Bitcoin Forum

I personally have never seen anyone asking the community or the bitcoin users what they think about Segregated Witness. (apart from Nodes, and Hashrate i have never seen any other way.)

so here is an opportunity to anonymously vote. obviously this is just for curiosity purposes and the result are just results.

please don't randomly vote.
if you don't know what SegWit is or don't know whether you should want it or not, then Vote for 3rd option I don't know
Vote Yes if you know what it is and want it to be activated.
Vote No if you know what it is and don't want it.

This should be interesting.

put in another option.

"yes but only with real consensus onchain scaling beyond the one time boost"

I think i'll keep it simple as is. and for YES i mean, the current proposal anything other than that means you vote NO and can explain here in the comments.

---

shared on reddit too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5pb2sd/vote_on_bitcointalk_segwit_yay_or_nay/?ref=share&ref_source=link

there could be a lot of people that want both or undecided because people are stupidly dividing the communiity by thinking consensus should be ignored and it should only be a one or other decision..

your pool is just going to be a biased civil war whos on whos side vote. rather than a community consensus open choice.

i disagree. it is not a civil war unless we make it one.

currently we are waiting for the miners to decide on the acceptance or denial of SegWit (the proposal they are signalling- BIP141 IIRC)

and users have only nodes to voice their opinion and there are only ~5000 nodes and lot more users. so i want to know out of the 929828 members on bitcointalk and ~2 million daily visits and more other places how many want, don't want or even have no idea about BIP141

and as i said in OP, this the results will just be results.

(so far 126 times read and only 7 votes!)

I'll vote later, but I suggested this before and I know the newbies army can easily manipulate the results and wish there was a way to count only full members+ votes.
I'd go with whatever is best for bitcoin and it's future of course miner's profit is one of the important priorities, we should see what will keep the community united and even stronger than before.
If activating the way they intend to do is going to cause 2 different sides as to dividing the whole system and community then a big NO.
If doing so will alter the purpose and meaning of "open source" "publicly distributed" and "decentralization" in any possible way a big NO.
If not doing so is going to favor individuals all over the world and wont slow down and cripple the network then YES, meaning NO to segwit.

There is no point in discussing SegWit in its current state as it lately became clear that miners won't support this update.Something must change for SegWit to become real alternative.
We have miners agenda, Blockstream agenda, community agenda, Roger Ver with bitcoin unlimited etc. Simple users like me who want so have better bitcoin are confused and dazed by all this mess.

I voted no, simply because I'm not even sure how would this turn in the long run. The implementation might be a-ok, but seeing that votes on this matter could only be voiced using nodes (which is more or less 5000 as of today) is kinda concerning and might divide the network's interest.
If it benefits the protocol, the network and the community in the long run, I would vote yes, but as for now I don't really see how would this lead us into something better "community-wise."

you do understand segwit right??

you understand that although when confirmed in a block old nodes dont fully validate the tx. but instead blindly look passed it..('compatible backwards' cough cough)
BUT before confirmation because it appears as signatureless tx (anyonecanspend) old nodes can cause issues.

this is why 0.14(the implementation with p2wpkh and p2wsh key generation wallets) wont be released before activation.

and then after activation, 0.14 wont connect with non-segwit nodes for relaying unconfirmed transactions to avoid the silly things that happen at unconfirmed relay level.
they could connect to old nodes and just relay old transactions. but lets be honest segwit-node users wont bother doing all the setting changes to mix and match tx's. so will just connect to segwit nodes to make things simple

yes after tx are passed by segwit nodes to a segwit accepting pool, they will then relay block data out to all nodes new and old.. but due to the unconfirmed tx relay part. segwit will divide the network at unconfirmed tx relay level

segwit done as non network consensus node activation is going to cause issues.. but core wont tell you about this until after its activated as a strongarm motive for everyone to jump onboard at a rapid pace to join their nodes. or be left ignored. (changing the network)

technically its all the 'same network' (due to all nodes connecting to a pool), but the nodes become more biased to only communicate with their own kind. where it becomes more work for a pool to send out 2 different variants of a block. --witness

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

again core will try to advertise the need to get nodes to upgrade to gain more connections and be more part of their side of the network (although in their half truth twisting of words is one network)

this is why it should have been a proper network consensus rather than a emulated consensus of just the pools, so that by being a full network consensus before pools, allows the nodes to be ready and fully compatible rather than just SPV compatible to segwit

as you can see by segwits own guide. if not upgrading they want you to set up another node to 'filter' your unupgraded node through a segwit node (facepalm) when sending old tx's but you wont receive new tx's. it also allows segwit nodes to be the controller of what becomes a 'valid block' or not. rather than the old node doing independent checks

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/
https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg

From a layman's point of view (I'm not a coder) I vote yes, because until now I can see only advantages. If someone of the anti-segwit faction can point me to a text where the disadvantages of Segwit are explained in layman's terms, be welcome!

But I am also in favour of a conservative block size increase which takes into account the worldwide average upstream internet bandwidth growth. Because I think while for real micropayments (<10 USD) off chain solutions like LN might be better, for payments with a little higher amounts I prefer the blockchain.

hmm another guy using the latest script buzzword "conservative"

d5000
you do realise the 'fee's and penalties of LN..
you do realise the confirmed tx maturity after LN settlement.. (CLTV aka 3-5 business day funds unavailable)
you do realise the confirmed tx revokes after LN settlement.. (CSV aka chargeback penalty)

they have already estimated that to open a channel for 10 days requires 0.006btc fee to be deposits to cover all the costs/possib penalties of using LN $4 just to use the LN service.

LN has a niche for some users, but is not the solution for all users.
even the bitcoin usage stats of 'days destroyed' revealed not everyone is spamming the network multiple times a week.. but core got those stats removed from known public websites to hide that and pretend everyone is spending funds hourly to need LN


its techy but if anyone want to read.. scroll down on the link to the 'results' and see their excel sheet of all the penalties and costs of use they intend to have
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2016-November/000648.html

i'm with segwit as a temporary solution, but i want 2mb as additional solution, unless they come up with something better, but we cannot wait forever bitcoin need to scale asap the price is telling us that the adoption is ready to increase dramatically

and only core are holding proper SCALING consensus up, with their subverted half promise of a temporary one time boost to then a push for their commercial LN hubs to repay their investors the $90m debt via all the fee's and penalties they wish to charge people using LN.

they will only do onchain SCALING only when LN settlement lumpy tx's dominate and they need more room to fit in more LN settlements.. not due to any open sense of an open network for normal tx's to flow again

I voted yes. We need something that scales Bitcoin now and SegWit is the one with most signaled support, thus being the one that's probably easier to achieve (although it might not really be the best solution). We risk having issues using Bitcoin if we wait too much to make a change.


It is indeed hard to go through all the mess surrounding discussions regarding SegWit and block size increases (but it's been worse previously). Maybe confusing normal users is an objective for some, who knows...


Interesting read...

Thank you @franky1, I'll read it. I don't consider LN an ideal solution for Bitcoin to scale, too. I think it's over-complicated, but for micropayments it may work (I consider it appropiate for payments where you, using fiat, would use a prepaid/gift card).

What I was interested in, however, was an explanation in layman's terms if the Segwit concept itself (not LN and also not the "soft fork" itself as you point out in your other posting) had some negative impact on security or usability of Bitcoin. I know the Bitcoin Core page about Costs and Risks (https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/), but it doesn't seem like this list is really a list of "disadvantages" as most of it could be applied to all larger "jumps" in software development. If you or another participant of this discussion have a link for me, I'd be grateful if you share it.

as you can see by the post i done with the couple images included up above.

say you made a transaction that used segwit keys.. P2WPKH...
if you relayed it to an old node. (while network is in current format) the old node see it as an anyonecanspend, which would get rejected and not relayed by an old node (while unconfirmed). but if a pool was to include it. even without segwit working. the pool could confirm it and then spend it.

this is why core need pool acceptance predominently and are willing to split off the opposing pools.
this is why core want segwit tx relays to be where segwit nodes are a separate layer to the old nodes. where segwit 'translates' the transactions into something old nodes cant mess with.

ok explaining the bit after the first picture in last post i made.

hopefully the color coding shows how core envision the node connections of the network will change. where the purple line is the "special white listed old nodes".. where the segwit nodes translate the block into standard 1mb block format

concentrating on left side below.. the red pool at the centre. going outwards
https://i.imgur.com/6Jg8Azc.png
EDIT:gmaxwell buzzwords
downstream(old) <-> upstream(segwit) <-> pool

however not many people will manually want to white list those old nodes and will think 'the pool or someone else can do it', which obviously will be the pools because of them being a segwit node, is able to whitelist some old nodes
and so
the image on the right is more so what the network would look like by adding in some context of human psychy .. bar maybe a couple purple lines that might go between the segwit nodes and the old nodes from some people who may make the extra effort


all because sending a segwit transaction unconfirmed to old nodes and pools not segwit ready has issues.
like i said they have not even got intention to release a wallet with segwit keys (p2wpkh p2wsh). and wont release it until the pools are ready and they have some segwit nodes to act as the gate keepers and translate the data to old nodes(in the left utopia)

Segwit gives you 1.7-2MB blocks. People telling you otherwise are lying.

Franky is talking utter drivel. Whether LN is going to "work" is debatable, but the usual talking points against it (centralisation?! fees?!) are laughably far from reality.


The segwit *concept* itself, as you put it, has no drawbacks because it is a fix of a fairly serious design flaw in Bitcoin. Any particular implementation will always have risks and might have drawbacks; the soft-fork implementation chosen has tremendous benefits and some fairly minor risks, heavily ameliorated by a year of testing. There's no reason to assume it must have a reasonable share of benefits and drawbacks; you'd expect people to choose an implementation with a lot more of the former than the latter!

Everyone on here saying "well segwit is a bit crap but i guess i'll vote for it as the best for now" is for sure talking from a perspective of ignorance, and having listened to equally ill informed people. It's actually a brilliant piece of work and a huge step forward, and immediately gives us ~2MB blocks (whether that's a good idea is up for debate, but if that's what you want, you get it).

IF 100% of people move funds to segwit p2wpkh/p2wsh keys..

if only 50% of people do it. then expect 1.3mb-1.5mb capacity increase.

oh and its a 1 time max possibiility.. you cant resegwit a segwit to get upto 3mb..

oh and once people start using different features like CSV CLTV (adding extra bytes) confidential payments(adding upto1kb) even if its the same 2in 2out tx...
that will add more data (mb weight) to a block.. but no increase in tx count..
EG we could see

1.0mb=2500tx today
2.1mb=4500tx after activation and IF 100% utility of keys being segwit.. and then
4.0mb=4500tx when using the new features

but lets digress to LN seeing as u think its laughable and not what i said it would be

have you actually seen the penalties and fee's of LN
have you understood how LN multisig works (2 party authorisation) which can lead to hubs setting up to be the second party of everyones contract

have you done the maths, run scenarios,? if you ignore using a hub and instead go for the 'hop' idea of LN... the costs are even bigger and penalty risk is higher

eg
A<->B
B<->C
C<->D
D<->E
imagine A wanted to pay E using the 'hop' concept.
first A move funds to B..
B wont change his funds with C for free so A has to pay a fee to B to thank him for his involvement
next B move funds to C..
C wont change his funds with D for free so A has to pay a fee to C to thank him for his involvement
next C move funds to D..
D wont change his funds with E for free so A has to pay a fee to D to thank him for his involvement

so to pay E is 4x the fee compared to just trading with B
the risks are due to no previous interactions with other hops. all of their locktimes will differ which snowballs into some channels closing earlier than expected.

this is what blockstream are hoping for. so this is where they become X (a hub)

A - X - E
   / | \
 B  C  D

now everyone only has to pay 2x hop fee but everyone can trade with each other.
downside.
now X has 50% authorisation permission status with everyone.
now X has can be the deciding factor of how long they want to make customers funds mature for after settlements confirm (CLTV)
now X has can be the deciding factor of chargbacking their customers funds after settlements confirm (CSV revokes)

yea they may get some competition where starbucks or walmart become a hub. and offer a cheaper fee. but thinking that the 'hop' concept will be used dominantly is not a rational end result.

oh and its worth people really

If its for the better. Why not give it a try? Its for the improve of bitcoin. I dont really know what can be the effect of this when it happen. I saw many people agree to segwit. But some are not agree. Can anyone tell me why? Theres so much explanation from the comments but i really dont understand. So tell me in a simple.way.

those that want it, are mainly paid devs that NEED it to work due to their investment contracted future features needed to repay investors. or sheep that dont quite understand the exaggerations and over promises made. and dont understand how much has been swept under the carpet and not talked about.

the majority that dont care, undecided or dont want it. are risk averting such a change thats only a temporary gesture of temporary benefit.

I voted "I don't know" because I literally did not know anything about this SegWit thing.
But still, I voted because I am interested in making this happen. Why not? It might help our community grow stronger.
I'll keep this in my watchlist.

I was voting the 3rd option. Where the SegWit will goes and anyone doesn't know about that. But totally Roger Ver is winning this round. And again this is not about the improvement elements or something like that. But it's about money.
They're going to the where it can give advantages.   ;D

This is Theymos' territory so of course "Yes" will win here. Big blockers are only a small portion of the bitcointalk.org population because they either left or they are not as vocal. Another big portion are the people who do not care and have no clue what is going on as shown by the majority of posts here from people from countries like Indonesia or Philippines. Sorry but it is true.

Try the same poll in forum.bitcoin.com and see how skewed the results are towards "No". That forum is Roger Ver's territory.

There's a considerable split between the "yes" and "no" voting blocks, and I think it does tell a rather interesting tale that the community doesn't otherwise seem to be painting. Apparently, miners are just pushing it around 40% support, or that's the highest number I have heard so far, while this vote is probably looking at closer to 70% or 80% of the total vote, assuming everyone was forced to vote one way or another.

For those who don't know it, Franky1 appears to have a full time job lying about segwit on Bitcoin talk.  I see that he now has technobabble charts to match his technobable claims. The graphs look sciency but actually have nothing to do with Bitcoin at all-- no part of Bitcoin before of after segwit has any resemblance to either of those meshy graphs.  He's stuffing that stuff into his posts in order to make people who don't know much about the technology believe that he knows more than them.

I have him on ignore and I strongly recommend other people set him on ignore too.

I got asked to post some corrections here, so I am.

Pre-segwit nodes know they don't understand segwit transactions so they simply do not relay or mine them. They don't cause any issues.  The reason they do not relay or mine them is because segwit uses some intentionally constructed forward compatibility in the protocol, which was put in by Satoshi specifically to enable new signature systems.  They'll tolerate things using this forward extensibility when they show up in blocks, but because they can't completely judge the validity on their own, they don't mine them (or relay them) themselves.

0.14 will be released in Feburary/March and has nothing to do with segwit. Segwit support went into 0.13.1.

No, 0.14 is exactly the same as 0.13.1 with its connections and don't do anything special with relaying unconfirmed transactions.  Sounds like you are mixing up the behavior of 0.14 with the behavior of pre-segwit nodes.


The behavior of segwit enabled nodes is no mystery. The software has been complete for almost a year now, and has been running on the majority of the nodes on the network is months.  They don't "whitelist segwit nodes" to make things simple or otherwise.

To avoid any instantaneous disruption of the network topology segwit nodes make no changes to their connection behavior when segwit activates. So if they would divide the network, it would already be divided.  ... though considering that over 61% of listening nodes are segwit, it would be impossible for them to 'divide' the network in two even if their behavior were like you inaccurately describe it.

Nope. No more block versions are sent out, if someone wants a stripped block they get a stripped block. But every node creates stripped blocks for non-segwit peers that want them, and in no case does two versions need to be sent to any peer.

And yet no such 'advertisement' has happened or is necessary.   That might have been the case if there was risk of segwit activating with only a couple percent of nodes being upgraded, but a couple percent was passed in the first few hours of 0.13.1's release.

Again, 61% of reachable nodes. If a consensus of nodes were all that were required-- that would have long since been passed. But softforks do not require nodes beyond a bare minimum. They're safe with just mining.


The guide is also quite specific that you have the freedom to do nothing.  If you want segwit validation for the strongest security you can also get it without modifying your existing software and risking disruption of your operation.  This is pure flexibility that you have from a softfork, a free choice you can make or not make, which is ripped away from you by hardforks. In a hardfork you cannot retain your existing infrastructure at all, you must replace it with upgraded software which may be incompatible with the customizations and downstream modules you already have running.


Segwit has more hashrate than BIP66 did this many days after start (https://i.imgur.com/KNmsOUR.png).  Your opinion is possibly being manipulated by malicious people who are exploiting the fact that it often takes miners a long time to upgrade to try to convince you that segwit will not activate.

It will activate if people want it and make their preferences known, no more, no less.  Contrary to franky1's claims I nor any of the other developers get paid based on segwit activating. We did our part.

Personally, I'm happy that it hasn't activated yet (though not so happy about the people lying about it).  The lack of urgency in getting it going coupled with the continued health and success of Bitcoin without any capacity increase just shows what a big stinking liar people like franky1 have been with their hyper-aggressive doom and gloom claims that Bitcoin was going to fail unless it had a capacity increase ASAP.

what are the other solution now besides the hard fork to 2mb? if there are not any and we can not hard fork to 4mb/8mb because miners don't agree, and they either don't want to activate segwit, there is no solution in this

i rememer that the miners were in agreement(at least the majority) with hard forking to 2mb at least, they changed their mind?

i think that this consensus mechanics is brokern, it should be in this way, if you have not a better solution you should agree with the best available one

Strictly speaking, I'm not very familiar with all the technical aspects and gory details of the SegWit update (apart from the increase in the block size if that could count as SegWit awareness), but I know that without SegWit there can't be the Lightning Network in the future since it seems to depend on this update (as far as I know). The latter should be a giant step ahead in the Bitcoin evolution (provided it delivers on its promises, of course)...

Therefore I'm all in (for SegWit activation)

actually you are wrong.
i am not an expect in this matter but from what i have read from experts, Lightning Network uses payment channels with Hashed TimeLock Contracts. Both of those things are currently usable on Bitcoin mainnet without segwit, so LN is possible without segwit.

what segwit does is (i think) making it easier and safer.

you can also read this: http://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup

edit: funny thing is when you search "lightning network without segwit" you see cryptocoinnews shitty article spreading false information once again!

SegWit provides improvements that allow to use the Lightning Network at its full potential

As I got it, without SegWit the payment channels you are talking about could get stuck (mutated or malleated), so we would have to either set timeouts limiting the efficiency of the channels or provide another fix for the malleability issue. Without the malleability fix that SegWit introduces, there can't be a trustless Lightning Network. Maybe, I'm missing something else here

I heard that LN will make bitcoin more centralized, and if with segwit you have this full potential, it make sense for miners to not want to activate segwit, they don't want a centralized bitcoin

Honestly speaking, I voted " i don't know" since I don't really know what segwit is, its purpose, objective or what.
But, I am beginning to get interested with it now, I'll begin to study it really sounds interested with me now. Hope this thread will help me to know what segwit is.

@franky1: Your post talks about the disadvantages of the soft fork, not about segwit itself. So you're not answering my question. For now, @waxwing is more convincing to me.

But I disagree with this statement:


Since November, we've had multiple days with full blocks. Many people already have complained about their transactions not getting confirmed. A higher fee would only solve the problem if a large part of the transactions could be considered spam (that means, transactions that would not be sent if the fee was higher).

But transaction volume is increasing steadily: Even if 30% of the current block size is made of spam, in a few months - given the actual growth rate - the blocks will be full of "legit" transactions. That's why I think it is somewhat urgent to do something. 2 MB (like with Segwit) will be enough for now. If there is nothing done, I fear if we have a boom or price rally in the next months transaction volume could explode and the scalability problems would be visible for everyone, bringing us a lot of bad news and disappointed users.

I wished both parties could "cool down" a bit, I don't want Bitcoin to die slowly because of shitstorms.

the average user of which i am one just want bitcoin to work well and not have all these arguments about blocksiaze, lets just get it done.  the whole blocksize debate is starting to hurt bitcoins cred, i have even started to see people on twitter talking about hardforks, which i think would be a disaster.

Your comment seems strange to me, virtually every block is full, and has been for most of the last year, barring some low times on weekends. This isn't in and of itself a problem.

And sure more capacity might be needed, but the lack of urgency from the broader community around segwit is pretty good evidence that it isn't currently.  Talk is cheap. :)

Can someone please explain the meaning of segregated witnesses in simple English devoid of technical terminologies so those who are not computer geeks can understand why the whole community is so worked up :-\ :-\

you literally said it in the same reply.. they do not relay them.. meaning its an issue..
if a segwit node connected to a old node and then the old node connects to a pool... the pool wont get the tx.. because the old node drops it.

segwit node-old node- pool

so this is where segwit has to mess with what it connects to, to ensure its tx's get relayed to a pool
old node-segwit node- pool

or to get past your padantic sidestepping.. segwit by default looks to find segwits first and then after activation it will have to white list old nodes
edit: old nodes(downstream) of the segwit node(upstream/gatekeeper)

a malicious pool could include it in a block and then spend it. hence why you fear making transaction now with p2wpkh keys right now.. and have not included the p2wpkh key generation for mainnet use in the versions you have released so far.


fine you are releasing something unrelated in 0.14.0. but 0.14.X or 0.15.X... whatever the version number will be that includes MAINNET utility of p2wpkh and p2wsh key generation wallets, wont be released until after segwit activation.
im kind of thinking your just being knit picky about the version number rather then the fact of the p2wpkh and p2wsh key generation wallets available only AFTER activation, context.
again lets not play your version number knitpicky game (facepalm at ur fail)
the version with the p2wpkh and p2wsh key generation wallets, AFTER activation will ensure there is a path from a segwit node to a pool because as you yourself said old nodes have issues and wont relay segwit unconfirmed tx's (red text at top)

right now segwit is not activated so nothing now needs to change as there is only one varient of data being created right noe..
but in the context of after activation..

the context of it is instead of white listing OLD nodes as special and then send the blocks in a format old nodes understand. they will just connect to other segwit nodes and let the pools send whichever version block needs to go to whichever version node.
i even quoted the guide that says it too.. where messing with old nodes is a hassle(needing to white list old nodes.. so human psychology is that people wont whitelist old nodes but prefer segwit nodes.
you are really chomping hard at the bottom of the barrel of words.. rather then being honest of the context.


yes your segwit nodes are already avoiding connecting to older nodes(even when right now its not nessessary).. i hear many people shouting loudly how they are not white listing old nodes already.
oh im inaccurate because my image was a 50/50 but i bet your claim is that its not a 50/50 because you see 61%... (facepalm).. the context is that old nodes and new nodes are not going to interact as much..
again knick pick the numbers if you want... but atleast try to aim at being honest with the context. because it is a failure of your honesty and a failure of you actually making a point by side stepping the context with silly knitpicks.

you again are petty knitpicking.. i never said a node RECEIVES 2 variants.. i said a pool or a node that has been generous to white list old nodes. has to CREATE 2 varients (your buzzwords, stripped and unstripped). sending one varient to new and one variant to old..
petty knit picker. you have still not said anything that makes a point that differs. you are just swapping common speech for your buzzwords

so because you have enough gatekeepers old nodes are meaningless to you
if segwit activates and lets say nodes stayed at under XX%.. by looking at the context of your reply. seems you will just leave oldnodes reliant on the very few generous segwit nodes and pools that do white list old nodes. but not care much about old nodes being part of the network because segwit are the gate keepers


so your context is that old nodes are not important. and ok to ignore old nodes..
oh and as for bare minimum of segwit nodes.. shall we let you retry you explaining the relaying of unconfirmed transactions needed to ensure segwit transactions reach a pool (instead of your side stepping the concept to argue about the number version).

yes you can run a old node without changing. but ur relying on segwit nodes to do the gate keeper duties. and filtering data to an old node.
if you had integrity, you would actually inform people their old node is not full validating.
if you had integrity, you would actually inform people their old node is reliant on a sgwit node being the gate keeper.
you wouldnt just stroke peoples heads and tell them its ok to be treated as second class like its nothing.


a hard fork using consensus only activates with high majority. and i personally have been honest to say that old nodes not upgrading will be left unsynced.. yes its harsh. but atleast its honest.

side node.. "downstream modules".. is that what your buzzword is for the older nodes your segwit nodes have to whitelist. while segwit use the upstream modules buzzword i called the gatekeepers.. ill remember that.

I will vote for yes. If its for improvement of bitcoin. Lightning Network and adding block size are good for bitcoin. To be honest, i really dont know what they comment. Im not a tech nerd. But these two should be the major improvements should make.

segwit in regards to real scaling, is a temporary gesture.. a one time boost/stopgap
lets say it was a full release last april and it got activated by june last year.. by this month now. all of its advantages would have been seen and we would still be needing dynamic blocks now.

the best solution is for core to just release a dynamic block version along with segwit. and join the level playing field.

late 2015 core devs agreed to a plan of segwit mid 2016 and dynamic blocks by mid 2017
but in spring 2016.. core started back tracking saying nothing was agreed and they were just independent devs and had no ability to put code into bitcoin core in regards to dynamic blocks... (luke jr received alot of backlash because of that).

pools are not going to break the rules and push for something if nodes are not ready for it..
which core knows. so they have prevented having a dynamic block release. and now done their own temporary feature as soft... but shot their self in the foot because again pools wont push forward with a big change unless there is a big node acceptance. even if devs feel that nodes dont deserve a vote. pools are smart to know for validation security nodes have a place in the network.
hense why segwit is holding at 75% pools undecided about segwit

We could debate all we want and I think even Satoshi could come here and vote but since this is an open source technology only the majority of nodes are going to be the victor party here. though if I'm gonna pay much higher fees after activation I'll do so as I don't have any other choice if I want to benefit from bitcoin, do whatever you want as long as I can wake up and see bitcoin is still around and people buy it from me I really don't care.

Freedom of money babe and freedom of choice is what brought me here and will keep me here until I die :D.

OK, should I say then, they are "fuller"? According to this chart (https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size) it was in November when the average block size passed the 900 kB size regularly. Since then the number of days/hours where we have more than 20.000 unconfirmed transactions in the waiting list is increasing.

In the current situation TX with lower fees mostly get eventually confirmed after a couple of hours, so it "seems" not urgent still, but my point is that in every price rally in the past the transaction volume grew at a higher rate than the normal one - so in the next rally we will probably have severe capacity problems (If the price manages to break the all time high this scenario could be only a couple of weeks ahead.).

PS: I consider it a good thing that Litecoin will enable Segwit before BTC, as I hope that in the case of success the Segwit adoption by miners and nodes could go up in BTC too.

Thank you for giving us the correct information. Yes most of us here do not know the real technical details about Segwit but that is not our fault. It is also not our fault if we start to believe franky1's posts because he is really good to make himself look and appear smart to his targets. Please assign someone from the staff to explain Segwit more in the forum no matter how many times the topic is asked. Sometimes we do not get it all at once. We are not as smart as you guys. Please be patient with us.

if you read what gmaxwell wrote. not with a blind devotion of gmaxwell hat. but an methodical and open minded hat on you will see he avoided the critical context and was wishy washy about the critical stuff and just knit picked the stupidest things he can find.

EG arguing about version numbers.
EG arguing about how segwit nodes dont have to white list segwit nodes..

when my posts on previous page and even segwits own guide, were about whitelisting old nodes (downstream modules as gmaxwell wants to call them)

my post on previous page with the images explained how old (downstream) nodes wont accept segwit transactions. so segwit has to be the gate keeper(upstream) in the middle joining to the pool not randomly on the outside going through an old nodes.

but hey. i bet you just skimmed what he said and just thought "oh well its gmaxwell lets trust him"

gmaxwell has been known to slide around the truth and throw in buzzwords to make what one person says.

he tried to do it before when i said about his confidential payment codes CPC being upto 1kb+.. he said there was no such thing as a confidential payment code in confidential transactions,
but he soon shut up when i started using his buzzwords of his "confidential Pedersen commitments" CPC being 1kb+

so dont let him throw big words at you and make him side step the critical stuff. because he is known to sidestep issues and brush things under the carpet if you dont use his buzzwords

eg he will deny intentional splits but will agree if you call it a bilateral fork..

. in my reply to him you will see what i mean where he side steps the context of the critical stuff

Maybe if you do a pool like this, you should explain what these options do really mean?
I know you wrote "If you don't know - don't vote", but this is a perfect opportunity to spread the knowledge about the topic and get some more relevant results.
No offence - just saing. :)

PS: I know a bit about the problematics, but I'm too afraid to vote, because I don't think I have enough informations to make a decision.

i was also with dynamic block but i've heard there are some problems, first of all is if an attacker is abusing the network by flooding it and increase the dynamic block momentarily, this will lead to some sort of centralization toward strong node

the other thing is to follow the monero project with its dynamic block, but it will change a bit the fundamental economy of bitcoin, making it inflate for a small amount like monero did

Doesn't matter what the entire world thinks or votes, the community's opinion means nothing in this case.
All that matters and counts are miners/nodes, the option is on the table and is not mandatory, no one is forced to do anything as long as they are the majority and even if the minority decides to stick with being an old node then they are still a part of the network, we are not going to end up like ETH and ETC there is no conspiracy only an improvement and either will lead to bitcoin's success or continue to be as it was before.

If dynamic block has some problems, I think that the best option would be to overcome/fix them. An option would be to set an upper limit of the dynamic block, at least it would reduce the flood problem.


I would love to see this solution implemented. It could even get more miners adopt SegWit just because of the full package ;)


About the vote: I see it as a good way to see "what ordinary people think", but it means nothing more. I voted here, but I use SPV wallet (and many of you do the same, I think) and our vote will never be visible in the network. That's why nodes and miners were asked and not the ordinary people.

I don't care about "scaling" in SegWit as much as I care about the malleability fix. I'm not a big fan of coffee transactions on the chain anyway but I'm really interested to see Lightning in action which would work a little better with the fix.

SegWit yay!

Then blocks would be no longer dynamic

In other words, with the upper limit set on the block size the current implementation of Bitcoin can be thought of as dynamic too. Some rogue miners choose not to include any transactions in the block they find (apart from the block generating transaction), some include only the transactions with the highest fees, and the size of the blocks is only a few kilobytes (or even less than that). In this manner, blocks are as dynamic as they could possibly get

You do have a valid point. But I see it only partly valid.

An older discussion was that some miners cheat or something is defective and until that is fixed any other solution is only a lie. It happened at one of the first big spam attacks I know of.

From what I know, now the block size is fixed. So whether the miner includes 0 transactions or max possible, the block size will be the same.
I see the dynamic block ... dynamic. If it has an upper size, we will have the same problem as now sometimes, if there will be huge spam attacks (if the upper limit is 16 MB or 64 MB, you can imagine..)
In the normal days, the blocks will be like now, even smaller sometimes, leading to a not-so-big increase of the blockchain over time.
Does this sound ok or is there something extremely wrong in this logic?

Over 60% voted for yes, I don't know how to calculate for bias, but this figure says alot about the different in opinion among the BTC users and the miners. I think the passage of SegWit depends on political solution to the issue of scaling.

Some people are bent on using divide and rule to promote their interest and both parties keep telling us half truth because they want to protect their interest

I was actually me who had raised this issue why there were blocks half-empty or just empty when literally many dozens of thousands of transactions had been queued and didn't get confirmed in time. Some guy (don't remember his name) who is behind some mining software came up with an explanation that it was due to misconfiguration on the miners' part as well as deliberate actions of rogue miners (allegedly for the sake of efficiency). Regarding fixed block sizes irrespective of the block content (i.e. how many transaction it includes), this simply makes no sense and creates useless or even detrimental overhead...

Really, what's the point of adding empty space to the block just to keep its size to 1Mb in all cases?

I voted Yes. I see good things in both SegWit and dynamic block, so I have no problems if one or the other is selected, but from what I have read, I prefer SegWit over dynamic block.

It would have had some reasons, like better parsing speed for the client or predictability for the future size of the blockchain.
However, I did a quick search (https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block) and now I know that I was wrong and I should have researched before talking. Sorry.
I will leave my post as it is now, because others may have the same misconception and my learn something of it, especially if they are as lazy as I am.

So.. the block is already variable with upper limit so all I said was on the wrong assumption.
Now I am puzzled why there's so much debate on increasing the block size, since the "effort" of the blockchain would not be so big.

From what I've read and understood, even a completely dynamic blocksize is achievable without much of a change, since in the block, the bytes 4-7 (0-based) tell the total size of the block, which can be a 4 bytes = 32 bits number, so up to ~4GB (!).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Now back to the original discussion:
1. If 100% dynamic block is an issue, then fix the issue or limit it (even if limiting it makes it work like now), but at least limit it to something a couple of levels higher than what we have now (much higher than 2MB).
2. Such move may need a fork and then SegWit can be even forced "in the same package".


I know that this kind of move would cause more debate, but.. we have it already and we can see that SegWit is not adopted by the ones that should

Bitcoin will never reach its full potential without segwit. Without segwit we can't have a lot of cool features that will improve bitcoin later on, andreas recently wrote an article on why segwit is the way to go:

https://medium.com/segwit-co/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.xy3j5m4i3

Time to activate segwit otherwise keep crying about why bitcoin sucks.

actually it doesn't say anything.
because first of all it has only 68 votes (which is pretty disappointing because this topic was in the first page for the past 3 days and it has already 1400+ views) and you can not say anything with only 68 votes.

so far people seem to be more interested in "posting a comment about segwit" rather than "voting"!

You can't just take and change some variable (or constant) in the code

In fact, you can but your blocks (if you are a miner) will be considered as invalid by other miners and thus discarded by the network, so you will be losing the mining reward every time you find a block and don't follow the "rules". That seems to be one of the reasons if not the primary one why changes, even vital changes are so hard to make in Bitcoin. On the one hand, this is good since it preserves Bitcoin from attempts at malicious changes, but on the other, in the times of change it will backfire and drag Bitcoin backward

Average blocksize is a pretty useless metric there, because it's highly distorted by miners that produce empty blocks  (or nearly empty blocks)-- which are still as full as they're going to get.  More useful is the n-th percentile size, which is ~1MB for most values of N... or the rolling maximum of the rolling minimum.

there are many ways to have a dynamic protocol

put short nodes FIRST have to accept a certain size for the network to happily accept without much/any orphan drama
next pools need to be rest assured that if pools made blocks bigger then current consensus it wont cause much/any orphan drama.

it is not as simple /silly as pools make bigger blocks if the mempool is overfilled due to an abuser flooding it..

firstly node need to flag their acceptance they can cope with Xmb.. then pools flag their intent to make anything upto xmb to give a prompt for the laggers to adjust to xmb or be left unsynced when pools deem it safe to move forward.

then when it meets a certain safe majority level pools dip their toe in the water.
EG imagine majority nodes flagged 2mb was ok.. pools then flagged a majority ok to make 2mb base blocks..
at a certain point pools 'test the water' by making a 1.001mb block to see the orphan risk, then the next block maybe 1.002mb and so on safely incrementing up, naturally with demand until whenever blocks get to be 2mb full due to demand.

its not going to be a 2 mb or a 1gigabyt by mindnight thing. nodes and pools will do it safely.

after all.. did pools and nodes jump from 0mb to 1mb overnight in 2009-2015.. nope.
after all.. did pools and nodes jump from 0.5mb to 1mb overnight in 2013-2015(after the sipa caused db fork event).. nope

it was natural and safe and orphan mitigating low risk movements.

I would be tempted to say yes, as I have to this day never seen any convincing explication about why this is a bad idea. For this reason, and since I would like that we get out of this eternal drama about the blocksize, I start about a yes basis, that might change if anyone ever prove me this is a bad idea.

I was almost sure that this means a fork.
And it has to be supported by the majority, else we can end up like Ethereum.
I guess that this is the reason the devs do only changes that don't risk to trigger the Ethereum fiasco.

And then SegWit is the best we can get for now. :(

its shared on r/btc ?

nah, r/bitcoin trolls want to sybil attack a opinion poll by getting the blockstream trolls to all vote in favour of segwit even when the majority of thos voting dont even run a node or do mining.

polls like this are just keeping the civil war alive and avoiding "consensus" by only having 2 options and worded to make it sound like the options can only oppose each other.. rather than a mutual (consensus) agreement.

i stated this poll needed a third option of 'yes if both were included' (not verbatim) near the start of the topic. but the OP refused to be rational

@franky1  Lol you are really fudding full force. Your keyboard ist burning  ;D   Meanwile Segwit-Node Adoption is rising ...

lol wow, your reply including so much proof, so much rational explanation, such much logical and rational reasoning to come to your assumption..

.. oh wait it didnt

Yeah im basicly fighting with /r/btc weapons ... Trump style, seems like its effective these days  :D ;D

This sentence only disqualifies you from any serious discussion ... so dont talk shit about rational explanation,  logical and rational reasoning . You are a troll aswell.

we all know that only gmaxwell and those in r/bitcoin want the community divided.
they call anything not core an altcoin. they try to get anything not core to split off (bilateral fork)
funny part is that all the other 70 differ versions (dozen different brands) are all running on bitcoins mainnet now, and for a long time and not causing issues.
yep nodes with 8mb block buffer are running right now and are accepting blocks and not orphaning anything and not autobanning or black listing opposing buffer setting nodes.
not rejecting transactions not becoming gate keepers not doing any harm..

yep nodes with dynamic block buffer are running right now and are accepting blocks and not orphaning anything and not autobanning or black listing opposing buffer setting nodes.
not rejecting transactions not becoming gate keepers not doing any harm..

unlike core features

those in r/bitcoin point the finger in the other direction when saying a proposal they want.. to make them look like the victim and gain sympathy.
they are the ones playing the psychology games. they are the ones that want dominance not everyone on the same equal playing field.
they are the ones desiring centralised commercial services.

i feel sorry for those in r/bitcoin being handed scripts to follow and handed the same scripts by dozens of people to make it seem like its real because more then one person is saying it to them.

if only those at r/bitcoin didnt just play follow the leader games and instead actually read the code and looked passed all the buzzword games that are thrown at them by the script writers.

please if there is anything you can ever be advised to do, it would be... research.

research consensus
research the code
research the context
research scenarios of how rational and researched context plays out

dont copy and paste summaries scripted to you
dont throw boring repeated stuff that has been made a moot point years ago
dont just play the victim card that someone mentioned someones name. and instead look for why and what was said about them

seems more people are screaming im fud because i mention gmaxwells name. rather than about why or what im actually saying about his plans and desires.

atleast research bitcoin and understand it. otherwise all your doing is attacking a pseudonym, not the proposals or features of bitcoin

Segwit will not be activated in Bitcoin so the big blockers have nothing to be afraid of. One interesting development is in Litecoin. It might be a big possibility that Segwit will be activated there and soon they will have their own version of the Lightning Network. Can one now say that Litecoin is more advanced than Bitcoin if Segwit is activated and they have their LN operational? Will Bitcoin see the light and follow their example?

The issue with a dynamic blocksize, following a model similar to that of Monero, in Bitcoin is that there is eventually no incentive for the miners as the base reward falls. The reason the dynamic blocksize works in Monero is that Monero has a minimum base reward of 0.6 XMR per block. A rough equivalent in Bitcoin would be 3 XBT per block in perpetuity. Fees have little or no impact on mining security in Monero. They are actually there to control the blocksize increase and deter spam attacks. So unless one is prepared to violate the 21 million XBT maximum limit, I am afraid there may be little that the Monero project may be able to offer Bitcoin on blocksize scaling.

What I must strongly caution against is taking elements of Monero's dynamic blocksize, with critical security components removed, and expecting them to work in Bitcoin. This I am afraid can easily lead to disaster.

Edit: The total fees per block in Monero are actually set to be proportional to the block reward. Think about this when combined with a block reward that falls to zero over time.

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." <Eleanor Roosevelt>
Discuss the merits of SegWit, not who the lead developer's baby momma's sister had a beef with last weekend. Technical merits, not gossiping about people.


85% of nodes are Core (https://coin.dance/nodes). The biggest alternative has only 7%.


95% of /r/bitcoin posts have nothing to do with scaling. They're about "Oo look I started selling cookies for Bitcoin" and occasionally news about ETF's and regulations pertaining to cryptocurrencies being passed.




gmaxwell puts code on the internet. You can accept it or reject it, your choice. Nobody's putting a gun to your head and forcing you to run Bitcoin Core (yet 85% choose to do this, the vast majority apparently).


tl;dr - 85% of Bitcoin users voluntarily have chosen to use Bitcoin Core over alternatives. Most of those people don't give a fuck about who gmaxwell is or what he says.

That would be utterly pathetic

I guess if Litecoin adopts SegWit (and LN soon thereafter), it will be hard for Bitcoin to follow its lead since that would show in the open that it has no panties how corrupt and backward Bitcoin itself is, after so many disputes, debates, and quarrels. On the other hand, it will be more interesting to see how these updates will eventually affect the adoption and price of Litecoin. If everything is okay with updating Litecoin to SW and LN, this can't possibly have a negative effect but how much it could boost the price remains to be seen, though. So we should just watch Litecoin closely as it reacts on the news linked to the actual implementation of these proposals

mhm.. yea core are stupidly going for the most foolish 'dynamic' method they can, as a way to turn people away from wanting it.

its like going up to a starving man with food you know he wants.. then rubbing the food between your a*scrack and handing it to him. and when he refuses to eat it, because you have only offered uneatable food .. you can scream to the world that starving people are not starving. because they refused your food.

they are desperate to keep onchain scaling halted, so are suggesting a dynamic method with market cap penalising code just to scare people away from wanting it. (people are smart enough to stick away from such stupid methods like this)

then claim "people dont want it", rather than offering a clean straight forward natural, non penalising dynamic method which people do want.
 

---

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1512 (26.84%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1165 (20.68%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   116 (2%)

~50% are segwit supporting whether they realise it or not.. yep 50% implicitly, but an unknown number below 50% explicitly.
the difference between implicit and explicit terms is that some people upgrade just because they see something new and shiny but dont understand whats 'under the hood'. so its not ~50% full knowledge explicit desire. it's less
the other 35% you are mentioning above ~50% are undecided. yep even if they love core. they have not decided yet or they oppose segwit. by not upgrading
(try understanding the context of stats)

---

kind of funny, i have actually in many topics highlighted the tech, explained it in laymans ELI-5 and shown the finer details that others sweep under the rug or word twisted with buzzwords to hide its importance or meaning. but as soon as i mention a persons name... its treated as attacking their king and thus they must defend bad implementation to protect the king. even if they dont understand the implementation.

gotta love blockstream fans playing the victim card, especially after poking the bear first

Im not very sure about agreeing to segwit or not. What I know that if segwit is approved it will boost the bitcoin blockchain capacity compared to the current blockchain capacity. This will signal much bigger blocksize and much faster bitcoin transaction speed. But the problem lies on the votation of miners since it need to get at least 95% of the miners population to officially launched this network. So lastly I will not say yes or no but observed as of this moment.

no, because i do not like that place much. i don't like /r/bitcoin much either but it is a lot better than the other one.

but feel free to share, or even open up a new Poll here or on some other source like strawpoll or google polls if you think this is not good enough.

~7% are BU supporting whether they realise it or not.. yep 7% implicitly, but an unknown number below 7% explicitly.
the difference between implicit and explicit terms is that some people upgrade just because they see something new and shiny but dont understand whats 'under the hood'. so its not ~7% full knowledge explicit desire. it's less...

i have actually tried being unbiased.. and done such


highlighting the fact that old nodes drop/ignore uncomfirmd transactions.

and the fact that there are full(Segwit) and stripped(old) block versions of the same block data..

the network connections of nodes is affected to ensure less issues (this is swept under the carpet). so i done this.


please note
the not 100% node utility and not 100% whitelisting old nodes, change how the network dymanics look.
and
about transaction count
not 100% segwit key use, changes how much expectation/achievement of the actual one time boost of transaction count is actually reached.

Posting this here so a bunch of people with paid signatures can answer with short meaningless replies.

OP you do realize that running a poll, where random people with zero knowledge can vote and vote brigading can occur is really pointless? It won't provide you with any kind of valid results, not even for this small community of BTCT.

You can't split a blockchain with a successful and backwards compatible soft fork. It will only activate when 95% of the miners are signaling for a certain period of time.

If fully adopted by the network and wallet providers, it won't make any visible difference to the average user. If the user does not know about thing like CSV, CLTV and similar, they don't need to concren themselves with the technical details of Segwit.

standard sweep it under the carpet statement...
(facepalm)

Not accurate.  It activates when 95% of the last 2016 blocks include a SEGWIT support signal.  This does not require 95% miner support.  It requires support from the miners who mined those 1916 blocks.  This could be considerably fewer than 95% of all miners, and could be significantly less than 95% of all hashrate.  There is luck involved in finding blocks.

gmaxwell is part of the new world order and he controll the internett..
franky1's conspiracy theories incomming in 3..2...1  ;D

exaggerating what i have said to such an extent that you make yourself look silly instead of showing proof that gmaxwell isnt actually trying to change things.

how about try reading things rationally and logically.
oh and please dont throw in the "gigabyte by midnight" rhetoric as thats more scripted exaggerations of r/bitcoin.. the real conspiracy makers

You shouldn't burder the average Joe with in depth technicalities. It will not bring benefit of any sorts.

'Considerably fewer'? I'm certain that the 'luck factor' isn't that great to a specific miner or subset of miners in such a big period of time.

And there it is. Please include the Rothschilds  :D

Im missing blockstream ... its the genesisblock of all evil  ;D

Rule Nr1 for r/btc consiratists, somehow mention blockstream in a bad context. Logic is not necessary.

lol those running full nodes are wanting the information about the network .. and they deserve to know.

yea a couple million litenode/webwallet average joe users dont need to know because they have no intention to secure the network. but that does not mean sweeping things under the carpet and hiding the truth with wishy washy meaningless buzzwords to confuse people.



oh lauda.. havnt you seen the other plan.. intentionally blacklist known block producers to make sgwit nodes only see blocks from sgwit supporters to get the 95% trigger.

EG ban connections from old implementations to only get 2016 blocks from pools with new implementations and trigger the grace period as soon as it hits 1916 blocks.

in short cause an intentional split to get the soft fork activated..

---

separate subject. after activation when the real segwit fully functional implementation (p2wpkh wallet generation active) how many old nodes will you white list as your downstreamer? 1% 10% 0% or will you not be picky and allow any connection to connect..

be honest i have seen on other topics you have a keen interest in your node ban lists. so we both know you understand the concept

Franky1 must be the BU spokesman, who supplies you with #AlternativeFacts™  ;D

Ah yeah, meanwhile SW-node count growing  ;)

independant research, go try it. its mind and eye opening. you will ses passed all the scripts and actually see whats really happening.

please research
consensus
the code

then run some scenario's of how things will actually play out.
actually have an open mind and dont just play follow the leader.

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1528 (26.84%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1183 (20.78%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   117 (2%)

and minutes later

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1524 (26.74%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1183 (20.75%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   117 (2%)

wow it moves under 1% in a day.. and wow it goes up and down...
how about calm down and look at the long scale changes.. instead of celebrating at the 0.1% increases.. it make you look silly.

Blah blah blah blah Greg Maxwell is a bad, scary man blah blah blah something something Blockstream blah blah blah we need 5000 GB blocks immediately blah blah blah .

shame so many people get soo emotional just because i mentioned a name, so much so that they ignore the code and logic and context of the enitre conversation and just defend someones name.. lol.

Let it be 0,5% per day on avarage, thats 15% in a month... pretty awesome imho !  

Now lets look at BU ... ok never mind.
Ah and dont forget (sorry I have to use your words, but this explains it pretty good): ~7% are BU supporting whether they realise it or not.. yep 7% implicitly, but an unknown number below 7% explicitly.
the difference between implicit and explicit terms is that some people upgrade just because they see something new and shiny but dont understand whats 'under the hood'. so its not ~7% full knowledge explicit desire. it's less...

I was not talking about those people.

I was never stating that the truth should be hidden nor should thing be swept under the carpet. All I said that the average joe doesn't need to be burdened with the technical details. This doesn't mean that information should be withheld by them.

That still won't really cause a 'split'. It would still have a pretty big majority on one side.

Some comedy from people attacking each other in here. :D

the orphan consensus.. vs just rejecting blocks due to who made it. leaves segwit only seeing one chain of blocks and making their own blockheight. where other nodes make another chain of blocks without bias and ultimately having a higher blockheight. because they are not throwing blocks aside

consensus is where the network as a whole end up with just one chain of blocks of the same height

blocks should only be rejected if they have bad data. not because of 'brand bias'.

try running a scenario where gmaxwell mentions purposefully orphaning off opposing blocks..
and see what happens when you start banning certain pools as if they dont exist and then compare the resulting chains segwit see's to the chain the rest of the network see's. it will surprise you.

simply put: if there were this chain of blocks,
ADEBFADBECADEBFADBEC

imagining C is the opposer
legacy sees: ADEBFADBECADEBFADBEC
segwit sees: ADEBFADBE  [halt, unsync from network]

segwit stalls. because the A has a 'previous hash' of C which segwit refuses to recognise. so segwit cant accept A.. or the following blocks after that..

so now segwit pools need to make a block thats has a previous hash of E
and now the chains diverge..

You know whats your mistake ? You think you discovered the "truth" and all others are wrong. Conspiratist at its best ...
How you can be so sure that you have the "open" mind" ?

Conspiratists are funny people, they are 100% sure they are right and have an open mind n shit, but actually you behave exactly the same like you accuse others to do. Just from another viewpoint.

spend more time researching bitcoin and understanding it. and less time screaming insults to defend someones name.

So you hold it absolutly impossible that someone is in favour of the Segwit-solution, if he has done research and so on ? Do I get it right?

if they have done the research they would rebuttle with actual lines of code and actual scenarios. they would quote the context in a honourable and meaningful way..

but.. all i see is
rule 1: dont talk about segwit
rule 2: dont talk about leaders of segwit
rule 3: flame anyone negatively talking about segwit
rule 4: flame anyone negatively talking about segwit leaders
rule 5: just vote for segwit blindly

Sure you can talk about segwit tech, but not about leaders, blockstream and the usual shit...

i do talk about the tech, but if i mention someones name suddenly the topic meanders into "defend the leader" spam posts, where the tech and explanations get sidelined.

maybe also best that you dont defend the leader and waste time posting stuff unrelated to the tech and spend time reading the tech stuff.. thus everyone benefits.

You're preaching to the choir. Don't waste your breath on me in this regard.

See, now you understand how you're supposed to roll. Skip all steps and proceed to step 5. :D

i asked you a genuine question before..
when (if) segwit activates, are you going to whitelist old nodes or just connect to segwit nodes and leave it for pools and others to send stripped blocks to old nodes.
be honest. (i dont mean to ask negatively or in any attack i just want an honest open answer)

Sorry, I must have missed it. I don't plan on modifying my node settings unless it is expressively required. I usually do not do that. All I have changed so far is increasing the mempool size to several GB, increasing the dbcache to several GB and increasing the connection limit above the default (125 IIRC).

---

Why do you ask? Would you do this on your own node?

id let old nodes connect yes.
i just hope the POST-activation release has whitelisting turned off so it auto connects to anything and not having it secretly set as on. and needing those that like to tinker, to have to manually whitelist old nodes or disable whitlisting so that it becomes not biased
whiles those that dont tinker, dont realise they are biased by default

AFAIK new nodes do prefer nodes that have updated to 0.13.1 or later. However, they will eventually also connect to old nodes without any problems. My node is connected to several nodes running older versions. I'm not sure why this would become a problem post-activation of Segwit?

left = no biased connecting
right = biased connections )where the pools are left to do the sending of stripped blocks to old nodes)
          (bar a couple purple lines between new and old i didnt add)

https://i.imgur.com/6Jg8Azc.png

I think that is overly exaggerated. If my node is currently connected to several old nodes, I don't expect that to change post-Segwit activation. However, I know that I may be wrong. I have not looked into it.

well w already know the blockstream camp exaggerate their devotion.. people are actively banning and ignoring nodes that are not part of cores group of nodes
EG

so left image was the utopia expectation of segwit being the (upstream) gatekeepers getting the full data from pools and the sending stripped blocks to old nodes.

the right is the vision which includes the blockstream fanboy phsychy of intentionally blocking anything not core.. as exampled by some naive people

I guess I'm not part of the 'blockstream fanboy psychy' then. Whilst I truly hate nodes that are running outdated code (anything prior to 0.12.x and even those version themselves), I have not started banning any connections based on this. I would expect that the majority of node owners aren't doing this either, therefore the left picture is the more likely outcome.

my mindset is to not idly sit on my hands hailing people as kings. but to test and check things out and know the risks.

devs should have more critical minds.. like the old
"punch holes in it to see if it breaks"
"hack it and fix the bugs until it cant be easily hacked"
"treat it as broken until you have kicked it a few times and it still stands up"

i see too many glory utopian dreamers, and not many critical thinkers.
i see too many people protecting the devs instead of protecting the network. even going as far as messing with their network connections to give glory to devs (like the jetcash example)

almost 70% support SegWit and only 16% vote negatively.  ::)

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1502 (26.84%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1168 (20.87%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/     119 (2%)

nodes: under 50%

try not to include old nodes pre october 2016.. they are not segwit..

pools: 24%
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

Utterly pathetic or not it is the direction of where Bitcoin is going. Litecoin will get there first and it will either be treat Litecoin like a testnet or the Bitcoin testnet just became Litecoin's testnet. It will very much depend on one's point of view. But in the end Bitcoin could lag behind.

This is what you think

In fact, this is what I think myself since neither you nor me have vested interests in all this. But this is not how the other guys which are deeply involved in these affairs might look at such things. They have long ago lost their impartiality and now seem to be very jealous of these developments. Mark my words, when SW and LN get activated in Litecoin people start pointing a finger at Bitcoin. Personally, I'm interested in running an LN node (just don't have enough time to study it at the moment), but if the chances are that LN should get activated in Litecoin first, I will look into this coin

Connection behavior is the same pre and post segwit activation.  Having the network topology change all at once would be an unnecessary risk.

This has nothing to do with Segwit. The general mindset all around the globe is like that.

Anyone can do whatever they want with their network connections.

That's what I thought as well. It seems like franky's graphs are in case that everyone (?) besides the mining nodes bans old ones.

Almost 70% support to SegWit.
Franky's conspiracy theories doesn't work.
We are doomed  ;D

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1466 (25.95%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1228 (21.73%)
/Satoshi:0.13.99/   118 (2%)

49.68 = ~50 of nodes implicitly.. but far lower explicitly.
also nodes dont get a vote..

pools 23%
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png

so neither pools or nodes are at 70%.
plus if you take away the pools count from the node count. less than 50% nodecount.
yep pools were already counted as part of the ~50%
yep if you excluded pools multiple nodes the count goes down. (so dont imply missing 23% hashrate can add on 20% nodecount. as thats not how the measures work. they are independent of each other and measuring different things(my assumption of how you may have come to your wrong 70% figure))

the topology change has already occured.
matt corallo's Fibre as the green gatekeepers (aka gmaxwells upstreamers) in relation to the left side image of (few pages back post) the network visualised in a simple representation

the diversity recognition and acceptance behaviour can be white/blacklisted pre or post activation (nice bit of sweeping under the carpet word play from gmaxwell).. as jetcash has already proved by banning them already.. does not prove or disprove that it cant happen after segwit release

but topology vs diversity are different things
the diversity post segwit still to be determined after activation, once (cores own words) white listing old nodes (gmaxwells downstreamers) becames a more apparent thing.

i do laugh how gmaxwell makes half a statement to hide the full context

i find it funny how he isnt even commenting about
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/
https://bitcoincore.org/assets/images/filtering-by-upgraded-node.svg

because he knows the topology is already in the format i mentioned on the left side pic of (few pages back post) the network visualised in a simple representation, and the image in previous sentance of this post

Dont feed the troll  ;)

I looked at the poll... ::) 67% at the moment

/Satoshi:0.13.1/   1441 (25.26%)
/Satoshi:0.13.2/   1316 (23.07%)
 /Satoshi:0.13.99/ (117) (2%)

still around 50% im laughing at where your getting your 70% from

I try again. Slowly.
This is a poll thred.
Its shows 67%
6..7..%

you think that trolls that dont even run a full node and have been advertised to spam a poll.. has more meaning that the actual NODE count

now you see why im laughing.
you dont even realise the context of the stats.

I just pointed out that the poll is 67%. Nothing more (and yes some "trolls", like me, run a full node)

Nobody was advertised to spam this poll, otherwise it would have a much higher rating. So you're talking about node count as support, and you're laughing? Let me show you something:

https://i.imgur.com/7YUYDNE.png

---

My reaction:
https://i.makeagif.com/media/10-01-2015/_sbYKw.gif

And 200 of them prob. run by Ver himself ....

I guess the Hashrate is also fake, they are running core and signaling for BU ...   No sane person, who invested millions in mining would rely on untested node software.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5pb2sd/vote_on_bitcointalk_segwit_yay_or_nay/

It's easy to see that there are a number of arguments for and against SegWit. In fact it is difficult to know the best solution at the moment, especially for something that has never been tested.
I think the good thing about all this is that this improvement will be implemented in Litecoin, and this will allow us to know more clearly what is the best thing for Bitcoin.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that Ver is running them, but considering what happened with Bitcoin Classic it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a single entity is running a majority of those.

It has zero comments.

There are very few reasonable arguments against Segwit.

1) There is no alternative solution.
2) Segwit has been extensively tested on the testnet. If Litecoin adopts it, then that will be the next step.

I have to confess that I do not know. That is probably one of the most importants things that happened to Bitcoin yet and I can not choose my side. That is kinda a shame :-[...

Well. there is always Frankys A-B-C-D-X theory that has been debunked to hell and back. I'm sure he will re-post it again shortly.

Well you know there is basicly no side to choose: There is a well tested software (Bitcoin Core 13.2) and on the other side some untested buggy something (BU 1.0.0) that could possibly fuck up bitcoin really bad (and almost forked the network two days ago).

I wouldnt consider the BU-"Team" a competitor to core. If core is so bad n shit, why BU is c'n'p all the new fixes from the core-client?

So the choise is stick to staus quo (13.0 ... which is fine aswell) or Bitcoin 13.2.

https://s23.postimg.org/ta7w049ln/shia_lebouf_just_do_it.jpg

Do it!

Just do it!

This has gone way too long, surrender, SegWit it is, lets scale this shit.

Are LTC blocks full now?  What is the motivation for LTC users/nodes/miners to adopt LTCSegwit?  How will the LTC experience apply to BTC?

lol
it was a reject that was handled in 3 seconds..

core pools make rejects and orphans a few times a week that last more than 3 seconds
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks

oh and if you were around in 2013 and remember the mega orphan chain due to the levelDB bug..
guess who caused it..
yep SIPA. the guy you trust to offer sgwit, and implement it without nodes being ready...
couldnt even sort out a database 4 years ago

by the way what would be a real mindblowing experience for you to try.
instead of thinking that bitcoin needs masters. think about consensus. where the bitcoin node network rules supreme
and devs and pools are merely helpers.. not controllers

75% people voted "want SegWit", which is not a surprise at all. SegWit is the trend, after its implementation, bitcoin can be more faster and flexible, big block size with softfork means no big hazard to bitcoin, including no price dump. IMO SegWit will be implemented within 3 months.

I didn't check, but I highly doubt that they are. You seem to forget that the added capacity of Segwit is a side-bonus and not the main goal of that improvement. You should look into the list of benefits that it provides again.

In other words: BU developers are now as good as Core developers were 4 years ago, if not worse? :D

Point of clarification , it does not matter if the entire planet earth wanted segwit.

As long as the Chinese Mining Pools don't want it, it can't happen.

That is their advantage since they have over ~68% control of BTC, and there is literally nothing the rest of you can do about it except use a different coin.

So Cry in here all you want , China is your BTC Daddy!   :D :D :D


 8)

Don't you mean LN Developers.  ;)

LTC has OnChain Transaction capacity to spare, and their miners have not finished voting for it , so it may fail with them too.
Segwit is a stupid idea , to move all of you Yahoos to their Offchain LN, (might as well just use a bank.)

 8)

If you know the technical benefits of Segwit then you will obviously vote for a Yes. Importantly "Malleability Fixes" should have been done long ago, But still, there are people/hackers who maleate with the transactions. Another valuable benefit is increase in the Block size increase. Segwit will give a brighter future to Bitcoin for sure.

Then how do you explain the fact , No one has voted for it over the initial 30%.  hmmm?  :D
https://coin.dance/blocks
Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit                    23.1%
Bitcoin Unlimited      22.2%
8 MB Blocks               8.1%

Looks like unlimited is catching up .  :D
Probably Pass it in the next month or so.
Man, you BTC guys take forever to make a decision, it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.  :P

 8)

No big hazard - yes, because the same coins would not be able to be spent twice and the blockchain will not face hard fork. However, this is just a temporary solution, as far as I understand.
Bitcoin being faster - no. As the signature will be in the extended block, it will take more time to become confirmed and even the price of transaction fee is likely to grow.
Nevertheless, I vote for Segwit, because at least it will save btc from some big problems and will give time to come up with something better.

Clearly, I vote yes. SegWit is actually the best way to get out of both the Bitcoin Unlimited crisis and the low velocity of the network caused by attacks from Bitcoin Unlimited. I once show a nice and interesting scheme explaining SegWit, but I do not remember who posted it and what it described exactly, beside objects in a box. Seeing it immediatly ot me onboard !

At this point if your voting no your ether a shill or a fool.

since this topic is old and there are already enough discussion on this matter i am going to lock the topic for now (it was bumped after 2 months!).

you can also see a similar and more complete version of this POLL here:
SegWit, Unlimited, both, neither, etc (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1831433.0)