Bitcoin Forum

With BIP 148, all mining pools signaled for Segwit. As soon as the danger passed, they abandoned it. Segwit is officially dead, 0% support.

Lightening network is an unsecure, non-blockchain joke. The core team are a bunch of slimy libertarians that sabotage BTC, kind of like many of the idiots in this industry.

Stop being played, Satoshi left BTC, you owe him your gratitude, not Bitcoin. Move on to a superior tech before you sink us all.

https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

Coinbase is implementing Segwit support.

Yet the mining pools, the only ones who can upgrade the network don't support it.

 So you send a Segwit transaction, it's either processed as a non-segwit transaction or doesn't get picked up at all due to being incompatible.

How do you know that none of the mining pools will support it?

I don't know what you're smoking but it's some pretty damn stuff.

You know what was the purpose of that signaling ?
Do you have a single example of  how a segwit transactions doesn't get picked up because it's "incompatible" ?

Crawl back to the altcoin section ....

They supported it when they were in danger of from BIT 148, then they backstabbed the community. I know they won't support it because they were running Segwit, then they 100% abandoned it. The link was in the first post but here you go:


https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

Another ignorant maximalist.


https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size


Maybe you should read up a little, if the miners don't run segwit there is no segwit. BTC has a miner based governance. Adding Segwit to nodes just shows support, nothing else.

Looks like you are trying to sell something.

I can't tell if you've been out of the loop for a while or if you just haven't been paying attention.  The reason miners don't need to signal their support for SegWit is that it's a done deal.  We're past that now and SegWit is active on the network.  Average blockweight is now frequently above 1MB, so whatever the miners do or don't signal is irrelevant.



You can't make any Lightning transactions unless you have funds secured on the blockchain to begin with.  

I guess I'm just trolling then trying to make a rational argument to the BTC fanbase.


@DooMad  Then why is block size less than 5% increased? Within tolerance, a MB is 1024 KB so  most of that above 1000kb is just BS. Only a few tiny fanbased mining pools are running Segwit.

So, if miners reject it, how is that graph even possible?
And you have't answered the question about the signaling...why do they have to keep signaling when it's a done deal?


Yeah, and you're doing a lame job at it.

LOL it's not a done deal, they aren't running Segwit.

Ok, I see some flaws in my argument, but no one here caught them because this community doesn't know how BTC and cryptos work.

The final piece of evidence needed, Segwit is not online, average transaction per second is back to where it started.

https://blockchain.info/charts/transactions-per-second?timespan=1year

You don't know what happened to Satoshi, no one knows the truth behind this story, so please don't use it as any kind of argument for your speculation.
It is not that bitcoin is doomed to fail because it is impossible to change the code or core protocol, on the contrary upgrades are necessary.
From my experience, I know that if bitcoin would really be in danger everyone: miners, devs and community would fight together to keep it alive.
We have not reached that point of no return yet, there is no need to complain.

I do know what happened to Satoshi. He left when Wikileaks started excepting BTC. Then he emailed his old crypto-Anarchist friends. I don't know what he's doing now, but he wasn't a fanboy, he was a rationalist. So there is little chance he has blind loyalty to a brand. He most likely changed Pseudos and started working on fixing the problems with BTC by joining other projects.

BTC is the danger to the entire community, becoming less useful, risking tons of money. The miners will exploit that as long as they can get away with it. Blockchain is Satoshi's baby, BTC is no longer, he left remember? So you can support any public ledger crypto and you're still supporting Satoshi's dream. Stop trying to claim BTC is the one and only.

Segwit support it looks like.  Why shoot the messenger, is there support for Segwit, is it in commong use?  No.  Bitcoin has forked over this issue, we saw $30 transaction fees last month, what will it take to make people move forward and adopt some improvement to Bitcoin?

If they could change the governance model I'd be onboard 100%. It's easier to go with the flow than against it. But miners aren't the same as they were in 2010, they are big business with little long-term interest in BTC. They look at the daily profits in fiat and will sabotage any effort that reduces that.

Wow. What a nonsense in this thread.

http://segwit.party/charts/#

Several exchanges, like Coinbase, are implementing this, so this percentage will grow.

Segwit is accepted by all (!) miningpools. They don't need to signal for something already implemented.

Wow what a nonsense post. A blank chart, claiming nodes are updating to segwit (which is meaningless). No major mining pools are running segwit and the drop in transactions per block proves it.

i can't tell if you are trolling or today is attack-bitcoin-day :D
but let me put it in simple words for you so you may understand:

when you have an election like electing a president, do you keep voting for him all through 4 years of service or does "the voting" happen only in a fixed period of time (1 day) and repeated in case it couldn't get the majority's vote?
that is the same with that chart. the miners voted, it was not majority we moved to next period, they voted finally it got the majority and the president (SegWit) was elected. that link is just a dumb website that is still counting the votes even after the election was over ~6 months ago ...

This http://segwit.party/charts/
Is not a blank chart.

It just takes a little bit of time to load.

So in summary, from reading this thread:

1) Miners voted for Segwit, and it got approved.
2) Most of them haven't implemented it yet, so the block size charts don't show a huge change.
3) Coinbase say they're going to go live with it in the next few days

Sounds like we need to wait a little while to see what happens.

SegWit is not something that miners implement! they voted for it because they have the hashing power.
it is activated and will be effective when people use it. you can see that it already is happening but slowly. we already had 2.1 MB blocks with a lot of transactions in them.

in short it is now up to users and services to use it if they want to get the benefits of SegWit such as the capacity increase.

1. Miners signaled for Segwit because if they didn't BIP 148 would become active. They did not vote for it or implement it.

2. They removed Segwit from their code, the transactions per minute have dropped to pre-Segwit levels.

3. So many do not understand how Bitcoin works. Only mining pools running compatible software can upgrade BTC. Coinbase can add Segwit all its wants, no one will process Segwit transactions.

Segwit was not implemented.

You don't know how it works.

Every single block over 1 MB has SegWit transactions - so almost every single block. Also block which are 1.0001 MB can't be a legacy-transaction-only  because then it is too big.

You do need to use new addresses, and that's why it's only used by a small number of users. At this time around 14% of all transactions are SegWit, if you like it or not.
And yes, you have to wait before the sheets are loaded.

You don't know how it works. Segwit does not change block size, they dropped 2x remember? Segwit removes the signature from the wallet's private key from the block while being processed by miners and re-adds it later at the node. That means smaller data size per transaction and more transactions per block. Some miners may still be running 2mb support or it's just a mistake if they set 1mb to be 1,000 kb, because a MB is 1024 KB. But slightly larger block size does not mean Segwit, a drastic increase in transactions per second does.

 The miners are trying to keep fees as high as possible.

This my last post. If you want to be loyal to an outdated tech that will not be upgraded in any meaningful way or in any reasonable time period, you have the right to be gullible. You're getting played by the core team and BTC miners.

I hope this can clarify how BTC works for you. The only way nodes can upgrade the network is by standing together and nearly universally accepting updates. This forces miners to upgrade their software as well. This was the intent of BIP 148, the most successful, but failed effort to implement change since Satoshi left.

"Think of it this way: Mining pools are the ones who mine new blocks of transactions, so they need to accept and follow the new rules in order that the new types of blocks and transactions can actually be added to the blockchain."

https://www.coindesk.com/miners-involved-bitcoin-code-changes-anyway/

If that's a mistake, like you said, all other nodes should deny the big blocks. They don't, just because they run SegWit.

So even 1 single big block will arrange rejecting all blocks above it.

Not if it's a soft fork... Nodes do not dictate block size, miners do, so there are no compatibility issues between nodes and miners.

and no, Segwit does not include a block size increase. So you cannot attribute a 5% increase in average block size to Segwit.

Here's an example of an 100% Segwit transaction https://blockchain.info/tx/c23248b87ae5f1533e62d4e5f99ac4373a209a38050ac78b1c84b8b7b8d91b1f

And to show that there are Segwit transactions going on, a link to a busy wallet address:
https://btc.com/bc1qwqdg6squsna38e46795at95yu9atm8azzmyvckulcc7kytlcckxswvvzej

Nope, SegWit does away with blocksize and introduces blockweight.  The base portion of the block is still 1mb, that's strictly 1000kb and not a byte more, while the new witness portion of the block, which can only be accessed by using SegWit, adds a further 3mb of usable space.  The maximum block weight is effectively up to 4mb.  Stop insisting that the average number of transactions per second suggests SegWit is not implemented, because that's a flagrant lie.  It's starting to sound like you're deliberately trying to mislead people.  SegWit is active.  No ifs, buts or maybes.  Also, prior to SegWit, there were no blocks over 1000kb.  Even if a block shows 1001kb, it definitely includes SegWit transactions.

Further to that, I have received payments in my SegWit-native bech32 address.  So I know beyond doubt that SegWit is active.

Ok, so let's assume you're correct. Since neither of us has a direct way to prove mining pools are running Segwit, we have to rely on observation. For you, a %5 increase in block size means Segwit is active. For me, a drop in average  number of transactions per second prove it isn't.



So, Segwit has been implemented, yet BTC scaling has not increased? It doesn't advance your argument about the viability of Bitcoin. Proof of work is simply Gen 1, the Crypto that can do what BTC was intended probably hasn't been invented. Deflation needs to be at a much slower rate than many of the currencies out there. It needs to be competitive with Visa and Mastercard in transactions per second and power consumption. Do you honestly think, after a 2-year civil war and no significant increase in efficiency, that BTC will be the one?

 If BTC had a chance of achieving Satoshi's vision, I'd be behind it 100%.

I guess it's just a way of thinking. Some people are loyal to flags, some to the ideals that it represents. BTC like a flag is just a symbol.

Wow, you just ignored the prove completely.

Ignoring your grammar, it diminishes your argument. A single Segwit transaction prove a network running Segwit? Your argument is dismissed because your premise doesn't support your conclusion.

And again: you are missing half the post.

The second link is a very busy segwit wallet addres with segwit transactions going on in almost every block. To add: ofcourse the first transactions are unconfirmed - you have to scroll down to see the transactions which are confirmed 1 or few blocks ago.

Thank read this post....



Ok, so let's assume you're correct. Since neither of us has a direct way to prove mining pools are running Segwit, we have to rely on observation. For you, a %5 increase in block size means Segwit is active. For me, a drop in average  number of transactions per second prove it isn't.



So, Segwit has been implemented, yet BTC scaling has not increased? It doesn't advance your argument about the viability of Bitcoin. Proof of work is simply Gen 1, the Crypto that can do what BTC was intended probably hasn't been invented. Deflation needs to be at a much slower rate than many of the currencies out there. It needs to be competitive with Visa and Mastercard in transactions per second and power consumption. Do you honestly think, after a 2-year civil war and no significant increase in efficiency, that BTC will be the one?

 If BTC had a chance of achieving Satoshi's vision, I'd be behind it 100%.

I guess it's just a way of thinking. Some people are loyal to flags, some to the ideals that it represents. BTC like a flag is just a symbol.