Bitcoin Forum

Segwit will be a disaster. I am not going to support it on BTC because I am a bitcoin HODLER. Meanwhile, I do not have a single litecoin.

One major reason why I had to support Segwit on Litecoin it is because I scare DDoS too much.

Those guys can't even write proper english, and they think they have enough understanding of coding and so on to defy the opinion of 100% of experts in the field. Looks like common sense doesn't add up. He is just testing his twitter-influence over price again. Miners are really good for nothing goons.

Those guys can't even write proper english, and they think they have enough understanding of coding and so on to defy the opinion of 100% of experts in the field. Looks like common sense doesn't add up. He is just testing his twitter-influence over price again. Miners are really good for nothing goons.

Miners are evil. Except miners who run Core.

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/852389706956365824
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/852372824643600384

why does he think that segwit will be a disaster? i did not find an answer in the linked tweets.

And you can't even do basic maths.
100% of experts in the field?
SegWit has even less support than BU on the only number that matters, hash rate (http://www.nodecounter.com/):
Bitcoin Unlimited blocks: 362  ( 36.2% )
SegWit blocks: 278  ( 27.8% )

In pure tech, here is one expert's opinion on why SegWit is total garbage:
'Segregated Witness is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its eight year history':
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179 (https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179)

13 links on why SegWit is just sub par:
https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e (https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e)

In features, FlexTrans (https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html) is superior to SegWit in every way.

Segwit, rejected by who? A couple of chinese miners. Literally.

Those guys can't even write proper english, and they think they have enough understanding of coding and so on to defy the opinion of 100% of experts in the field. Looks like common sense doesn't add up. He is just testing his twitter-influence over price again. Miners are really good for nothing goons.

Well, though I personally do not discriminate people who could not speak or spell English well, I am with you that the guy must be lacking some form of a common sense. I don't think we should be listening to this guy as he could just be adding up to the confusion happening right now in Bitcoin. I understand that miners are really profit-oriented but it should not mean that they should kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Anyway, this is just my opinion and my opinion will not really matter at all in the broader Bitcoin community.

I know FlexTrans (https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-UpgradeGuide.html) is superior to SegWit, because it actually fixes a lot of problems SegWit doesn't fix.

So why is SegWit being pushed through like it's the only solution, when it's clearly inferior.

Just because the idiot Zander says that it is superior, that doesn't make so. FlexTrans was riddled with all kinds of bugs since day one (not the kind of 'development in progress' bugs, but the kind of 'I know primary school CS' ones). Additionally it requires an unnecessary HF.

It is up to you to prove that it is inferior in the first place. ::)

It is already explained here:
How do SegWit and FlexTrans compare? (https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html)

An article written by Zander on why his 'creation' is superior. An article backed up by nothing than his own words. Do you not see the issue and bias here? ::)

3.1 SW creates a financial incentive for bloating witness data

SW allows for a theoretical maximum block size limit of ~4 MB. However, this is only true if the entire block was occupied with transactions of a very small ‘base size’ (e.g. P2WPKH with 1 input, 1 output). In practice, based on the average transaction size today and the types of transactions made, the block size limit is expected to have a maximum limit of ~1.7 MB post-SW (Figure 10; assuming all transactions are using SW unspent outputs?—?a big assumption).

However, the 4 MB theoretical limit creates a key problem. Miners and full node operators need to ensure that their systems can handle the 4 MB limit, even though at best they will only be able to support ~40% of that transaction capacity. Why? Because there exists a financial incentive for malicious actors to design transactions with a small base size but large and complex witness data. This is exacerbated by the fact that witness scripts (i.e. P2SH-P2WSH or P2SH-P2WSH) will have higher script size limits that normal P2SH redeem scripts (i.e., from 520 bytes to 3,600 bytes [policy] or 10,000 bytes [consensus]). These potential problems only worsen as the block size limit is raised in the future, for example a 2 MB maximum base size creates an 8 MB adversarial case. This problem hinders scalability and makes future capacity increases more difficult.

3.2 SW fails to sufficiently address the problems it intends to solve

If SW is activated by soft fork, Bitcoin will effectively have two classes of UTXOs (non-SW vs SW UTXOs), each with different security and economic properties. Linear signature hashing and malleability fixes will only be available to the SW UTXO. Most seriously, there are no enforceable constraints to the growth of the non-SW UTXO. This means that the network (even upgraded nodes) are still vulnerable to transaction malleability and quadratic signature hashing from non-SW outputs that existed before or created after the soft fork.

The lack of enforceability that comes with a soft fork leaves Bitcoin users and developers vulnerable to precisely the type of attacks SW is designed to prevent. While spending non-SW outputs will be comparatively more expensive than SW outputs, this remains a relatively weak disincentive for a motivated attacker.

It is also unclear what proportion of the total number of the legacy UTXO will migrate to SW outputs. Long-term holders of Bitcoin, such as Satoshi Nakamoto (presumed to be in possession of ~1 million Bitcoin), may keep their coins in non-SW outputs (although it would be a significant vote of confidence in SW by Nakamoto if they were to migrate!). This makes future soft or hard forks to Bitcoin more difficult as multiple classes of UTXOs must now be supported to prevent coins from being burned or stolen.

One key concern is that the coexistence of two UTXO types may tempt developers and miners in the future to destroy the non-SW UTXO. Some may view this as an unfounded concern, but the only reason that this is worth mentioning in this article are the comments made by influential individuals associated with Bitcoin Core: Greg Maxwell has postulated that “abandoned UTXO should be forgotten and become unspendable,” and Theymos has claimed “the very-rough consensus is that old coins should be destroyed before they are stolen to prevent disastrous monetary inflation.”

As the security properties of SW outputs are marginally better than non-SW outputs, it may serve as a sufficient rationalization for this type of punitive action.

The existence of two UTXO types with different security and economic properties also deteriorates Bitcoin’s fungibility. Miners and fully validating nodes may decide not to relay, or include in blocks, transactions that spend to one type or the other. While on one hand this is a positive step towards enforceability (i.e. soft enforceability), it is detrimental to unsophisticated Bitcoin users who have funds in old or non-upgraded wallets. Furthermore, it is completely reasonable for projects such as the lightning network to reject forming bidirectional payment channels (i.e. a multisignature P2SH address) using non-SW P2SH outputs due to the possibility of malleability. Fundamentally this means that the face-value of Bitcoin will not be economically treated the same way depending on the type of output it comes from.

It is widely understood in software development that measures which rely on the assumption of users changing their behavior to adopt better security practices are fundamentally doomed to fail; more so when the unpatched vulnerabilities are permitted to persist and grow. An example familiar to most readers would be the introduction and subsequent snail’s pace uptake of HTTPS.

3.3 SW places complex requirements on developers to comply while failing to guarantee any benefits

SW as a soft fork brings with it a mountain of irreversible technical debt, with multiple opportunities for developers to permanently cause the loss of user funds. For example, the creation of P2SH-P2WPKH or P2SH-P2WSH addresses requires the strict use of compressed pubkeys, otherwise funds can be irrevocably lost. Similarly, the use of OP_IF, OP_NOTIF, OP_CHECKSIG, and OP_CHECKMULTISIG must be carefully handled for SW transactions in order to prevent the loss of funds. It is all but certain that some future developers will cause user loss of funds due to an incomplete understanding of the intricacies of SW transaction formats.

In terms of priorities, SW is not a solution to any of the major support ticket issues that are received daily by Bitcoin businesses such as BitPay, Coinbase, Blockchain.info, etc. The activation of SW will not increase the transaction capacity of Bitcoin overnight, but only incrementally as a greater percentage of transactions spend to SW outputs. Moreover, the growing demand for on-chain transactions may very well exceed the one-off capacity increase as demonstrated by the increasing frequency of transaction backlogs.

In contrast to a basic block size increase (BBSI) from a coordinated hard fork, many wallets and SPV clients will immediately benefit from new capacity increases without the need to rewrite their own software as they must do with SW.. With a BBSI, unlike SW, there are no transaction format or signature changes required on the part of Bitcoin-using applications.

Based on previous experience with soft forks in Bitcoin, upgrades tend to roll-out within the ecosystem over some time. At the time of this writing, only 28 out of the 78 business and projects (36%) who have publicly committed to the upgrade are SW-compatible. Any capacity increase that Bitcoin businesses and users of the network desire to ease on-chain fee pressure will unlikely be felt for some time, assuming that transaction volume remains unchanged and does not continue growing. The unpredictability of this capacity increase and the growth of the non-SW UTXO are particularly troubling for Bitcoin businesses from the perspectives of user-growth and security, respectively. Conversely, a BBSI delivers an immediate and predictable capacity increase.

The voluntary nature of SW upgrades is subject to the first-mover game theory problem. With a risky upgrade that moves transaction signatures to a new witness field that is hidden to some nodes, the incentive for the rational actor is to let others take that risk first, while the rational actor sits back, waits, and watches to see if people lose funds or have problems. Moreover, the voluntary SW upgrade also suffers from the free-rider game theory problem. If others upgrade and move their data to the witness field, one can benefit even without upgrading or using SW transactions themselves. These factors further contribute to the unpredictable changes to Bitcoin’s transaction capacity and fees if SW is adopted via a soft fork.

3.4 Economic distortions and price fixing

Segregated Witness as a soft fork alters the economic incentives that regulate access to Bitcoin’s one fundamental good: block-size space. Firstly, it subsidises signature data in large/complex P2WSH transactions (i.e., at ¼ of the cost of transaction/UTXO data). However, the signatures are more expensive to validate than the UTXO, which makes this unjustifiable in terms of computational cost. The discount itself appears to have been determined arbitrarily and not for any scientific or data-backed reasoning.

Secondly, the centralized and top-down planning of one of Bitcoin’s primary economic resources, block space, further disintermediates various market forces from operating without friction. SW as a soft fork is designed to preserve the 1 MB capacity limit for on-chain transactions, which will purposely drive on-chain fees up for all users of Bitcoin. Rising transaction fees, euphemistically called a ‘fee market’, is anything but a market when one side?—?i.e. supply?—?is fixed by central economic planners (the developers) who do not pay the costs for Bitcoin’s capacity (the miners). Economic history has long taught us the results of non-market intervention in the supply of goods and services: the costs are externalised to consumers. The adoption of SW as a soft fork creates a bad precedent for further protocol changes that affirm this type of economic planning.

3.5 Soft fork risks

In this section we levy criticisms of soft forks more broadly when they affect the protocol and economic properties of Bitcoin to the extent that SW does. In this case, a soft fork reduces the security of full nodes without the consent of the node operator. The SW soft fork forces node operators either to upgrade, or to unconditionally accept the loss of security by being downgraded to a SPV node.

Non-upgraded nodes further weaken the general security of Bitcoin as a whole through the reduction of the number of fully validating nodes on the network. This is because non-upgraded nodes will only perform the initial check to see if the redeem script hash matches the pubkey script hash of the unspent output. This redeem script may contain an invalid witness program, for P2WSH transactions, that the non-upgraded node doesn’t know how to verify. This node will then blindly relay the invalid transaction across the network.

SW as a soft fork is the opposite of anti-fragile. Even if the community wants the change (i.e., an increase in transaction capacity), soft-forking to achieve these changes means that the miners become the key target of lobbying (and they already are). Soft forks are risky in this context because it becomes relatively easy to change things, which may be desirable if the feature is both minor and widely beneficial. However, it is bad in this case because the users of Bitcoin (i.e. everyone else but the miners) are not given the opportunity to consent or opt-out, despite being affected the most by such a sweeping change. This can be likened to a popular head of state who bends the rules of jurisprudence to bypass slow legal processes to “get things done.” The dangerous precedent of taking legal shortcuts is not of concern the masses until a new, less popular leader takes hold of the reigns, and by then it is too late to reverse. In contrast, activating SW via a hard fork ensures that the entire community, not just the miners, decide on changes made to the protocol. Users who unequivocally disagree with a change being made are given the clear option not to adopt the change?—?not so with a soft fork.

3.6 Once activated, SW cannot be undone and must remain in Bitcoin codebase forever.

If any critical bugs resulting from SW are discovered down the road, bugs serious enough to contemplate rolling it back, then anyone will be able to spend native SW outputs, leading to a catastrophic loss of funds.


4. Fork in the road

Segregated Witness attempts to fix transaction malleability and lay the foundation for scaling Bitcoin through “secondary layers,” which is why SW supporters have dubbed it a ‘scaling solution.’ This immediately highlights that there are two conflicting visions of Bitcoin that need to be unpacked.

Supporters of Bitcoin Core’s scaling roadmap believe that on-chain transaction capacity should be limited in order to encourage higher transaction fees and decrease the cost of running a fully-validating node. Those who prefer prioritizing on-chain scaling believe that on-chain capacity should be increased in order to allow for more user growth, and that the domain of running fully-validating nodes will naturally transition to those with the greatest financial incentive to do so: miners, businesses, and institutions. Contrary to the claims of popular talking points, this does not compromise the decentralized and trustless nature of the Bitcoin system, and this transition was anticipated by Satoshi Nakamoto.
Figure 11: Satoshi on the equilibrium of nodes, and the consumer transition to SPV

There is a very clear conflict of tradeoffs. By keeping the block-size small, only wealthy individuals and institutions will be able to afford on-chain transaction fees, while any user will be able to afford running a full node. By increasing the block-size, any user can afford a transaction, but only wealthy individuals or institutions can afford to run a fully validating node, as Satoshi predicted (Figure 12).
Figure 12: Satoshi on the future network topology of Bitcoin

There are, as of yet, unknown factors within each of these respective visions:

    The lightning network, and/or other second-layer payment layers, may reduce on-chain transaction volume and consequently, fees
    The cost of running of a full node may significantly decrease with hardware, software, and bandwidth improvements

In other words, LN may reduce on-chain transaction volume to a fraction of what it is now, or the cost of running a full node with 10 GB blocks in 20 years time may be laughably trivial. Perhaps both will be true.


4.1 Fee Market vs Capacity Market

Ostensibly, those in favor of constraining the block-size at 1 MB or thereabouts are concerned with the degradation of Bitcoin’s decentralized topology. However, this is somewhat disingenuous as no one?—?to our knowledge?—?has been able to calculate a target for the minimum number of nodes required to be sufficiently ‘decentralised’. This qualitative parameter can be used as a strawman argument for rejecting any increase to the block-size, or to reject anything at all, because it is impossible to argue against. Of course, it is simultaneously impossible to argue for it.

In the absence of any empirical measures by which decentralization is defined, we must reject this argument as a reason to constrain the block-size. What appears to be the more likely justification for constraining the block-size is an attempt to maximise transaction fees collected by the miners by artificially suppressing the supply of the block-space resource.

This is at odds with a more reasonable approach of allowing the supply of on-chain transactions to be regulated by miners, a capacity market, to optimize the total transaction fees harvested in each block as a function of supply and demand. This means that marginal on-chain transaction fees can effectively decrease as volume grows over time. The price of on-chain transactions with time and competition will approach the marginal cost of supply at any given demand level.

Conclusion

Segregated Witness is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its eight year history. The push for the SW soft fork puts Bitcoin miners in a difficult and unfair position to the extent that they are pressured into enforcing a complicated and contentious change to the Bitcoin protocol, without community consensus or an honest discussion weighing the benefits against the costs. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial?—?nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW.

While increasing the transaction capacity of Bitcoin has already been significantly delayed, SW represents an unprofessional and ineffective solution to both transaction malleability and scaling. As a soft fork, SW introduces more technical debt to the protocol and fundamentally fails to achieve its design purpose. As a hard fork, combined with real on-chain scaling, SW can effectively mitigate transaction malleability and quadratic signature hashing. Each of these issues are too important for the future of Bitcoin to gamble on SW as a soft fork and the permanent baggage that comes with it.

As much as the authors of this article desire transaction capacity increases, it is far better to work towards a clean technical solution to malleability and scaling than to further encumber the Bitcoin protocol with permanent technical debt.

Is this written by Zander as well?

Lauda, if you think you can troll me without making me expose how bad SegWit is, think again.

I have so many different ways to toy with you shilling morons, you haven't seen nothing yet.

Straw man argument. This doesn't address the Segwit vs. FlexTrans.

All of that has long been debunked. There's no way that so many developers would be in favor of Segwit were it as bad as this misleading article tries to proclaim it to be.

User with 'Activity: 42, Posts: 74' talks about shilling. How cute. Maybe you will reach maturity in a few years.

You don't even know what I am talking about.
How many people knows Core intentionally fucked up the code to keep transaction fee high?
This will soon be wide spread public knowledge with your name on it.

Lauda, you're now on one of my special 'extra friendly' personal list. And you'll be there for at least 10 years, long after Blockstream no longer matters.

Whatever delusions help you sleep at night kiddo.

Segwit, rejected by who? A couple of chinese miners. Literally.

The rest are in with segwit:

The market has spoken. Segwit goes up = price goes up.

Anti-segwit, pro-BUcoin supporters are now officially fighting against reality. We didn't sign up for JihanCoin.

Speaking the truth means he'll get DDoSed soon.
Just like BU nodes.

Those guys can't even write proper english, and they think they have enough understanding of coding and so on to defy the opinion of 100% of experts in the field. Looks like common sense doesn't add up. He is just testing his twitter-influence over price again. Miners are really good for nothing goons.

Those guys can't even write proper english, and they think they have enough understanding of coding and so on to defy the opinion of 100% of experts in the field. Looks like common sense doesn't add up. He is just testing his twitter-influence over price again. Miners are really good for nothing goons.

Miners are evil. Except miners who run Core.

Called it.

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/852480476744896516 (https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/852480476744896516)
4:15 AM - 13 Apr 2017 @f2pool_wangchun: We are under DDoS attack.

For me, it looks like F2Pool is trying to win time until another significant move in the blocksize debate happens (UASF, or a possibility of some kind of "Flippening" that puts in danger their business model).

Can Jihan Wu be trusted?? The answer is clearly NO!

feels like the lies are crumbling... we are close to winning.

Jihan Wu is the only problem Bitcoin is facing. Lets get together, and get off of the antpool and his cloudming at hashnet. He has imbedded so much garbage on his chips, how do we know that he has not inbedded worms, trojans, viruses, and other malicious bugs?

What is it going to do? Infect the stratum server, then the blockchain?  ::)

His equipment works on a network. What if, in very small amounts, he was able to divert your payments to his pockets, covertly, just like he is using a similar technology to AsicBoost?

https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/852389706956365824
https://twitter.com/f2pool_wangchun/status/852372824643600384

To what extent is Bitcoin decentralized? Too bad Satochi did not predict that miners would take over Bitcoin as it is today. Let's see where it goes.

There is no such thing as the "Flippening".

For now, I agree ... but that could change in the distant future. We don't know it. My point was that e.g. if Ethereum (or any other altcoin that F2Pool doesn't support) manages to get 40-50% of BTC's market cap F2Pool could change their opinion and support Segwit to ensure BTC conserves its leadership. (At the moment ETH is on 20% of BTC's marketcap so it looks not completely impossible, although I wouldn't bet on it).

Segwit, rejected by who? A couple of chinese miners. Literally.

The rest are in with segwit:

The market has spoken. Segwit goes up = price goes up.

https://s12.postimg.org/4qtf02fij/segwitup2.png

Economic majority has spoken: All experts and relevant actors in the field are pro-segwit and anti-BU:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C8HwIp7VwAEGPBb.jpg

https://medium.com/@21/using-21-to-survey-blockchain-personalities-on-the-bitcoin-hard-fork-1953c9bcb8ed

Node majority has spoken: Segwit support overwhelms Buggy Unlimited.

https://s1.postimg.org/qc16wc7qn/nodes1.png

Not that I follow satoshi's word's as if he was Jesus Christ himself, but even he warned us about the dangers of BUcoin:

https://s12.postimg.org/4cazmc05p/satoshi_Bu.png

Unfortunately, the entire ecosystem keeps getting blocked by the chinese mining cartel.

Anti-segwit, pro-BUcoin supporters are now officially fighting against reality. We didn't sign up for JihanCoin.

For now, I agree ... but that could change in the distant future. We don't know it. My point was that e.g. if Ethereum (or any other altcoin that F2Pool doesn't support) manages to get 40-50% of BTC's market cap F2Pool could change their opinion and support Segwit to ensure BTC conserves its leadership. (At the moment ETH is on 20% of BTC's marketcap so it looks not completely impossible, although I wouldn't bet on it).

(besides Monero and LTC)

The top players right now (besides Monero and LTC) are all scam coins (ETH, DASH, Ripple, et. al.). A centralized, banker and corporation funded coin like ETH or a system (backed by the same groups) such as Ripple can easily overthrow the Bitcoin market cap within a week.

I agree. I also thought about it. Even if one of this coins surpasses BTC in marketcap, their fiat (ETH), scam (DASH), centralised trusted (Ripple) nature will become evident sooner or later. Unlike you I also disrespect LTC since it's a copycat.

a lot of weird thing has been coming out of f2pool_wangchun these days (and probably before but i have not been aware of it) and he doesn't seem to be all serious about the tweets he makes and it is very possible that he is doing it as a manipulation of the prices since it has been effective on litecoin also.
so in short i wouldn't read to much into "why he says what he says"