 The growing support still looks good for now but I would expect this to plateau at some point and may start going down the longer Segwit stays inactivated. So what would be the next step for Bitcoin as a whole if it is not activated? Will we see some developers of Core leaving in disappointment? That is over a year of their work that might go to waste. it won't go to waste... we will have segwit in one form or another, at some point in time.... its unavoidable. in anycase, all core really has to do is push out a 2MB HF ( and let miners vote on this BIP -_- ) and they win. but let take it one step at a time, first we deadlock. |
|
|
|
blocking ~33% = ViaBTC~6% + HaoBTC~6% + F2Pool~14% + GBMiners~3% + Bitcoin.com~2% + Slush Pool~2%BU undecided ~36%= AntPool~19% + BTC.com~5% + BW Pool~10% + Kano CK Pool~2% pro ~25% = BTCC~11% + BitFury~7% + Bitclub Network~3% + Slush Pool~4%segwit there's a 6% margin of error due to really bad rounding read all about this : http://www.nasdaq.com/article/where-bitcoin-mining-pools-stand-on-segregated-witness-cm713991i expect to see lots of action next week. i think segwit will probably gain >50%, will they wait for the other >40% to join them tho... they dont technically have too, all it would take is 0.13.2 ... |
|
|
|
|
IMO where LN shines most is when large centralized wallets providers say Bitstamps and Every_Other_Exchange want to allow users to move funds to and from any exchange. there can be LN channels opened connecting all these echanges together, the channels are almost never closed, it is simply a trustless way for all the exchanges to track the movements of user funds back and forth.
from the user point of view he logs into bitstamps and request XBTC to be moved to MtGox, and in 3 seconds flat his account( or any other account he wants to send funds to ) on Mtgox is credited.
user doesn't need to worry about operating the channel, the exchanges do that behind the covers.
if your brain is saying " RED ALERT! " after reading this, congratulations you "get it", but you'll probably still use this killer app yourself... admit it!
|
|
|
|
|
pools are easily replaceable...
chinese minners can point there hashing power to a pool outside of chain..
but if the chinese government is truly adamant on controlling bitcoin via controlling these large miners
we will have no choice but to execute executive order 256 ( nuke the SHA265 POW )
but, there is also another solution.
minners could make the rules that constitute a valid block so tight the miners have no choice to create valid blocks or get orphen.
for example if all miners subscribed to the idea that if the block contains 0 TX coming from US it not a valid block, well then you'll have the majority hashing power ( china gov hashers ) creating invalid blocks thats all...
|
|
|
|
id like to remind everyone that
SegWit is great for Bitcoin. It brings more transaction throughput, fixes malleability, defrags the UTXO set, makes hardware wallets more secure and most importantly, it enables Lightning which will bring instant low cost Bitcoin transactions to the world. The team at BTCC have been working hard at making their exchange and mining pool services SegWit ready, and everyone else should do the same.
You are correct but people are forgetting one major thing; Bitcoin cannot go mainstream with just bigger blocks. You need something like 1gig blocks to make a shot for it, the internet cant even handle that. Hardforking from 1mb all the way up to 1gig is just a no-go zone, Lightning will fulfill that job because you really want to have high capacity when ''monkey see monkey do'' situation arrives. Bitcoin is booming all over the globe, what will happen with the memepool with to low mb blocks if millions if not a few billion off people want to use the network? We will be seeing millions of unconfirmed txs that will lead to a more panic situation than now. If someone doesn't like Lightning well youre are not forced to use it, you can always use the normal payment option like today...Also lots of private keys coins will be lost when millions of sheeps start to use Bitcoin. The more payment options ore layers there is the better. Look at Roostock they use another layer for there Smart Contracts using Bitcoin for security just like Kim.com with his BitCache! Segwit followed with the Lightning network is the best possible update Bitcoin can have. Those unlimited guys are very short sighted they screaming for bigger blocks no matter what the consequences are  I want to see Bitcoin beeing used by many as possible, not because for the $$ (making $$ is sweet but it's not my 1st priority ) but to free youre self from the Zionist Jew Fiat Debt Slave Pyramide Ponzi Banking System. i agree with mostly everything you say. but i feel that limiting blocks to 1MB does push users off chain. I believe other cryptos will not push/force poeple off chain this way, and user might find themselves tipping with dash or somthing else, rather then go to LN... the segwit blocking isn't about blocking segwit persay, its about blocking the direction we are headed. sacrifice the usage of the blockchain as a trade off to keep maximal node distribution Or sacrifice node distribution to incress usage of the blockchain this is the true reason why poeple have a problem with segwit, is that it locks in the idea that offchain payments are an acceptable compromise to maintain max node distribution. some would rather sacrifice node distribution to incress usage of the blockchain. and many believe that node distribution would not be affected at all anywho, because BU provides some enhancements which greatly reduce bandwidth usage. in the end there will be cryptos that go the LN scaling way and others that go the block size scaling way, bitcoin must compete in this environment ( there is simply no avoiding that ) its a very complex issue.... with no clear cut right answer. |
|
|
|
Replicating millions and billions of transactions would be a waste of network resources
bitcoin is very inefficient. but bitcoin's efficiency isn't what makes it special we put up with its inefficient design because this design give us the properties we want. bottom line is we are more then willing to trade off efficiency for decentralization, we dont care if it makes CPU's sweat a little. I don't think that the current blockchain paradigm (that of unique flat blockchain) could ever get scaled up to this level
the real question here is what level of decentralization is nessary or desirable... and dose this target move as bitcoin scales up? imagine we are at "this level" with the current blockchain paradigm. in this scenario bitcoin has "taken over"... so who are the nodes? at that point nodes are ran by governments of the world, corporations and other larger entities. no one government or corporation is in control... where's the central authority? where's the problem? i dont see it. as long as there is no central authority capable of censoring TX or issuing new bitcoins. there is no problem. and also users have a strong element of control over the system without having to run a node at all, but by CHOOSING the crypto they TX in. here's the real real question: is centralizing the use of blockchain an acceptable trade off to maintain maximal node distribution? are we willing to centralize on chain usage to large entities so that individual user can continue to run nodes? Or are we willing to centralize node distribution to large entities so that individual user can continue to use blockchain? |
|
|
|
So ... bitfury finally started signalling segwit correctly (rather than just in the coinbase string). That should add about 8% to the segwit hash fraction, bringing it up to something like 28%. Check it out here: https://btc.com/stats/pool/BitFuryDon't think it will matter much, it only takes one Chinese farm to stop Segwit. I dont think so, ViaBTC will be forced to support Segwit when they are the last one, ore they will run out of business. if ViaBTC is the last miner to update to 13.1, yes i agree they will yield |
|
|
|
Hey all, would love to participate in the ongoing segwit conversation that many seem to be having, but apparently the mods believe in just selectively culling whatever posts in this thread they want to remove about that topic (or any topic), without any explanation as to why.
I guess (selective, random) censorship is alive and well here.
It's for your own good, obviously! Don't want you hurting yourself thinking too much  /s On topic, I'm waiting for another high volume drop/rebound off ~$700-$710 before we start moving up in any major way. good targets. |
|
|
|
dear Satoshi Nakamoto thanks for inventing bitcoin. sorry about the mess.  |
|
|
|
main community wants segwit!
who are you referring to? the poeple from the censored forms? node count? hashing power? how can you claim to know what the majority want? |
|
|
|
where do you get this "LN will open the door to Fractional Reserve Banking with BTC."  sounds unbelievable. Think about it, You will deposit your BTC with the LN network, which is offchain. But if the LN is deployed, it will almost certainly be based on a small number of big hubs.
These big hubs could mutiply the money in circulation in the same way that banks multiply the amount of dollar bills.
Namely, they would start issuing bitcoin IOUs and lend them to people, backed by a fractional reserve of bitcoins.
That is, the hub has 1000 actual BTC, but issues IOUs worth 5000 BTC.
The hubs would extend the LN protocol to let clients use those IOUs for payments (much as people today use checks and bank wires as equivalent alternatives to cash).
Clients would even be able to redeem the IOUs for real BTC; the hubs would be betting that only a small fraction of the clients would redeem at the same time.
Basically every transaction that does not go on the blockchain is basically an IOU from the LN network for BTC, which if you stay in LN offchain , they never have to pay. It can work the same as banks, Fractional-reserve banking is the practice whereby a bank accepts deposits, makes loans or investments, and holds reserves in amounts equal to a fraction of the amount of its deposit liabilities.[1] Reserves are held at the bank as currency and balances in the bank's accounts at the central bank. Fractional-reserve banking is the current form of banking practiced in most countries worldwide.[2]  i'm not sure you're right about this... but now i wonder if you could spend your "LNcoins" on two different/independent channels at the same time.... no wait thats probably what the time lock is for? fuck IDK ahhhh LN is scary shit to me. |
|
|
|
where do you get this "LN will open the door to Fractional Reserve Banking with BTC." sounds unbelievable.
my biggest problem with LN is the unintended and unforeseeable consequences.we know bitcoin works, and we know it works well. we have no idea about this LN thing... it appears to be very complex, and very easy for users to make mistakes that could cost them. my second problem with LN is the idea that its not going to be simple to use. it was hard enough to get poeple to understand alice sends bob BTC using bobs bitcoin address, asking them to understand and use LN will prove to be a complete failure. I love how segwit could solve the accounting problem of... say... Bitstamps wants to let users move BTC to/from TheRockTradingPost, and they need a way to move 1000's of TX back and forth without using the blockchain and without a trusted 3rd party. but i dont buy that this tech will be useful to the "home user". my third problem with LN, I dont want to be Forced into using it, by trying to convince that main chain scaling( block size incress) will make bitcoin centralized, and thats why 1MB is "as good as it get", and fees and delays are an acceptable trade off. i call BS on that, i a think there making up excuses to push poeple of chain. TD;LR LN is fine, as long as you dont force poeple off chain with high fees on a 1MB block |
|
|
|
How can we increase adoption, make Bitcoin mainstream, and make it a one world currency so that no one in the world can actually spend any money. LOL
To the moon. ROFL
first make all users download the blockchain ( this is very important ) then you make them send their btc to a LN node then they can timelock these bitcoins and open channels then they can buy 30,000 separate cam shows and only pay 12$ in TX fee they have to do this before their time lock expires and closes the channel ofc...  thats how its done. |
|
|
|
I have an unconfirmed transaction, already 2 days.
How long it will last?
please stand by, Carlton Banks will soon prove to you that your TX dont matter, and your attempt to use bitcoin was just silly. |
|
|
|
20% of hashing power currently supports segwit. i would imagine that potential support for segwit (like this week) tops out at 30-50% ( way to many mixed feelings about segwit ) but who is this 20% hashing power supporting segwit looking at the graph it would seem like its two pools one of ~5% hashing power and a monstrous pool of ~15% http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.pngwho are these poeple? |
|
|
|
|
20% of hashing power currently supports segwit.
i would imagine that potential support for segwit (like this week) tops out at 30-50%
but who is this 20% hashing power supporting segwit
|
|
|
|
|
grrrrrr
this never ending argument is truly never ending.
|
|
|
|
i just dont want core to block scaling via block size
You're completely dodging the argument which is fallacy. can you repeat the question? because once we have LN, core devs will say things like " the settlement layer must remain DECENTRALIZED,
False assumption. ya right. if you have a problem with the 10$ fees go learn how to use LN, you dumb users that can hardly turn on a computer!"
Appeal to extremes. is it really all that extreme?
..
(Fee: $ 0.97 - Size: 192 bytes) 2016-11-24 00:26:22
(Fee: $ 5.77 - Size: 1554 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:28
(Fee: $ 3.00 - Size: 223 bytes) 2016-11-23 23:42:06
...
sometime cores act like users are going to lose funds because the user didnt upgrade in time.
I've yet to see this somewhere. no shit they wouldn't flat out say that, they want you to FEEL like hard forks are very dangerous. user wakes up, everything APPEARS to work fine, and unknown to him a softfork has been activated.
Yet everything continues to work just fine even after a soft fork. This is a moot point. right, core devs are infallible programming gods, so i guess there's no real danger. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
