New SegWit stats?

[CoinCidental]

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.

the hong kong agreement was increased blocksize first and foremost
segwit is smoke and mirrors
a bullshit over complicated solution and i think some of the miners can see this more clearly than others
moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue  in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first

[Lauda]

the hong kong agreement was increased blocksize first and foremost

That agreement was nonsense, stop referencing it.

segwit is smoke and mirrors
a bullshit over complicated solution and i think some of the miners can see this more clearly than others

That is an outright lie. Segwit is not as complex as the average (r/btc) Joe tries to paint it as such. Practically, the majority of the developers (non Core) support it.

moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue  in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first

Segwit != moving TXs to LN. Stop spreading false information. Segwit is a block size increase.

[franky1]

the hong kong agreement was increased blocksize first and foremost

That agreement was nonsense, stop referencing it.

lol seems you have the wrong hat on today.

segwit is smoke and mirrors
a bullshit over complicated solution and i think some of the miners can see this more clearly than others

That is an outright lie. Segwit is not as complex as the average (r/btc) Joe tries to paint it as such. Practically, the majority of the developers (non Core) support it.

yet dynamic blocksize implementations have been publicly released AND RUNNING since last year..
but took core a 10 months to REWRITE their entire implementation.

cores implementation is not just a simple patch, it was a whole rewrite.
i really think its time you learn C++

moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue  in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first

Segwit != moving TXs to LN. Stop spreading false information. Segwit is a block size increase.

firstly your playing semantics.. segwit is a BLOAT size increase(4mb). with a side effect of capacity increase (1.8mb-2.1mb)
the 4mb weight limit has no correlation to capacity. the base block and witness does..
which is having a one time side effect on capacity increase, but cannot scale. EG you cannot re segwit a segwit, so has nothing to do with scaling. its a one time boost. stop over selling it.

secondly your right segwit doesnt mean moving txs to LN. (but your just twisting 'why' its not directly involved with LN)
much like seeing a baby take its first step doesnt mean all babies should be entered into a cities marathon race event.

but without being able to take a certain step early on, marathons in the future would never happen.

lets atleast not think that marathons are made compulsory for anyone able to walk in the future.
lets atleast not think LN is compulsory for anyone able to use bitcoin in the future.

so i hope i never see you in the future talk about LN as the solution to scaling. or i will have to refer you to this post to remind you

[Lauda]

lol seems you have the wrong hat on today.

No, I do not. The agreement ended up being a big waste of time.

cores implementation is not just a simple patch, it was a whole rewrite.

I never claimed that it was a simple patch. However, it is nowhere near as complicated as the /r/btc and other misinformed people try to make it out to be.

firstly your playing semantics.. segwit is a BLOAT size increase(4mb). with a side effect of capacity increase (1.8mb-2.1mb)

It is a block size increase.

secondly your right segwit doesnt mean moving txs to LN.

I know I am, don't worry.

[CoinCidental]

the hong kong agreement was increased blocksize first and foremost

That agreement was nonsense, stop referencing it.

lol seems you have the wrong hat on today.

segwit is smoke and mirrors
a bullshit over complicated solution and i think some of the miners can see this more clearly than others

That is an outright lie. Segwit is not as complex as the average (r/btc) Joe tries to paint it as such. Practically, the majority of the developers (non Core) support it.

yet dynamic blocksize implementations have been publicly released AND RUNNING since last year..
but took core a 10 months to REWRITE their entire implementation.

cores implementation is not just a simple patch, it was a whole rewrite.
i really think its time you learn C++

moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue  in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first

Segwit != moving TXs to LN. Stop spreading false information. Segwit is a block size increase.

firstly your playing semantics.. segwit is a BLOAT size increase(4mb). with a side effect of capacity increase (1.8mb-2.1mb)
the 4mb weight limit has no correlation to capacity. the base block and witness does..
which is having a one time side effect on capacity increase, but cannot scale. EG you cannot re segwit a segwit, so has nothing to do with scaling. its a one time boost. stop over selling it.

secondly your right segwit doesnt mean moving txs to LN. (but your just twisting 'why' its not directly involved with LN)
much like seeing a baby take its first step doesnt mean all babies should be entered into a cities marathon race event.

but without being able to take a certain step early on, marathons in the future would never happen.

lets atleast not think that marathons are made compulsory for anyone able to walk in the future.
lets atleast not think LN is compulsory for anyone able to use bitcoin in the future.

so i hope i never see you in the future talk about LN as the solution to scaling. or i will have to refer you to this post to remind you

At least some people can see this thing for what it is...
You can explain it to some people, but you can't understand it for them... 

[Temp_JayJuanGee]

I still don't understand why there are some people opposed to the SegWit implementation. Isn't it something that will make the Bitcoin ecosystem better? What are the arguments against this? Could it take more than a month for the consensus to be reached?

Let me try to explain it the way I see it. The problem the Chinese have with Segwit, is not so much with Segwit itself but with what will happen after Segwit. The Chinese are afraid that the side-chains the core devs are working on will take money out of their pockets by reducing the number of potential transaction fees in the future. So by blocking Segwit, they are blocking side-chains like lightning network. The Chinese want bigger blocks to collect more money in fees in the future. At least this is what I think, maybe I am wrong or maybe someone can explain it better.

I have heard that explanation before, and it really makes very little sense because bitcoin takes a really long time to develop and evolve, and there are always going to be changes in one direction or another and various kinds of ways to tweak your own business method in order to attempt to increase profits or to make various bets upon the future.

Seg wit was largely a consensus driven development that has been considerably tested and has taken a while to get to its current stage of attempted activation.  Even with all of this, miners are going to be able to adapt in order to find profit models, and I doubt that any miner really expects bitcoin to stay stagnant or that their way of mining does not have to evolve with changes in software, fees and/or practices.

[DaRude]

I still don't understand why there are some people opposed to the SegWit implementation. Isn't it something that will make the Bitcoin ecosystem better? What are the arguments against this? Could it take more than a month for the consensus to be reached?

Let me try to explain it the way I see it. The problem the Chinese have with Segwit, is not so much with Segwit itself but with what will happen after Segwit. The Chinese are afraid that the side-chains the core devs are working on will take money out of their pockets by reducing the number of potential transaction fees in the future. So by blocking Segwit, they are blocking side-chains like lightning network. The Chinese want bigger blocks to collect more money in fees in the future. At least this is what I think, maybe I am wrong or maybe someone can explain it better.

I have heard that explanation before, and it really makes very little sense because bitcoin takes a really long time to develop and evolve, and there are always going to be changes in one direction or another and various kinds of ways to tweak your own business method in order to attempt to increase profits or to make various bets upon the future.

Seg wit was largely a consensus driven development that has been considerably tested and has taken a while to get to its current stage of attempted activation.  Even with all of this, miners are going to be able to adapt in order to find profit models, and I doubt that any miner really expects bitcoin to stay stagnant or that their way of mining does not have to evolve with changes in software, fees and/or practices.

So after investing millions in technology which would possible take years to get a return on investment you're saying miners should be happy about instant (almost free) LN transactions which they can't profit from?

[DaRude]

...

moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue  in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first

Segwit != moving TXs to LN. Stop spreading false information. Segwit is a block size increase.

firstly your playing semantics.. segwit is a BLOAT size increase(4mb). with a side effect of capacity increase (1.8mb-2.1mb)
the 4mb weight limit has no correlation to capacity. the base block and witness does..
which is having a one time side effect on capacity increase, but cannot scale. EG you cannot re segwit a segwit, so has nothing to do with scaling. its a one time boost. stop over selling it.

secondly your right segwit doesnt mean moving txs to LN. (but your just twisting 'why' its not directly involved with LN)
much like seeing a baby take its first step doesnt mean all babies should be entered into a cities marathon race event.

but without being able to take a certain step early on, marathons in the future would never happen.

lets atleast not think that marathons are made compulsory for anyone able to walk in the future.
lets atleast not think LN is compulsory for anyone able to use bitcoin in the future.

so i hope i never see you in the future talk about LN as the solution to scaling. or i will have to refer you to this post to remind you

So let me see if i understand you correctly, now we are able to process 1MB of transactions every 10 min, after the upgrade we will be able to process 2.1MB of transactions every 10min. Which as you agree is a capacity increase, yet somehow it doesn't equate to scaling because babies can't run marathons.
Yes how can the rest of the world not understand that logic, the only reasonable explanation is a conspiracy by the big bankers.

You'd have a much better argument just straight up saying that you don't consider manual increases of throughput as scaling, and what YOU mean by scaling is AUTOMATED scaling e.g. where block size can be  adjusted unlimitedly up by the protocol i.e. BU. And your logic on why LN is not a solution to scaling, is most people think of scaling in terms of throughput/tps e.g. how many transactions can be made with BTC. Where your definition of scaling is the the size of the blocksize data structure in C++

See how easy that was, no that we agreed on terms there's no need to argue anymore 

[franky1]

So let me see if i understand you correctly, now we are able to process 1MB of transactions every 10 min, after the upgrade we will be able to process 2.1MB of transactions every 10min. Which as you agree is a capacity increase, yet somehow it doesn't equate to scaling because babies can't run marathons.
Yes how can the rest of the world not understand that logic, the only reasonable explanation is a conspiracy by the big bankers.

You'd have a much better argument just straight up saying that you don't consider manual increases of throughput as scaling, and what YOU mean by scaling is AUTOMATED scaling e.g. where block size can be  adjusted unlimitedly up by the protocol i.e. BU. And your logic on why LN is not a solution to scaling, is most people think of scaling in terms of throughput/tps e.g. how many transactions can be made with BTC. Where your definition of scaling is the the size of the blocksize data structure in C++

See how easy that was, no that we agreed on terms there's no need to argue anymore 

word games..

4mb not= 4x capacity
4mb not= relevance to capacity
the 2.1mb = capacity increase
the 2.1mb = relevance to capacity

LN should not be the compulsory end game solution to capacity scaling. it should just be an open choice/service on the side.

easy enough, and i only used silly analogies due to the person i reply to having silly analogies in the past. so i was trying to speak on their level

[Temp_JayJuanGee]

I still don't understand why there are some people opposed to the SegWit implementation. Isn't it something that will make the Bitcoin ecosystem better? What are the arguments against this? Could it take more than a month for the consensus to be reached?

Let me try to explain it the way I see it. The problem the Chinese have with Segwit, is not so much with Segwit itself but with what will happen after Segwit. The Chinese are afraid that the side-chains the core devs are working on will take money out of their pockets by reducing the number of potential transaction fees in the future. So by blocking Segwit, they are blocking side-chains like lightning network. The Chinese want bigger blocks to collect more money in fees in the future. At least this is what I think, maybe I am wrong or maybe someone can explain it better.

I have heard that explanation before, and it really makes very little sense because bitcoin takes a really long time to develop and evolve, and there are always going to be changes in one direction or another and various kinds of ways to tweak your own business method in order to attempt to increase profits or to make various bets upon the future.

Seg wit was largely a consensus driven development that has been considerably tested and has taken a while to get to its current stage of attempted activation.  Even with all of this, miners are going to be able to adapt in order to find profit models, and I doubt that any miner really expects bitcoin to stay stagnant or that their way of mining does not have to evolve with changes in software, fees and/or practices.

So after investing millions in technology which would possible take years to get a return on investment you're saying miners should be happy about instant (almost free) LN transactions which they can't profit from?

I am not saying that.  

I am saying that individual miners or even pool participants are not likely stuck in the mud with their "millions" in investment, and they are likely going to figure out a variety of kinds of ways to profit from whatever happens (some scenarios more favorable than other scenarios).... and even if they cannot figure out profitability right away, in most cases, miners probably already have enough insight to recognize that bitcoin has not been and is not likely to be either a static investment or a static industry.

[Wind_FURY]

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.

the hong kong agreement was increased blocksize first and foremost
segwit is smoke and mirrors
a bullshit over complicated solution and i think some of the miners can see this more clearly than others
moving txs to LN will hurt miners revenue  in the future so they will ultimately reject segwit without a block increase first

That is merely pure speculation. Why? Because we do not have a final implementation of he Lightning Network yet. Basing that hypothesis on the early proposals, maybe it might hurt them. But it might not be in a big way like what you are trying to project. Do not forget that LN channels will and have to close at some point.

[franky1]

That is merely pure speculation. Why? Because we do not have a final implementation of he Lightning Network yet. Basing that hypothesis on the early proposals, maybe it might hurt them. But it might not be in a big way like what you are trying to project. Do not forget that LN channels will and have to close at some point.

im sure there are some taint analysis groups that can spot things like satoshi dice-esq gambling sites, faucets, and other services that would happily utilise LN to save them costs while also running a hub to earn fee's from users to literally cost them nothing to settle.

and then make some statistics of projections of how much those services are using bitcoin to see the possible benefit if any if they used LN.

EG if these regular spending services dont do much compared to the rest of the community, we wont see much of a change.