its not lower fee's
dont you get it.
its like walmart.. raise the prices via increasing(not decreasing) the minrelay/dust..
and then put a sticky label on that says 'rollback' 75% off if your a walmart loyalty card holder

the relay/dust should be 10x lower than they were in 2015.. they are not. infact they are higher than 2015
then ontop they x4 legacy transactions prices..

its a bait and switch

this is not me poking the bear or countering anything you have to say.
but now devs are adding/reactivating some opcodes that reintroduce malleability attacks done using bech addresses...

(i just thought that was something funny worth adding to your point)

the devs know all about it. and they were wanting to rename a few opcodes with warnings.
(they had to take a few steps back and re-think a few things)

lies?
kinda funny..
i actually go out of my way to do the math. i even post in examples, stats and other things.
did you even check the link about the UTXO set
UTXO DATA CANT LIE
its stuck in the blockchain.. its literally above the laws of truth that cant be edited..

but hey. when others who just say "he lies".. they can never actually back it up .. they just say "wrong because wrong"
wow such powerful proof.

ok you called me a liar.. so.. show me a UTXO set that has 20 million segwit addresses(40%)
show me a month of blocks that have actual real 40% segwit utility
show me a month of blocks that have actual real 30% segwit utility

the only parts people cant agree on is my method of explaining.
i try to keep it simple using analogies or rounding numbers for simple math demo purposes. then get some anal social drama queens try knitpicking my ELI-5 explanations without taking it all into context of simple explanation

i understand you are new to segwit and still learning. but these discussions with me devs and others have been going on for a couple years now. so yea sometimes when a non-dev gets involved and tries social drama distractions of name calling by poking the bear.. yea i bite..


i have done.
but they just send in their non-dev buddies to social drama the topic to death.
but just so you know. devs have once they put their personal attack hats on the floor and start wearing their critical thinking caps. end up changing some code or plans.

the funny thing is. segwit and LN is not open dev desired. its actually contracted employed code that benefits financial investors that contracted them to make bitcoin LN compatible.

the banana(fruit) is the input, value output value
the skin is the signature/scripts

segwit addresses (bc1q) is the layer of paint added to the fruit to add a few xtra bytes to the data
the layer of paint added to the skin is the extra few bytes th signature uses

they went a whole 2 years coding something that doesnt offer real scaling.
no... you still nee the skins to verify the transaction is valid.. and also when someone else is syncing from you. they need the skins so they can validate their copy FULLY AND INDEPENDENTLY

as i said if you put the skin back on a segwit tx is 250bytes not 225 like its comparative legacy
so if there was no 2 box and just 1 big box..... segwit vs legacy would if utilising the entire 4mb
be like this
legacy=17777 tx of 225byte
segwit=16000tx of 250byte
as best case scenario

if your a full node.. you are part of the relay network. you need to show the skin to show the fruit is ripe (legit/valid)
yes people can prune the skin(signatures) . but then they are not part of the blockchain relay/archival network
new nodes wont sync via you because you dont have the signatures for them to self check and validate the blocks they get.

you become just a midweight node(gmax buzzword downstream.. luke jr: filtered). only relaying transactions and the latest block(as long as u dont prune it first). and not helping new users sync up and be part of the network.
EG legacy nodes(<0.13) are not full nodes. they dont get the signatures. they get the peeled banana version and they blindly trust someone else validated the block and blindly pass it on as good. (critical security alert if there was a bug)

if you think deleting the signatures is good.. then maybe you might aswell turn off your full node and just use a litewallet


again with the 2box trick your not getting 16k-17k transactions your only getting
.. the 2 box (1mb:3mb)
legacy=4444 tx of 225 with 0 in box two
segwit=5952 tx in box one. 0.488mb in box 2

segit uses 1.488mb for 5952 basic transaction..
so same basic transaction
same 1.488mb space but as space a legacy can fully utilise
is: 6612 legacy transactions for 1.488mb

but yea. i know you want peeled banana's to make it look good.. but then your not a full node(as explained) so go play with a lite wallet and not have any block data to worry about because you trust other nodes to tell you the skin is ripe

a good test to see if the community really want it..
breadwallet should ask BTCC pool (the biggest segwit promoter of 2015-2017) to start using segwit as its address to receive its blockrewards..

its been a year and even they have not done so yet
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/block/0000000000000000000d5996219bc24e4f98c6113c2b29c7a5283e181b631730
-> 13TET...
not
-> bc1q

hmmmm

i might also add this.. and just let people who keep promoting 40%.. to take a few steps back and realise. segwit is not as popular as they thought
https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1
(hint: 0.764% of al btc is stored on a bech address (132k coins))
(unspent outputs = ~80k of 50million)

seems just as fast as people put funds into addresses starting bc1q, they take them out

hmmmm

LN is not bitcoin

LN is a separate network that multiple coins will use.
and guess what.. you do need to pre plan LN

funds in LN are locked. you need to pre plan how much you want to lock up and also divide it up into multipl channels to get, hopefully the best chances of making payments should:
one channel be temporarily unavailable
not have enough funds themselves to pot potato payments
other partners of partners be offline
destination offline
one of the partner of parters closes their channel
the list goes on

put it this way.
imagine your bob (b)
wife is Alice(A)
charlie(c) is someone you usually have coffee with

ok you put in $130 into 2 channels. $65 to your wife and $65 to a channel with charlie because he has connection to starbucks.
A[0.01 : 0.01]B[0.01 : 0.01]C[0.01 : 0.01]starbucks

imagine your wife went on a coffee date with loads of her friends and she had a $65 bill with starbucks
A[0.0 : 0.02]B[0.0 : 0.02]C[0.0 : 0.02]starbucks
great your wife paid starbucks $65

and now you have nothing you can pass to charlie if you ever want a coffee yourself
see the downside of the routing yet?? where others can raid you dry before you spend funds yourself

but although between you and your wife and you and charlie. you appear to have the same combined value..
but that funds is not split between the 2 channels. its now offset in your wife channel allotment to you

now you know ur wife just raided you. and you have 2 choices. give some of your 0.02 to your wife and hope she knows someone who knows someone thats connected to charlie or starbuck if you ever want to taste coffee this month.

or close the channel with your wife. get your funds (one onchain tx close) and then put the funds back in so that you and charlie have funds to play with(another onchain to add to BC channel)

..
LN devs have seen these issues and are now inventing factories
...
where instead of direct depositing into your channels.... with direct onchain proof in the channel
you deposit fund $130 into a factory(fortknox) and the factory gives you a unbroadcast(offchain) TX that you use for your channel with your wife and channel with charlie. thus now charlie, you and your wife are trusting the factory to honour itself
instead of trusting the blockchain

and then if your wife raided BC.. you then get the factory to disavow the funds from AB(without broadcasting) and give out fresh unbroadcasted tx's to resplit the funds.

but now you cant broadcast a tx at a later date because the channel funds are not directly yours, they are factory owned. so you need factory, your wife and charlies permission if you ever were to exit LN. by again disavowing the currnt balance and then get the factory to honour a tx where the funds go to an address you solely own that you want broadcast

in short
LN is becoming the whole fortknox of 19th century gold. locking it up and letting people play with unaudited promissory notes in the hope you never request your gold back into your own sole control..... sound familiar to banking strategy of 19-20th century

..
yea i know i went double dep into the whole LN concepts.. but much easier instead of the hot potato games of LN and the factoriy issues that fortknox plagued the gold banking era.. but its much easier if your planning to spend $130.. just buy some giftcards with them merchants.. job done

bitcoin is not ready for the big mass adoption of users.

this is because bitcoin needs to be ready with mass adoption of merchants

at the moment the big businesses at the edges of the bitcoin ecosystem are not promoting to merchants because they want thir bitcoin varient of ripple set. (im talking about the separate network of hubs and co managed accounts called LN)

where the services like bitpay and coinbase will be hubs to get fee's for offering routed paymnt services.
once the portfolio of bitcoin services have their separate network that is bitcoin and litecoin compatible and they start their ripple style network of trust using factories and multisig hubbed channels.

and then. at that point will they start getting merchants to join their hubs and accept payments via the LN network and start the promotion rally with merchants and then the users after that

thus coaxing people to buy bitcoin and deposit it into addresses co managed by the services to then make payments to mrechants on LN.

remember LN is not bitcoin
LN is a separate network that is bitcoin and litecoin compatible and is not a blockchain payment system

the portfolio of services are just waiting out for lightning to be coded better, battle tested and ready for services to hub up the network to grab fe's per transaction while locking funds up that eventually they end up keeping by trying to keep users from wanting to withdraw coins out of LN by making things like bitcoin unpractical to user as a 'better' payment system

to them they can make more that way than to waste money now promoting bitcoin itself as the payment system.. so thats what they are doing

no calm down.
think about it only 1800 coins are made a day.
so IF (apocalypse hat on) all pools all combined all had the next gen rigs running in november(that in itself seems too OverTheTop of a scenario).. the total coin that is cheaper than $5800 is just 1800coins per day while network hashrate is below 90exa.

now if you imagine the price in november was todays $6500. selling all mined coins all at once on bitfinex(looking at volume) would only push the price down to 6200
so all pools would need to sell all coins of about 3 days in one go to dip to 5800(that in itself seems too OverTheTop of a scenario).

chances are not all pools will swap out rigs instantly so their costs would remain higher and not wanna sell so low
chances are pools wont want to sell all their coins anyway even if there is a bit of short term profit
changes are hashrates would be higher. so the costs vs profit would too be less appealing to want to tank the price
chances are if a sell off did occur. many buyers would celebrate a discount and a buying frenzy would occur fighting off the sell off to keep prices up.

so relax its not a guaranteed dump in november. but do expect some movement in hashpower and prices is all im saying

satoshi is one entity. although he created bitcoin. the first currency that utilises lots of technologies into one unique project/currency.. you are right bitcoin and blockchain it is made up from a patchwork quilt of different idea's from different people. and satoshi just had the unique vision to sew all those concepts together into a seamless quilt. which no one else dewn together in such a way before.

having some data in batches where an identifier of a previous batch of data is added into the next batch of data is what these guys contributed to being what we now call blockchain

https://www.anf.es/pdf/Haber_Stornetta.pdf


and thats what the "chain" part of block chain is originating from
it was then satoshi who then decided on things like hashes/mining (PoW) instead of signature certificates(PoS) as the block identifer that not only locks the current block but then the identifier is added to the next.

so whether it was PoW of PoS haber and stornetta inspired 'blockchain' by their mentions of a sequence of bits linking documents of data like chain links

we have not dropped below $5800 since november 2017

there have been multiple attempts and massive amount of time for opportunity but no one has dared.
looking at the UTXO set of fund movements. over 65% of coins in circulation have passed hands in that time. meaning 65% of coins have now settled at a rate of value above $5800.(they wont sell for less than they acquired them)

mining costs have also risen.. 43exa network hash was the cost equivalent for mining a coin at $5800, this too has risen. so there is alot of support above $5800.

personally id say its too early to shout out this weeks average support as any mile stone. and this months support is still too early. and the 3-10 month support is still the same at $5,800
so im still holding onto the 3-10 month mark as it has alot of coin and mining support that will keep it up..

that said.
october will see some new ASICs that offer cheaper hashing. and so by the delivery date of november. if the hashrate isnt at 90exa then there are some miners with new rigs that can profit even if they sold below $5800. due to the efficiencies of these new rigs.. so i can see we might get another retest in late october/november (if network hashrate doesnt climb to higher numbers of 90exa to counteract the efficiency).
but with that said. the number of pools who would actually have that equipment and the amount of coin they manage to produce in a short nough time to be profitable to actually then sell off to cause an impact would be small too. so its not a warning that the price will drop. but a possibility if the markets were already near the bottomline that just a few extra pokes would make a small dip

seems many see adoption as something they just have to wait for.
something magical that bitcoin does by itself. or that the 'community' is a team of people employed to do the job

well i said it before so ill just quote it


YOU are all the community. you are all bitcoin

putting funds into a service where they have co-control is not hlping bitcoin.. if you dont hold sole possssion of the private keys. you might aswell just open a fiat bank account, because your missing the point of bitcoin

same goes for LN

so if you want to deposit some btc into a service so you can buy coffee whenever you like.. here is a solution. just buy a starbucks gift card in 1 transactions. and then you can buy multiple coffee's later without needing onchain tx's per coffee.

job done
the things like LN and debit cards are not bitcoin features. they are separate services branded as bitcoin related. however these debit cards and even LN will be used for other coins too. all offering to lock funds up so that you can spend later off chain.. the reality is that you are giving permission over to banks/channel partners. to manage the funds with you. and they all end up having terms and conditions of allowing you to spend via them

EG
LN: channel partner needs to be online. their route needs to have sufficient funding.. the end destination needs to be online. your channel partner, anyone else on the route and the destination need to sign the payment.
and if you try to exit early using a different than agreed payment amount. the co-manager can revoke all your funds (same as a chargeback)
LN is actually worse then services like coinbase. because LN requires more than one channel(account) just to have a reliable service. meaning you have to split funds up an hope everyone is online and well funded themselves just to spend what you think is still your funds

so its just easier to give starbucks $30 worth of btc to get a $30 giftcard so you can buy 10 coffee's.. rather than depositing funds into side services and trying to get authorisation off chain per payment for each coffee

if you actually take the data. and count the tx in's and outs. and see which are 'iswitness'. segwit utilisation is actually only 24% that are 'is witness'

as for utility. if you realise that segwit signatures and addresses are longer (wasting a few bytes) that byte per transaction if they were converted to legacy and allowed to utilise the full 4mb all data included. legacy is more efficient

its like having a 225gram banana taking off its 72gram skin. then adding 15 grams of yellow paint to the banana to identify it as a special banana. and then adding 10grams of paint to the 72gram skin... all so that in one box you can say the banana in box 1 is now 168grams.. but if you want a fully validatable banana and store it as a fully validatable and relayable banana you have to take the other box of skins with you.. which makes the total combined banana weight 250grams.. not 225grams

meaning yea for every 3rd banana you strip you can slide in a 4th stripped banana in the box.
but 4 fully validated combined special bananas is now 1kg(672g+328g)
where as 4 legacy bananas would be 900gram for 4 bananas

again the wishy washy nonsense of "but box 1 is only 672g".. but ignoring the second box that must go with the first box

2boxes=1kg..
1legacy box 900g
'but ignore box 2 and segwit is 672g' (facepalm)

again if the 4mb block was fully open for full transaction data
legacy=17777 tx of 225byte
segwit=16000tx of 250byte

.. the 2 box (1mb:3mb)
legacy=4444 tx of 225 with 0 in box two
segwit=5952 tx in box one. 0.488mb in box 2

so segwit with the 1mb wall is limiting segwit by 10,048tx as you cant put any extra in due to the 1mb wall
and as i said take the limit out. and legacy again offers more

keeping the 1mb is not a 4x capacity growth at all

its all just wishy washy crap

it was mentioned before.
a TX that is

1AmadeupAddress -> 1AnotherAdrress
1AmadeupAddress
1AmadeupAddress
bc1qaMadeupaddr

would be classed as a segwit tx. although its utility is not full segwit.
its actually majority legacy tx.

also that 240k tx is only 1666 average tx a block.. seems less people are making transactions than in the past...
(240tx for 24h =2.77tx/s..   hmm no where near the 'more than 7tx/s' )
oh and ofcourse there are merchants and core that without user consent are defaulting spend/change addresses to be segwit. thus the numbers are fudged, not by choice but by default

a better metric for segwit utilisation was to view the UTXO set and count the UTXO's that are 'iswitness' i guarantee you its less than 40%... but that would be biased because it includes funds people havnt moved since segwits mandatory activation
..
so lets just take the block data of september 22.. like you did
statoshi.info shows under 24%(23.81) of full data is in the witness area. . dang not 40% on the 22nd.. hows about that.
 but we all know that a segwit signature is 82 bytes instead of 72 bytes. so the utility of segwit is <24% but the efficiency of transaction per byte due to segwit is even less than than that

the whole codebase of core is all wishy washy. add a few bytes here hide a few bytes there.. multiply some bytes by 4.. treat an entire tx as segwit even if only a certain amount is actually pushed outside the 1mb area.. is all just wishy washy

but have a nice day

i know im gonna expect a reply where a block is shown that has 40% 'iswitness' 543172 today(26th sept)
and i can can show another block thats well under 10% 'iswitness'543169
and we can spam post that all day long. different blocks.. but the average is 23.62% for the week..
but the end thing is. its been a year and less than 40%(lets just be realistic and call it what it is 24%) of the community are using segwit.... same result as the pre segwit . where less than 40% were flagging as wanting segwit (before the mandate threat and 3 card game trick)

( ^ here comes the onslaught of social group defence and no rebuttle of the transaction per byte of hard drive data inefficiency.)

anyway, ignoring the social drama..
if people care about the network protocol and want to do something to actually allow more transactions per block
here some idea's to promote instead

1. schnorr benefits multisig. so yea use schnorr to impact multisigs and let that benefit those wanting to move funds into LN...
    (ensuring LN remains only a voluntary side service. and not a forced 'got to use' forced thing)
2. reduce the unneeded maxsignop limit which allows 1 transaction to hoard 20% of a block (also reduces linear validation fears)
3. remove the 1mb block to allow fully combined transactions to utilise 4mb weight (improves tx count way more than segwits split block strategy)
4. bring down the dust/min relay to amounts that are 4x lower than 2015 levels and that includes doing it for legacy
(infact it should be more than 6x due to the settling(average) market price difference of 2015-2018)

then we will see more transaction availability and cheaper prices per transaction. without forcing people into addresses types

and if anyone is going to rebut "but what about malleation" well new/reactivated opcodes being added actually reintroduce transaction malleability into segwit transactions.

oh wind_fury.. your not a coder. so why are you promoting such scheme without you yourself actually putting in the effort of understanding the ramifications.

forced change!! have you not learned anything.

also the data efficiency of transactions to bytes is not efficient using segwit
segwit signatures are 82bytes instead of 72
segwit addresses are a few bytes longer too

a transaction of X inputs and Y outputs consumes more bytes with segwit than with legacy.

all segwit does it cut and hide some data from the baseblock and hold it else where to make it look like a data saving. but its not a data saving. that hidden data does actually sit on hard drives and does actually take up space. even if devs have coded the base block not to count it.. (meaning the 1mb base limit is a fiction now because its got nothing to do with enforcing 1mb of full data going to hard drives.. thus serves no purpose for hard drive data limiting)


if we were to take away the baseblock limit and let legacy utilise the 4mb 'weight' you will see we can fit in more legacy transactions than segwit transactions.

also because segwit needs part of its data in the baseblock. by removing the 1mb limit. also allow more segwit transactions in the 4mb weight too.. and no longer use the 3mb weight as just the separate area for hidden signatures. but instead to utilise all 4mb for fully combined transaction data.

its far better to get rid of the 1mb limit to up the transaction count of both legacy AND segwit, than trying to enforce a tyranny of making users only transact a certain way

as for pretending that it will help pricing of TX's
devs are actually messing with 'dust' and 'minrelay' fee's to push up the price..
even though the market rate of btc goes up. the dust/minrelay should be coded to go DOWN. but they push up those. and then they gave the bait of a discount only to segwit.

segwit does not actually achieve a real transaction byte efficiency on a hard drive. and if they actually reduced the min fee code when market settle at higher value then the transaction prices would be lower.
to devs its like raising the price of a banana and then sticking a discount sticker for only loyalty card holders

EG. bread 2009 £$0.50.....
retailers inflation..
      bread 2018 £$2 'only 50cents to walmart loyalty card holders'

debit cards belong to banks. i think your not seeing the point of this topic

once you can buy food, pay rent buy car fuel in your area. then you can de-bank yourself.
if not then your still reliant on bank money at some point. and just using btc for investing meaning your always going to be looking to exit BTC at the right price to run back to fiat

here is what the smart mining farms do

they have a contract with private investors who want bitcoin.
the private investors say 'we want X coin at X price for the next year'.
thy do this because they know if they just bought on the market. the market would jump high for only getting a few hundred btc. but they can buy via miners thousands of btc without impacting the markets.


they pay fiat upfront which purchases the rigs and covers electric for the year.
its been calculated. the difficulty may rise at a predictable rate and other contingencies are put in place

then the mining pool go ahead.
if the price on the market goes down. great the pool doesnt have to mine as much. they just buy it cheaper on the market
and hand the contracted amount of bitcoin to the investor.
(this keeps prices on the market up)

if the price goes up.. the pool continue mining normally and they sell a little(of their own uncontracted coin) and keep it for future
what they do not do is put a crap tonne of rigs onto the network when the price jumps. because they are just shooting their selves in the foot when the price goes back down and they are left with extra miners that are costing them extra.

BTCC learned the hard way. they now only have 1% of network hashrate because they were price followers rather than doing the smart thing of sticking to a long term view.

those that sell are just giving others future discounts related to the deflationary nature of bitcoins currency (long term view).

as those that bought in early years sell off. the less that are willing to sell at early year prices
(though i myself have a average cost base of 2012 prices. im not gonna sell.. but better to have less others, who would)