Bitcoin Forum

Why does it takes so long?
We need faster confirmations.

Edit:
When Lightning Network will be implemented?

segwit does not solve that.

Percentage of blocks signalling SegWit  (https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit)support should reach 95% In order to get SegWit implemented otherwise It won't happen. It's being like two months without any significant changes on the chart , I doubt we will ever get there but as said above that won't make transactions faster but LN will.

SegWit add more transactions to the block, that would help.

It can be a long time until something be implemented but it's a good thing too, at least we will have a concrete decision with the agreement of most supporters preventing the bitcoin to split in more different ways, it could be worse for bitcoin as the price could change a lot.
There are much to be discussed yet and maybe more solutions can arise to be discussed too.

SegWit will be activated once we reach consensus.
Currently SegWit sits at ~25% of support. Meaning 25% of the blocks mined over a period of time signal SegWit support.
We need around 90-95%, but support has stalled.

SegWit however will not solve slow transaction times, you can read the benefits of it here: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

firstly segwit guarantee's nothing.
when activated. nothing changes.
users have to wait for yet another implementation release that offers the actual p2wpkh/p2wsh key utility
AT VERY BEST .. IF 100% of users used p2wpkh/p2wsh keys instead of legacy(old) keys, expect maximum of about 4500tx instead of ~2500

but here is the thing
spammers, scammers and bloaters wont use p2wpkh/p2wsh keys. so dont expect 4500tx a block
even moral people take months/years to upgrade their implementations. so even after it activates dont expect noticable rises anytime soon

and lastly. the mempools is very often full of more than 4500tx unconfirmed at most times. so many transactions are still going to be waiting even in the utopian statistic of 100% dream utility.

segwit is just an empty gesture kicking the stone down the road

Then when Lightning Network will be implemented?

There's still a lot of debate on Segwit Implementation. Still no consensus. You can do a search in the forum about why Segwit will not solve the transaction issue currently a lot of us experiencing.

In my opinion, eventually it will be implemented, even though we're actually seeing a stalemate between "segwitters" and "big blockers".

Big blockers will have no chance to get a majority, because most of the community is at the side of Core. Their only chance was the moderate approach of Bitcoin Classic, but Unlimited is too "revolutionary" and maybe risky for the network health.

Then there will be pressure to Bitcoin once most altcoins, including LTC, will have adopted Segwit. (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1777136). I consider this only a question of time, as no altcoin would like to stay "behind the times".

Once LTC has adopted Segwit, first of all, there are pools (F2pool) that have announced they will wait for the Litecoin "test" to adopt it also for Bitcoin. Second, a possibly growing competition from a possible "Litecoin Lightning Network" will drive miners to adopt it because they would fear to lose market share to LTC.

ETA? No idea, perhaps 4-6 months from now.

try to use the terms properly.

those wanting dynamic blocks are - "onchain scalers"
those wanting segwit are - "centralist temporal gestures"

after all
the community that want REAL onchain scaling compromised to 2mb for ~5000tx..
while the "centralistic temporal gesturers" want to temporarily give an empty gesture of possible 2.1mb for a possible ~<4500tx. but then later bloat up the same <4500tx count to 4mb without offering more tx.
(confidential payment codes turns a standard tx into something thats 1kb bigger)

EG
"onchain scalers" 2mb=~5000tx (from ~2500tx)

"centralist temporal gestures" 2.1mb=~<4500tx (from ~2500tx)..
then later 4mb for the same ~<4500tx (once they add other features to the tailend of serialised tx data.

emphasising the misunderstanding of 'bigblockers'
2 vs 4. makes "centralistic temporal gesturers" the big blockers. because they want to fill blocks with nonsense features. not lean tx's in their empty gesture of 4mb

again 2 vs 4. which is bigger.

I may think if Lightning Network will not be implementing soon. https://coin.dance/blocks for activating the lighting network will have needed SegWit to make lightning network is more efficient.

It is hard to say how long it will take, but the pressure for a decision is rising, since Bitcoin might fall apart in the end with no change. The more urgent it will become, the more miners will decide for one or the other. I just hope for two things. First that the decision will not be made in a haste, because it is high time. Secondly i hope that Bitcoin will stay united and do not see two or more big active chains.
If they will be implemented at all or when can nobody tell you, but this is a big step for Bitcoins future and right now this looks not to promising.

asking from my ignorance: How we could reach the 95% ?  or Who needs to do something about it? Miners? Nodes?

Miners.

But nodes must be ready to accept (completly) the segwit block in her local blockchain ...

So miners wait until nodes are full in segwit compatibility, first.

In usual time, this pass with 3 revisions of the Bitcoin Core client or 6 months.

Segwit will be implemented in 4-5 months, we get approximately 15% of miners support in a month. Lightning Network will be implemented after segwit because Segwit makes it easier.

LN will be implemented after SegWit because LN needs SegWit in order to work. So this has nothing to do with "makes it easier". Your 4-5 months are just the outcome if we have 15% new support of mines per month, which seems not to realistic for me. So far we had a steady rise followed by a stagnation. This makes me assume that we will see the stagnation for a while and then a sudden jump or drop. But how long this stagnation will go on is beyond my or anybodys ability.

Hmm,  Nope

Segwit received ~30% in Nov 2016,  3 months later it is still under 30%,
so in 3 months no one else is supporting it , beside the original idiots.

It is dead on arrival, Chinese Miners control ~68 % and they are not voting for it.


 8)

OK but here you are comparing different things ("standard transactions" with "confidential transactions"). But that all wasn't my point. I think simply that Core has more backing by the community at this moment. I'm not totally against the Bitcoin Unlimited proposal - it looks like a smart way to reach a consensus about future block size increases - but it would need much more testing until it has a chance to be adopted.

The "altcoin -> bitcoin adoption theory" could, in theory, also be true for Bitcoin Unlimited. But Unlimited offers less advantages to altcoins: only a bigger block size, no malleability fixes (malleability fixes are the main Segwit advantage for altcoins because they would benefit enormously from atomic cross-chain trading, and they at the moment don't need bigger blocks).

Let's hope that it's sooner than later. We NEED segwit in order to keep improving the system, not only to scale, but because all of the improvements it brings in order to properly allow for stuff like improved LN and sidechains.

Segwit only brings good things to bitcoin, anyone arguing otherwise is a troll.

are multisigs broke? nope
will spammers(quadratic attack) use segwit keys if their intention is to spam the network? nope
will spammers(respend per block) use LN if their intention is to spam the network? nope
will scammers(malle-attack) use segwit keys if their intention is to scam merchants? nope
will scammers(RBF-CPFP-CSV attack) stop if their intention is to scam merchants? nope

It's clearly mentioned on their blog post (http://lightning.community/release/software/lnd/lightning/2017/01/10/lightning-network-daemon-alpha-release/) that SegWit is not a must in order to have Lightning network functioning but actually makes things better as stated before by another user. "lnd’s channel design currently utilizes the upcoming Bitcoin upgrade: segwit. Although alternative less-ideal channel constructions are possible without segwit"

Anyone arguing for seqwit is a Fool,  ;)

Segwit & LN, will bring counterfeiting & fractional reserve banking into Crypto.
If you want segwit , just cash out of crypto and put your money in a bank, same thing.


 8)


FYI:
BTC less than 30% agreed to segwit
LTC less than   3% have agreed to segwit.

Maybe you asshats in favor of segwit , should get a clue the Miners are too smart to fall for segwit.

the only reason LTC is thinking about lightning network and sidchains is not due to the community or the random miners desires.. its because of
Charlie lee... who's brother is...... bobby lee (btcc)
BTCC is main promoting (loudmouth advocate) of the segwit supporting couple of pools. and unsurprisingly paid by... the same guys blockstream are paid by
DCG (http://dcg.co/network/#b)

So, if I see the polling of SegWit is decrease and that's also a troll by me?  :-\
https://coin.dance/blocks

To be honest i did not research all the details, and it is true that LN does not need SegWit as such to be implemented, but it needs changes and fixes. These come already with SegWit and even add some useful things. I guess this counts as "makes it easier". My bad.

Contentious soft forks should not be implemented, besides that, miners have no real incentive to implement such feature.

Segwit would increase the value of Bitcoin, so unless they have no BTC assets or never intend to hold them, miners cannot benefit. But of course, acquiring and selling BTC literally is their business, so they have an overwhelmingly large incentive. When you actually think about it.

Considering LN will mean the miners LOSE onchain transactions fees to LN's offchain transactions ,

we must have different definitions for the word incentive.  :P


 8)

I doubt segwit or the lightning network will ever be implemented in their current state. It may not be these updates themselves, but the groundwork they lay for future patches and whatever Blockstream wants.

I personally don't care, blocksize increase or segwit, they're both solutions for the same problem and both have haters.

If a blocksize increase was implemented without Segwit, would you start caring all of a sudden when the new attack vectors against the Bitcoin network start to get used? ::)

Link to potential attack vectors , so we know you aren't just making stuff up.  ;)


 8)

FYI:  Galvin Andresen thinks increasing Block Size will be perfectly fine.
(He is known for being the lead maintainer for the original bitcoin client.)

https://news.bitcoin.com/andresen-blocksize-limit-remove/

what CB doesnt realise is that even with segwit. spammers and scammers can just simply not use segwit keys, and stick to standard keys. thus segwit does not cure anything

malleation will still happen after segwit activation
double spends will still happen after segwit activation
quadratic sigops spam will still happen after segwit activation

and
not everyone will use segwit keys so dont expect the top estimate of the one time boost maximum tx potential segwit supposedly meant to offer

Precisely my point, network fees exist so the network can sustain itself with decrease and eventually the end of the subsidy, Lightning Networks will take away those fees from miners, unless miners also enter in the LN game they will be losing money to it.

Can the miners make more money processing transactions, or from selling BTC at a higher price? You seem to be ignoring the latter

You do realize that BTC block reward will keep halving , until the miners receive ZERO Block Reward,
at that time they will only be able to survive off of the transfers fees, that you want then to give away to a competing service.
That's right , LN is not part of BTC , LN is a service that will directly compete with them.
What is funny is that all of the LN Shrills , think the PoW miners are stupid enough to fall for it.

As far as your fake promises of the BTC Price increasing forever,
you ignore 1 very important economic condition
price-out-of-the-market
(idiomatic) To charge an exorbitant price for a service or product so that no one will purchase it.
                He's pricing out of the market, asking for $100,000 for that shack!
BTC has already priced out of the micropayments , this latest Price & Fee increase is starting to Price BTC out of many foreign markets.  :P

 8)