Bitcoin Forum

If we are able to activate segwit without no major drama, we can be sitting at $10,000 in No Time. As people realize bitcoin has solved the scaling solution, and lightning networks are coming with finally features to compete against existing payment networks, while retaining the features of a gold-like digital gold for those that couldn't care less about buying coffee with bitcoins and just wants to hold, the price would explode because everyone will be happy.

I say compromise. Throw the big blockers a bone, let's raise the blocksize to 2MB. But first, the compromise on the other side must be that segwit gets activated ASAP with hashrate agreement to avoid UASF.

As pointed out by anyone with a functional brain, the code must be developed, and peer reviewed by Core devs. 95% of people trust only Core, you can't pretend to do this without them.

Let's give time for the hard fork. One year, then we hard fork, safely, not rushed trash.

There's tons of great technology that require a hard fork, hopefully some can be included too, so the hard fork does not get wasted to only raise the block size:

https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/

But if there's no time after 1 year, oh well, then whatever, just do the fucking hardfork to get the 2MB blocksize, as long as we get segwit NOW without UASF I couldn't care less at this point.

Lets get our shit together and get this done, otherwise YOU ARE ASKING FOR UASF TO HAPPEN, and this could cause a crash due the confusion of the 2 tokens. Let's not kill the amazing downtrend with internal drama and let's find a fucking way to get segwit in already.

UASF is already working because BU is no longer on the picture in case you haven't noticed, now we just need the so called 80% hashrate to agree on a proper hard fork and not the frankeinstein segwit HF proposed by buffoons in suits.

We have still time, if not, then get ready because UASF will only continue gaining traction.

PS: Before some idealist claims bitcoin price doesn't matter, well get real, it does. Let's try to do this smoothly, to create a less disruption on the price as possible.

if there is going to be a hard consensus then there is no need for the cludgy 2merkle upstream filter/stripping tier network workaround soft crap

the ultimate 'compromise' which removes the cludgy code of bad math manipulations, tier networks etc. is

1merkle block of 4mb (not 2merkle and not a 2mb Base 6mb witness, nor 2mb Base 4mb witness... just simple 4mb single area weight)
all keypairs. native, segwit, schnorr sit in the same single block area
tx sigops limit at or below 4k forever
tx kbyte limit at or below 50kb forever
POLICY (soft block limit) increments at 0.25mb(like it has dont in last 8 years)

new fee priority formulae - based not on value. but age of tx and bytes of tx

remove the 'average fee estimate' and return the 'reactive fee'
add in the other features everyone wants that can only happen as a hard fork

and then everyone gets to have their cake and eat it

---

going for a 2mb 2merkle (2mb base 6mb witness) is just pushing the cludge down the river.

if they want segwit first then do the 1mb base 3mb witness(4mb weight).
then as a hardfork remove the 1mb base so the '4mb weight' becomes the block limit. and all keypairs sit in the same area and all the cludge of going soft gets removed without causing more issues than necessary

---

lastly.. this is the most important thing. read it 3 times. have a coffee and let it really soak into your minds.
rushing to activate segwit is MEANINGLESS
segwit 'activation' only creates the tier network. yet its the need of people to move funds over to segwit keypairs AFTER (emphasis AFTER) that which is where the 'gestures' of promises that have been made for 18 months could occur.

there is no way of moving 46million outputs into new segwit keypairs without it causing atleast a year of further delay ant normal pace before seeing any noticeable benefit. or causing a megastorm of mempool bloat and tx fee war of everyon rushing to use the new keypairs. which then defeats the benefit of pretending to reduce tx confirmation time/cost issues.

take your time and really let the last 2 paragraphs settle in your mind and realise the activation alone is not the hallelujah moment of segwit utopia

 
I'm not saying segwit is bad, but I don't quite get why a lot of people are so hungry for it.  Maybe you can explain why you want it so badly in the first place?

i have spoke to many that actually understand segwit flaws/limitations/realities (meaning the smarter crowd, not the reddit scripters) but still want it. and ultimately its the HOPE of them 'getting paid to run a LN node'

We need segwit as a soft fork to kill the covert Asicboost scam from Jihad Wu which is a major cancer for the community. This is basically why he doesn't want it as a soft fork.

We need segwit as soon as possible to let lightning network tech to develop on bitcoin for actual global microtransaction scaling, otherwise we are asking for litecoin to take the lead. Litecoin is getting added on bitstamp too so it continues making moves.

Lets get segwit now, then a HF later, there's no other way around this, unless you want UASF nodes to skyrocket.

Even Greg Maxwell admitted the other day that segwit is not required for LN.  

@cellard -- Not that I believe bitmain is using it, but  i'm pretty sure we can kill covert asicboost in other ways than SWSF.

Sure it's not required, just like saying you don't require 2 hands and 2 legs to live. You live yes, but it sucks. Here's Greg Maxwell talking about how not having segwit sucks for pretty much everything:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHPYNZ8i1cU

We need segwit anyway, there's no reason to circlejerk about it, just activate it already as a SF to not keep wasting time, we solve two problems at once, then we get 2MB HF later, properly planned with enough time for everyone to upgrade (aka 1 year at least)

i know this and so do many. but the guys making LN (rusty russell:blockstream) are using functionality based on elements:segwit for thier elements:LN and so for theirs it all becomes dependant on it.

You might be missing the point here..... The battle is not really about the technical changes.... but rather who will be in control. Most of these parties use

the technical differences as an excuse, but it is actually about "control" The Bitcoin Core team can announce a 5mb block size and the most perfect

solution and the other side will still not be satisfied. The "control" is everything.... it includes "brag right" .... everyone wants to be the "winner" in this

battle.... so it is more about pride and self gratification, than the technical merit of this whole issue. This situation is so pathetic at the moment, it is not

even funny anymore.  >:(

Why not do segwit as a HF and make sure all tx have their witness data segregated?  Yes it would take time but there's no rush for it.  What IS urgent is capacity.  If we're going to agree to a HF for blocksize, why not allow that to be done first?

Because you can't do a hard fork urgently without fucking up big time. There's also technical reasons to do segwit first, hard fork later. There's not a single argument that makes sense about a HF before segwit, specially when you add the word "urgently" in the same sentence as "hardfork".

I am pretty sure Bitcoin price gonna roar once Segwit is activated. Litcoin's movement as in image below says all about the impact of Segwit activation on price. It is not development but news and buzzes required for price movements.

https://image.ibb.co/eJWdDF/segwit.png

But in the end major question arises, is it price all we need? No matter what you wrote in @OP (especially last line). SegWit is never the best alternative to solve scaling issue. Proposal is full of flaws. Therefore, I recommend to adopt best out of available and not blindly go for Segwit.

dont even get me started on the bloat of CT

promising more tx's via segwit and then taking away capacity by adding CT.
watch the video
8byte 'value' becomes a 33byte hash, then appended to the end of the tx is the commitment of a few more bytes.
this is why although the average 'hope'(emphasis hope) for segwit is 2.1mb but the need for 4mb weight is there to fill the other 1.9mb spare weight with CT bloat.
id much prefer all the mixing and hiding who paid what, gets done offchain within LN. not making a tx twice as heavy. oh and once a few people have the CT commitment it then becomes easy to translate and make the values transparent. making CT only temporary fix that wont keep the irs or analysts off peoples backs for long. while ending up having tx bloated

bringing the 2500tx:1mb ratio
to:
segwit (if a block was 100% full of segwit txs(emphasis IF))
4500tx:2.1mb

segwit+ct (if a block was 100% full of segwit txs(emphasis IF))
4500tx:4mb

---

screw it lets add some other facepalms about the whole need for spare witness area
the commitment and the value hash
(at 18min of video)
UPTO 20 times tx bandwidth. (normal tx of 223byte=upto 500b just to hide values)(average 2in2out tx of 1kb just to hide values)
and the real kicker
30-60x validation cost!! (yep divide by 4 for segwit discount then * 30 for CT)

---

price is meaningless when you can make the market cap move by $140m by buying lss than $100 worth of bitcoin/litecoin..
speculation vs utility are separate debates

and those reasons are...?

We could be but the trolls won't let this happen over their petty personal vendettas.

As to me, we can't really compare Litecoin on juice with Bitcoin on juice (i.e. on SegWit)

Litecoin doesn't need it because it has no scaling issues so far and likely will never have (though, personally, I think this coin is heavily undervalued right now but not because of SegWit). Apart from that, we can't really say if the Litecoin price surge is due to SegWit activation, i.e. thanks to hype arisen, or simply many people started pouring their money into altcoins indiscriminately. As far as I know, not just Litecoin has been rising recently, so which part of this rise belongs exclusively to SegWit and hype thereof remains to be seen

as for litecoin segwit although 'active' the pools dont trust it. they are still using native keypairs(L) for their rewards not segwit (3)
1210583 - http://ltc.blockr.io/tx/info/9753ca59b66950696e7fab2369141a65fd5ba77fb607681d8d128148f19dba23  - Lajy...25.02679179
1210582 - http://ltc.blockr.io/tx/info/c764e17ce940c333cd10ac228d3f2aece4990e009c9d9919b6e9e72f21bcaece - LSqC...25.20464521

Once Litecoin activated segwit it started to drop as people took profits.

And despite activating segwit, no-one actually uses litecoin for anything. They still haven't managed to top the 20,000 transactions per day they back in 2014. See

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-transactions.html

It's almost like segwit is completely pointless.

People want segwit on bitcoin, not some altcoin. Litecoin getting segwit is useless to show how it's as safe as it gets. Also lightning network development is moving forward thanks to litecoin with actual transactions happening. Once sooner or later we get segwit in bitcoin, all of this development will be easily ported to the lightning network in bitcoin, so it's not time wasted.

The price went up from $4 to $33 ish right now and it's sustained there. The could would be dead without segwit giving it some hope for the future.

Well, it is also about money and greed, and I think it is a bit personal, to put it mildly. It is easy to just follow the personalities and what they support, and how some are also connected to Alt cryptos and use those as a means of manipulating BTC. Lead ETC shill also organizing the latest BTC "compromise" is a clear example. Then ETC pumping on some roadmap (IMHO) to show that it is ok to have multiple Bitcoins, as who cares about the fundamentals of cryptocurrency (BTC) anyway? Free coins, free money. Control, money, power and I would say a little bit of revenge.

Have fun with your 8MB BarryCoin (it's not 2MB, it's 2 MB + 6 MB extra for witness blocks)

There is more to Litecoin than just SegWit (LN)

Right now Litecoin seems to be the cheapest coin out there in terms of transaction fees. I mean among major coins, since Dogecoin is likely cheaper but it was conceived as a joke and remains primarily a joke, which is not accepted anywhere apart from a few obscure exchanges. So with fees rising, Litecoin may make it as a fast, viable and reliable vehicle for transferring value between wallets and exchanges (Coinbase seems to have recently accepted Litecoin in addition to Bitcoin and Ethereum)

traders don't care about scaling, though obviously everyone should. i agree that it could introduce some actual adoption but speculation still rules all and speculation don't care enough.

That is the reason why I like litecoin. But sadly, litecoin is still undervalued and no one seems to care about this crypto. I do not know why. People always talk shit about segwit, fast transaction, low fee but when It comes, no one even care about it

Basically an extra 2000 txs is possible for an extra 3mb of data that requires hard drive storage. Blocksize of 4mb, no funny codings, possible 10,000 txs.

I do recall Core developers, supporters, complaining about storage cost blah blah bleh.

You are right... As of now, I believe that Litecoin is one of the most undervalued and under-utilized cryptos out there. At least when compared to currencies such as Nemcoin and Ethereum Classic, Litecoin deserves a better position. I am glad that Coinbase added Litecoin... Reminds me of the hype during 2013, when there was intense speculation that Mt Gox may be accepting LTC.  

ptting it short
2009-2017..
with bitcoin 1mb. if EVERY tx was a lean 223byte tx, we 'could' have had blocks with 4500tx already 2009-2017..
4500tx:1mb
but the average tx is more like 400bytes so its more like 2500tx a block... bitcoin has topped off at this average for the last 8 years..

now considering a 1mb base segwit 3mb witness cludge
if every tx was lean AND every tx was segwit then a possibility of ~9000tx due to the witness area. but there would still be spare 'weight' buffer below 4mb weight.

best case of average tx size but 100% segwit utility is 4500tx for ~2.1mb...
but even that would be hard to achieve due to spammers sticking to native tx's for malicious purposes so dont even expect 4500tx:2.1mb .. just like many people gave up expecting 7tx/s for bitcoin 2009-2017

the reason for the 4mb weight is not to allow more segwit tx in.. thats not how the ratios work. its to allow future features like CT to bloat up a tx by appending even further data to a tx to make it confidential

leading to at best 4500tx:4mb (if 100% segwit keypair funded tx in the block)

...
now imagine we didnt have the 2 merkle cludge of segwit. and it was just a neat clean 1 merkle 4mb weight where native and segwit can be side by side, no filtering/stripping..

then expect 9k-10,000tx
or expect around 4500tx if things like confidential transactions bloated the block space

the issue with not having the segwit cludgy 2 merkle strippable feature is:
1. core need the 2merkle to help create their tier network and bring them to the top as the 'real full node' dictators
2. core need the 2merkle to simplify soft concensus bypass(trojaning) in new key types and features in on a whim

the parts about LN needing it is not 100% true but the blockstream teams version want to invent new keypairs so need the segwit bypass to slide in their new features that are set to utilise segwits consensus bypass.
yet LN can function just using current features/multsig addresses.
...
im meandering.

the short and curlies of it is if they made a hf where the cludgy code was removed and the full weight was the main block. (1merkle) then it would allow more real capacity into the blocks. cores domineering ability to slide in their features by ruining their tier network would suffer too. but on the plus side bring the community to a level playing field of full blockspace utility without hopes of needing to change to new keypairs, with out the cludge, without the bad math manipulation.

theres alot of stuff most are not talking about because it goes over peoples heads. but blockstream 'need' segwit.
and even this barry silbert stuff is just more drama to sway people into accepting the cludgy code sooner.

i can easily see blockstream jumping ship and working on litecoin. after all coinbase btcc, (the lee bro's) are part of the DCG portfolio with blockstream

but blockstream still need to make bitcoin unverifiable/ prunned/stripped and slow and expensive before jumping across

then its just a case of silbert getting bitpay/coinbase/xapo and the other portfolio merchant tools to flip the switch

Agree at least btc can be stable above 2800$ with chance for further attack.Some cool heads told,we can integrate seagweet now it is ready in a case of 20% hard fork minimum time is half year or more
But for what that 20% hard fork

Which goes back to my original thoughts. blocksize of 4mb or seggy of 4mb - assuming both full and lean - roughly 10,000 txs. What is the point of seggy in terms of scaling and capacity? None. All the extra codings for nothing.

So, storage has to hold extra datas for paranoid people using CT. Honestly if people are that paranoid, use an altcoin. I rather my storage was used to hold useful data to allow Bitcoin to function as it should be.

Peeps are like that in general

I recently had a discussion with some random dude over here, he was unsurprisingly proponing a wider adoption of Bitcoin between users and merchant but he couldn't explain how he is doing that in real life (as opposed to empty talks here). Regarding Litecoin and fast,easy and cheap transsctions, as I said earlier, most people don't care about fees since they are not moving their coins much. Most coins (beyond those stashed away) are being traded on exchanges, and they don't leave these exchanges as bitcoins (at least, not in great numbers). People either cash out and withdraw to banks or continue trading trying to grow "their Bitcoin"