the best possible step. SegWit is not the best possible step. It's too big of a bite and it's ugly as hell. I'd suggest taking smaller steps and being more sure that what we do does not need to be reverted in the future. For that reason I suggest raising the block size limit with the help of Bitcoin Unlimited while proper and elegant fixes are developed for TX malleability.

If we have both the big block size increase and segwit, that will be excellent.

We should not have SegWit, never. Instead we should have the following features as proper and clean protocol upgrade:
* TX malleability fix
* payment channels
* fix to signature verification DOS attack vector
* block size dictated by the free market

SegWit as soft fork should be rejected at all cost, it's pure evil. However, all the features in this ugly hack SegWit should be implemented independently of each other and elegantly code-wise.

The only reason Core devs mixed all these fixes together in the abomination they call SegWit is to obfuscate the codebase of Bitcoin so that they would expand their control over Bitcoin even more. And the worst part about obscure code is that it could contain vulnerabilities (possibly deliberately injected). Heartbleed of OpenSSL anyone? Do you really want it to happen to Bitcoin too? It's much easier to review new features that are implemented independently of each other. So why didn't Core add them as such? Because soft fork is so much better? Yeah right, backwards compatibility is false advertising because SegWit isn't really backwards compatible since it requires super consensus to activate. So does a proper protocol upgrade.

The majority of the whole ecosystem doesn't give a shit about that...the most prominent names wants Segwitt because Segwitt is technical better and gives more security.

If they really want security then they shouldn't be wanting SegWit. So, there's a fallacy in your line of thought.

Everyone with better understanding of bitcoin than you ever will have wants segwit. The fact that you don't want segwit should make you consider that your stance on this subject is indeed wrong.

oh should it really? I have done my research well enough to know that segwit is a trojan horse for the banksters to gain control over Bitcoin. you on the other hand are blindly believing anything that the ones claiming to be the authority tell you. If I am right then you must be wrong. And that surely cannot be, right? That seems to be the only reasoning you and most of the segwit fanboys have. Hey, I don't care if you don't agree with me. It is impossible to convince you and make you see the light. This is how human mind operates. It is selfish and egoistic and it is unwilling to admit being wrong. You either have a dog in this fight or you're just a sheep following the herd and believing whichever information you heard first.

Looks like the SegWit boys are losing the battle. Johnny really embarrassed the SegWit solution at Anarchapulco (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY).

https://s14.postimg.org/qb1rh846p/Screenshot_from_2017_03_07_08_49_19.png


Gavin Andresen: “Run Bitcoin Unlimited” To Solve “Destructive Congestion” (https://cointelegraph.com/news/gavin-andresen-run-bitcoin-unlimited-to-solve-destructive-congestion)

If we could let go of this foul thing known as SegWit already, bitcoin would really be sitting on 5 figures already.

Sure the battle is just started now. They have almost same amount in % off course and think that if will be hard to determine the winner even in this kind of battle. It will be like penalties in football or in basket. Hard to pick sides in this.

according to https://coin.dance/blocks, 39% of the miners are using the unlimited, vs 28% using segwit. That ratio is higher than a few weeks ago.

The numbers are somewhat misleading imho.
Indeed, it shows BU at 38.9%, leading. However, if you look more closely, there are 2 pools that signal both Core and BU. This means that if you would sum all (BU, Core, 8M, others) you'll get more than 100%, so the percents may not be as correct as you'd think. There's still a big number of "I don't care to signal" miners, from what I see.

But this is the number of miners.

If you look even more closely, you'll see (on the very same page!) that from the last 1000 blocks, only 388 were mined by BU pools, instead 604 are Core.
So I'd say that while more pools (more or less) want BU, more actual miners (hashing power) wants Core.

Am I wrong?

If we didn't have segwit we'd be sitting at 5 figures by now, just saying.

I think so. The big block size will make the transation much smoother. So there will be more users.

Bitcoin Classic failed, Bitcoin Unlimited will inevitably fail due to how determined a large amount of Core supporters are and how many people don't want to signal for either, and since most people are running Core nodes anyway because BU is so buggy now is a great time for some BU miners to give up.

If the bitcoin block size is increased eventually to 8MB or higher, it does not matter if Unlimited fails or not.

+1

The difference between the SegWit camp and the BU camp is that the SegWit camp wants Bitcoin for themselves, completely and utterly, to have total authority over the protocol and therefore to dictate consensus (which behind the scene renders miners useless, see Proof-of-Vitalik). The BU camp, on the other hand, does not care whether BU as an implementation becomes the most used or not. For the BU people all that matters is whether we get on-chain scaling or not. Should BU fade away and disappear the big blockers will find or initiate another full node implementation. Supporting the Core dev team and SegWit is the same thing as begging to be governed. Only dumbass sheeple enjoy being governed by some central authority because they are too lazy and stupid to think for themselves. Such people ideologically don't even belong to the Bitcoin community.

Could you back your claims up by showing the evidence of a trojan horse? I mean show us the code and explain line by line where you think those soldiers are hiding inside the horse you feel me?

I want to know what happens if everyone start running Core and activate SW? everyone will be on the same boat and they can take advantage of the trojan horse can't they?

But if BU becomes the majority guess who will get the most of it? ASICboost implemented miners, aka Chinese, aka some miners will mine suddenly 6MB blocks taking all the fees and leave slower/ smaller miners empty handed forcing them to mine empty blocks since some powerful pools have taken and included all the transactions.

All I hear about SW from you people is just this "trojan horse" and nothing whatsoever. show me, explain to me like I did about BU and powerful mining pools and ASICboost hard ware.

You have to look at the big picture. See the forest behind the trees. I think this is wisdom. Some people have it some don't. People don't like to admit being wrong. It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled you know. "show me the exact line of code where this is a trojan hose" is the kind of argument like "show me the actual real proof that the illuminati controls the Hollywood". Sort of like hiding your head in the sand and asking for evidence that you know isn't easily available in the first place. You either see it or not. Typically naive people fall for such traps like the SegWit lie because their main argument is "why would they do such a thing?" which isn't really an argument but a lame excuse to continue being naive.

Ask yourself these simple questions:
Who pays to the Core development team?
Who would profit the most from SegWit?
Who are the real owners of BlockStream?
Are the real owners of BlockStream the good guys or the bad guys?

If you knew anything about the globalist agenda and the Bilderberg Group then you would be VERY sceptical about any proposals coming from the Core team / BlockStream. It doesn't take a genius to realize the implications here. Please educate yourself about the REAL behind the scenes global politics because clearly believing the MSM bullshit and a long record of not doing your own research are interfering with your ability to reason and to think critically.

Seems seq witness is a done deal on ltc. So we shall see.

http://http://www.coindesk.com/litecoin-miners-back-plan-support-segwit-blockchain-upgrade/

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/66sgtz/my_knowledge_of_bitcoin_isnt_great_but_i_own_some/dgkxvix/

So the phrase in the name of the thread implies that if the SegWit would be implemented, bitcoin could reach over 10,000 $ price.
Guess not, that is not possible to see BTC price going up almost 10 times higher, just because SegWit is going to be true, not with that market capitalization and volume!
Also, another reason why we cannot see such a enormous upward burst, because too many miners are against it, to make your dreams come true.

There is no need to be in hurry, just let everybody pick his decision, it is a miners poll, they are the people who are voting for BU/SegWit so don't call them idiots.
Everybody has his own opinion and point of view, so you should respect it. Give us arguments instead of insults.

Even without segwit activated bitcoin has been able to reach new all time highs and even thought FUD was able to crash the price for a few days and weeks we are back to where we were before the FUD and I don’t see a reason why bitcoin could not go even higher.

I hope that stupid war will finish finally but 10000$ you can just dream about that price,not possible anytime soon,but dollaris losing and situation all over the world is very tense

If the block size is increased to 8MB or higher, the price will be 10000 easily.