seems a bit vague as a statistic

https://p2sh.info has more specific headings for their charts, and their Segwit usage charts show:

• 30-40% in fees are spent on segwit transctions
• 30-40% of the bytes in a block are from segwit transctions
• 40-50% of transactions include a segwit input
• 60-90% of BTC sent is from a segwit input
• Blocks are averaging about 1.3MB as a result (peak size 2.1MB)
• Tx/day peaked at over 500,000 (a little less meaningful now more batching is happening)

It would be interesting to see how many outputs per day are being sent, that's a better yardstick than any of the previous stats (athough they're all interesting/useful)


However, the success of segwit is far from total:

• 1.8% of outputs on the blockchain are bech32 (i.e. native segwit)
• 1.7% of outputs on the blockchain are P2SH-P2WPKH (i.e. nested segwit)

so 3.5% of BTC is kept permanently in segwit addresses, although the rate at which people are putting funds in segwit  addresses is gradually speeding up (again, as seen at https://p2sh.info)

so that means that the people who send Bitcoin everyday (i.e. in commerce) are taking the opportunity to use segwit to keep their costs low. But hodlers are just sticking with their long term addresses, why move your money if it's not needed? That makes sense, when people holding Bitcoin long term need to use it, they may well take the opportunity to save on future transaction fees. If they've heard about schnorr and other fee saving upgrades (as well as privacy improvements in e.g. taproot), they have even more reason to wait until absolutely necessary before switching long-term savings into new address types


to summarize:

• Segwit dominates daily payments on the network, but not completely (~55%)
• Compressed key P2PKH (i.e. legacy addresses everyone is most familiar with) dominates dormant money that doesn't move, and it does that almost completely (~97%)

and I'm totally happy: blocks are kept small-ish because of more heavily weighted inputs still existing so abundantly. Compromise: achieved

they'll get nothing from me


I don't give money to thieves, gangs or murderers, no matter how much they threaten me, or however respectable they claim to be

best (most simple) counter-argument IMO:

Nothing to hide: bad people use privacy to do bad things. good people want to stop this

The above is true, so it's easy to sell


however, let's simply invert that

Everything to protect: good people use privacy to do good things. bad people want to stop this


both are equally valid, but the latter trumps the former. to protect both your own and others privacy, conducting as much of your life as is possible in a private manner is important, as it makes the set of anonymised data larger, and more resistant to deduction.

---

you're wrong

@avikz you're making the fatal mistake that you and everyone else will always be able to trust those who obtain possession of data. The data can be kept forever (storage is cheaper than ever), and can be used to hurt as well as to help.


with attitudes like yours, I wouldn't want you as a business partner, a customer, a neighbour, a friend, a family member or in any association at all

devs are genuinely accomplished computer scientists. you're in no position to be questioning their planning when...



...all wrong. everything you've written above is incorrect


you cannot get basic facts correct, why place any importance on your badly informed pessimism



if any fork is significantly better than what it forks from, it will become the dominant fork


maybe you can't imagine the added features that a hardfork could use to outcompete it's parent chain. that doesn't mean someone else can't. this is no different to those people who say (well, complain) that "everything has already been invented", it's a form of jealousy/contempt really. you could invent things yourself. but you just don't want to. don't be a hater.

A schnorr/taproot proposal exists, but it's not final yet

there's no good reason why not (there aren't even any bad reasons as of yet)



why? the taproot/schnorr upgrade is likely to be flag activated once the details are finalised (alot of the code is already written in the secp256k library, just gluing that together with Bitcoin itself is the bulk of what's needed)



Lightning/segwit are not 10 years old, what are you talking about?

interesting that this coincides with Danish banks offering negative interest rates on mortgages (which is pretty much guaranteed to cause the Danish Kroner to go the way of the Venezuelan bolivar, the Danish real estate market there will be on fire once enough property speculators discover this is happening)

you clearly aren't familiar with the parable of the hare and the tortoise

• hare and tortoise race
• hare begins race too fast
• hare takes nap, overconfident of win
• tortoise wins while hare asleep

please don't reply, you have a bad reputation

yep, don't do this

the evidence that this company owned any BTC was falsified. maybe they do, but the evidence needs to be something a 10 year old kid couldn't fake, especially when there's talk of thousands of BTC

nope

gonna try this out, thanks for linking achow101

Ok then, NY Times

• terrorist organisations have a long history
• we know from this history that there are alot of spies in mid-level leadership roles in terrorist organisations

so it's pretty likely that at least some of this is all being performed by spy agencies anyway (your tax dollars at work, lol)

if you believe the spy agencies' stories about this issue, it's because they're "fighting terrorism from the inside". can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs, huh guys?

and what of IBM's reputation?


IBM collaborated with Nazi Germany during the 2nd World War, but they did not break any German law whilst doing so (many large companies, both German and American did so in fact)

well, that's basically saying "hardware wallets can't be used practicably as a hot wallet", which will always be true. You could do it (in theory), but it would mean manually signing everything, so you couldn't realistically route payments.

what I meant was, you can skip the stage where you fund the hot wallet, c-lightning negotiate the channel opening with a Lightning peer, and just fail it if you don't fund the opening transaction

wrong and wrong

• not "Satoshi's right hand man", he volunteered, he was not chosen
• he had precisely nothing to do with Segwit

hardware wallet firmware doesn't need to support Lighting directly, lightning clients (e.g. c-lightning) let you pay into channels from any address.

1. request a channel open
2. receive channel address to pay into
3. fund from hardware wallet

pretty easy

you're thinking of it the wrong way round


you've literally demonstrating that there's nothing anyone can do, this (and other) tech's anti-censorship properties are too strong, and that is intentional


so, "don't start a fight against a windmill", as they say. windmills won't even kick your ass, they'll stand there indifferently while you dance around them trying to look severe

let it go, there is no other choice

exactly

want to exploit a natural downtick in BTC price? why not save up some bad news stories, dump them on news websites when the market dips, then buy the dip when people panic sell

 

and there's no proof (in this case) that any scammers are doing this, or that they even have bags to dump.


anyone helping to prop up unfounded stories that move the market should be viewed with suspicion (at a minimum, they're dishonestly riding the waves of these manipulative stories, hoping to pick up cheap BTC before the correction upwards, anyone can do this without actually being a part of the original rumour)

that includes news websites "simply reporting bare facts" as well as individuals doing the same. If you want to report this sort of thing, it's important to emphasize that there's scant or no evidence, and that it's a possible attempt to manipulate the price short term

probably none, what I really mean is "if your bittorrent software is old, this might not work", as some people have lazy habits when it comes to updating software ("it works, right?")



it's more the strength of the Bittorrent network I'm really thinking about

• some people turn off things they think they don't need (e.g. DHT)
• some people use ancient bittorrent clients "because it still works, ain't broke, don't fix it", DHT support may be broken or missing

the tracker based system is vulnerable to censorship, the DHT less so.

Note that some centralisation actually still exist in the DHT, namely that you need to connect to a bootstrap node to become a DHT node in the first place. But this is much more difficult to disrupt than trackers IMO, the trackers are doing a more resource intensive job than DHT bootstrapping servers do, and they depend on both local and client-side configuration values (i.e. tracker urls) that can be easily attacked (but there are fewer DHT bootstrap servers than trackers)


in an attack against trackers:

if there was a widespread DoS attack against trackers, it would be alot of time and work before alternative trackers could be set up; all torrents would need to be moved to the new trackers, and then all users would need to add those trackers to their torrent client, one at a time for each torrent they are sharing. So, in practice the damage to the bittorrent network would likely never be fully recovered, as many users would not update their torrents with the new trackers, number of seeds would reduce, attack would cause significant damage to the content on the network, attack is a partial success


in an attack against DHT bootstrappers:

everyone would be forced to change to a new DHT bootstrapper. setting up a new DHT bootstrap server would be fast. No-one would need to change anything in their torrent client except the new bootstrap server url. all infohashes are the same, and so the bittorrent network would return to 100% health once everyone updated

---

tl;dr DHT peer discovery is more private, more decentralised, but most importantly more resilient