SegWit is a waste of disk space?

[kano]

I've posted this here also since there's 2 issues.
1) For pools having to accept an increase is disk space usage
2) In general regarding bitcoin why I posted it at the link:

So ... I'm wondering why we should put up with an increase in the amount of disk space required for segwit for the same number of transactions?

Why do we NEED segwit?

Simply increasing the block size will have the same effect without making individual transactions bigger.
segwit makes individual transactions bigger.

Now the only argument I've seen given for this is that if you ignore the segwit data you can run a smaller blockchain.

However, if instead you run a pruned blockchain it will be smaller, so I see the segwit excuse as FUD.

More so, saying you don't need the segwit data is the equivalent of saying SPV mining is OK.

As for malleability, so anyone wanna say why that can't be done properly on it's own without segwit?

Anyone got some answers that doesn't skip over and ignore these issues?

[1714666923]

1714666923

[1714666923]

1714666923

[Rabinovitch]

Could you please post here all your pros and cons regarding Segwit? Many of people think that Segwit is the only way of Bitcoin evolution, and that it's an urgently needed step...

[Carlton Banks]

Kano, you're a waste of disk space



The nested P2WPKH & P2WSH address types are, of course, inherently bigger

But the native forms won't be. You know this, and yet choose to lie by omission


People shouldn't trust someone as dishonest as you with anything, especially not their pool earnings

[HagssFIN]

What is a viable option besides Segwit?
One thing for sure is that we can't keep going with the current system forever.

[kano]

What is a viable option besides Segwit?
One thing for sure is that we can't keep going with the current system forever.

Well the problem with core is that they ignored BIP100 that offered bigger blocks, and had 70% pool approval before it even went to a proper vote.

The problem with BIP100 was that core didn't want it - it doesn't fit in with their personal "possible" financial gains running LN and centralising bitcoin more than they try to centralise it already.

If bitcoin wasn't centralised, then there would be multiple options in core at the moment to vote for blocksize changes.

Bitcoin already inherently handles 32MB blocks, it's mainly just a number defined in the code that limits it to 1MB.

SegWit in it's current form is simply core trying to fix the fuckups they made with P2SH, but it allows for other things ...
... and they can tout it as a block size solution, which is only a side effect of ignoring the extra data.

Meanwhile, I wrote the OP almost a year ago
There's still the rather amusing size issue that even core devs don't seem to understand.
A second storage of data requires a second storage of key information of that data.
Simple to understand for anyone with an inkling of an understanding of databases.

... and core segwit means that using standard 1x addresses will cost 4 times using P2SH addresses ... i.e. push everyone onto the problematic core P2SH addresses ...

[os2sam]

One thing for sure is that we can't keep going with the current system forever.

Why not?

Supply and demand works.

Maybe, if some pools weren't mining empty blocks and people weren't spamming the network with transactions to artificially consume block space, there would be such an "urgent" need to increase block size at all.  Granted it seems pools are mining fewer empty blocks, but they do still happen.  That is NOT a problem with bitcoin.  And people wasting their money with spam transactions consuming block space and bloating the number of unconfirmed transactions is NOT a problem with Bitcoin either.  That is people trying to manipulate others.

Bitcoin is a set of principles as much as it is a technology and an idea.  The less it is tampered with the better.  Bitcoin should be allowed to succeed or fail on it's own merits.

Those who want Bitcoin to be something different than what it is should start their own AltCoin with their own set of principles and technologies.  That may very well one day supplant Bitcoin or compliment it.

[HagssFIN]

Well my opinion is based on my own experiences while paying for things with BTC. Slow confirmations and high cost tx fees. How the hell that is a nice thing?

I agree though with you about the empty blocks and spam, 100%.

[os2sam]

Well my opinion is based on my own experiences while paying for things with BTC. Slow confirmations and high cost tx fees. How the hell that is a nice thing?

I agree though with you about the empty blocks and spam, 100%.

Supply and demand at work.  When supply decreases demand increases, and vice versa, then the cost increases.  I don't mine at the moment, but I really like seeing 1 to 2.5+ Bitcoin in transaction fees in each block.  That is very healthy for Bitcoin.  The only thing I have purchased lately are games on Steam, but I always use the higher transaction fee option and have always been very successful in getting my transaction accepted quickly.  Of course I am using Bitcoins I mined in 2011/12.

Transaction fees are the lifeblood of Bitcoin.  I think they are a "nice thing"  because without them Bitcoin has no real value.

[HagssFIN]

I'm a miner myself and I know that tx fees are important, but the current level of tx fees cost and tx confirmation speed fights the idea about bitcoin making fast low cost money transactions possible. Wasn't this one of the original ideas?

[NotFuzzyWarm]

I'm a miner myself and I know that tx fees are important, but the current level of tx fees cost and tx confirmation speed fights the idea about bitcoin making fast low cost money transactions possible. Wasn't this one of the original ideas?

To start, yes. But one cannot forget that Satoshi himself had stated that eventually 0 miner block rewards and only getting the Tx fees is Bitcoin's end-game. That is what the halving's will lead to. Tx fee's MUST increase for the remaining (mega) miners to survive at that point

[HagssFIN]

But when total number of transactions keeps rising, even lower level transaction fees make a good total amount in the end.

[VRobb]

Indeed Haggs!  And as I understand it it is trivial to increase the blocksize up to a max of 32MB since that's already coded in originally by Satoshi!  Don't need all that extra nonsense with all the ulterior motives attached...  

[-ck]

Indeed Haggs!  And as I understand it it is trivial to increase the blocksize up to a max of 32MB since that's already coded in originally by Satoshi!  Don't need all that extra nonsense with all the ulterior motives attached...  

32MB was the limit of the message size between nodes. There was in fact no limit at all to block size, but the message size wouldn't cope with anything larger than 32MB. Satoshi was the one who imposed a 1MB limit later on to minimise DoS risk. I suggest you do some reading in the more general bitcoin/ and development and technical/ discussion sections of the forum to understand why a massive increase all alone like that would be a potentially unmitigated disaster for the network at this time for multiple reasons. Even an increase to 2MB alone is massively different to 1MB; it doesn't just carry with it 'double the work, storage and bandwidth'. Some things do not scale linearly at all to size unfortunately due to the original protocol design of bitcoin transaction verification. The original design was not perfect (nothing ever is) and only with the benefit of hindsight can we see the flawed components in the design and the code which was a monolithic code dump from Satoshi. However it's here to stay and we need to work with it. Assuming we need to scale, everything must be factored into the scaling approach.

By the way, talk of BIP100 is back too, which was by far the most popular pool scaling choice at one stage, though currently they're trying to tie it in with BU:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1822824.0

[VRobb]

I stand corrected.  Thanks for the real explanation, -ck!

[Laviathon]

I am going to choose to go with segwit right now.   This whole SEGWIT/BU battle is bad for the values of the network.   Some of the features I agree are overkill however it does bring more information and stability to the network as a whole.     It does bring the larger block size which is the biggest argument that most of your BU supporters are campaigning for.  Am i Wrong?

[Biodom]

Segwt at least deals with technical aspects.
BU-a political power grab. They even have an office of "President" proposed. Ridiculous.

[lolailo]

Take a look at BitcoinEC, Core code plus block size option, without the rest of the BU changes and bugs.

[HostFat]

Segwt at least deals with technical aspects.
BU-a political power grab. They even have an office of "President" proposed. Ridiculous.

Forks are promoting forks, so, they are promoting diversity.
If you don't like BU, there is also Classic, XT and the next BitcoinEC.

[blacksmithtm]

Kano, you're a waste of disk space



The nested P2WPKH & P2WSH address types are, of course, inherently bigger

But the native forms won't be. You know this, and yet choose to lie by omission


People shouldn't trust someone as dishonest as you with anything, especially not their pool earnings

Meh, kano is sliding into obscurity. He will troll the community until he does. Meh.

[blacksmithtm]

I'm a miner myself and I know that tx fees are important, but the current level of tx fees cost and tx confirmation speed fights the idea about bitcoin making fast low cost money transactions possible. Wasn't this one of the original ideas?

This was an early marketing gimmick spread by people who didnt care about bitcoin but only $$$ to get people to invest. However, if you want low cost money transactions bitcoin is still the best bet. But the transaction systems have to be built on top. Unfortunately miners are against this, but in that they are only reducing the value of the tokens they mine.

Take a look at BitcoinEC, Core code plus block size option, without the rest of the BU changes and bugs.

What if EC has a bug? I mean the Concept behind BitcoinEC is dumb. They strip out the things Bitcoin Unlimited has worked on. Xthin, Parallel validation and so on, because you cant trust the devs who made it. Its crap. But the same devs made EC. So why isnt that being scrapped too?