Segregated Witness has been merged!

[achow101]

After months of testing, coding, and work, Segregated Witness has finally been merged into Bitcoin Core: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/8149.

Now that it has been merged, there are a few things that need to be done before release, and many things that will come after Segwit that builds upon it: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/.

[1714145933]

1714145933

[1714145933]

1714145933

[1714145933]

1714145933

[1714145933]

1714145933

[1714145933]

1714145933

[Lauda]

I was closely following the situation regarding the merge. As soon as I left my house, as my laptop is running reindex, it got merged. Anyhow, this is great news. RC1 will hopefully be released soon.
Update:

When is activation?

That is not yet known at this time.

I am still in two minds, if this is good or bad for Bitcoin. We need scaling, and we need innovation... but is this the only solution?

This is innovative scaling, unlike a block size increase.

[Denker]

So finally the big upgrade we all were waiting for is coming!
Thanks to all developers and reviewers for their hard and passionate work.
Well done guys! This is a great day!

[Kprawn]

When is activation? I am still in two minds, if this is good or bad for Bitcoin. We need scaling, and we need innovation... but is this the only solution? Who benefits the most out of this? There are still

some unanswered questions.. but at least we are moving forward with something. I feel like someone with multiple personalities syndrome.  ... We waited a long time for SegWit and now that it's

here, it's a bit of a anti climax.  Well hopefully this will silence some people now.

[Carlton Banks]

When is activation? I am still in two minds, if this is good or bad for Bitcoin. We need scaling, and we need innovation... but is this the only solution? Who benefits the most out of this? There are still

some unanswered questions

There's a contradiction here: you've been making concerned gestures for a while, but you're telling us today that you haven't spent enough time answering your own questions about Segwit. I don't know what to say, er, the truth is out there? Are you sure you care about this subject as much as you make out?

[AgentofCoin]

That's one small step for a bitcoin, one giant leap for Bitcoin-kind.

[LFC_Bitcoin]

This is excellent news, genuinely happy about this. Just in time for more transactions & increased adoption after the halving when the price will spike

[ronald98]

When is activation?

It depends on the miners. Any miners that choose to upgrade to 0.12.2 can produce blocks that are like a vote for segwit. After 95% of blocks have been produced by miners "voting" for segwit in a 2,016-block long retarget period segwit will be locked-in, about two weeks after that it will activate.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Deployment plan

The following plan describes how segwit is expected to be deployed.

Merge to master (without mainnet activation code): after Bitcoin Core developers “ACK” (approve) the final segwit pull request, it will be merged into the Bitcoin Core master Git repository branch. The code that is being merged will include everything in segwit except for the activation code. This will make it easy for developers to test other features on top of segwit, such as compact blocks. Activation on testnet has already occurred so users and developers may experiment and test segwit on testnet.

Backport to 0.12 branch: the unactivated code will be backported to the 0.12 maintenance branch and the backport will receive its own testing.

Choosing the BIP9 parameters: BIP9 is a soft fork deployment mechanism that allows miners to signal their readiness to enforce new consensus rules. Each soft fork made with BIP9 chooses when miners can begin signaling for the soft fork, when the soft fork is considered unsuccessful if not enough miners have signaled for it, and which bit in the block header version field will be used by miners to signal their readiness. These parameters will be selected at this time and implemented along with the code to activate segwit on both the master and 0.12 branches.

Release candidate phase: after all developer testing is successfully concluded, a release candidate (probably named 0.12.2RC1) will be publicly provided to anyone willing to test the code. Miners, merchants, and wallet vendors are especially encouraged to test. If any problems are found, they will be fixed and a new release candidate will be issued. This will be repeated as necessary until a release candidate is found with no known problems.

Binary release: the final release candidate will have its version changed to the final release version (expected to be 0.12.2) and will be released for all users to download and begin running at their leisure (segwit is a soft fork, so upgrading is only required if they plan to use segwit features).

Miners upgrade: miners who choose to upgrade to 0.12.2 will be able to start producing blocks that signal readiness to enforce segwit once the date defined as segwit’s BIP9 started date is reached.

Lock-in: once 95% of blocks in a 2,016-block long retarget period have signaled that their miners are ready to enforce segwit, segwit will lock-in – meaning that unless the blockchain is rolled back at that point, segwit will become active (see next point).

Activation: 2,016 blocks (about two weeks) after segwit is locked-in, it will activate. That means all full nodes running segwit-aware code will begin requiring miners to enforce the new segwit consensus rules.

Wallets upgrade: similar to the P2SH soft fork in 2012, after segwit activates it will not immediately be safe for wallets to upgrade to support segwit. That’s because spends from segwit transactions look like unsecured transactions to older nodes, so if the blockchain is forked soon after segwit activates, those spends could be placed in an earlier block that is not subject to segwit’s rules. For this reason, it is suggested that wallets avoid upgrading for a few weeks after segwit activates. Allowing that extra time to pass provides extra security to wallet users, although anyone who wants to test with a small amount of money they can afford to lose can begin spending as soon as segwit activates. Users can also begin testing immediately using testnet or regtest with the proposed segwit code or (when available) any release containing segwit.

However on May 23, 2016 bitcoinmagazine said antpool will not "vote" for segwit without a block size increase.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753

[BillyBobZorton]

Very good news, Core dev keep making impressive upgrades to BTC. Many good news and a great time to buy before we go to the next uprise.

[rizzlarolla]

This is innovative scaling, unlike a block size increase.

Innovative scaling, like the dao.
The segwit disaster is lurking.

It is not to late yet, adoption may never come.
Bitcoin may yet be saved.

[AliceGored]

This is innovative scaling, unlike a block size increase.

According to Jihan Wu, who controls Antpool (25% of global hashrate), there won't be any live segwit without a HF blocksize increase for 2017 activation.

So we get both! (or neither) Cool!

[Quickseller]

According to Jihan Wu, who controls Antpool (25% of global hashrate), there won't be any live segwit without a HF blocksize increase for 2017 activation.

So we get both! (or neither) Cool!

[img ]https://i.imgur.com/S89dQkA.png[/img]

This is very good, and is very important that he holds his ground. Bitcoin is in desperate need of a max block size increase, and as long as the blockstream core devs hold a veto card for any HF, it will be difficult to get a max block size increase without withholding support for something that the blockstream core devs need.

[unamis76]

Good news. This is well needed! But what's with the backporting again? Just update the current version and end support for older versions... Makes no sense.

[Carlton Banks]

According to Jihan Wu, who controls Antpool (25% of global hashrate), there won't be any live segwit without a HF blocksize increase for 2017 activation.

So we get both! (or neither) Cool!

[img ]https://i.imgur.com/S89dQkA.png[/img]

This is very good, and is very important that he holds his ground. Bitcoin is in desperate need of a max block size increase, and as long as the blockstream core devs hold a veto card for any HF, it will be difficult to get a max block size increase without withholding support for something that the blockstream core devs need.

Core team are increasing the blocksize, Segwit is that increase. They're increasing more than what the Antpool owner has demanded, so what his issue is, I'm not sure tbh. Let's not all forget that Antpool might have ~7% hashrate today, but tomorrow is another story. Even next Tuesday is a bit uncertain

[Lauda]

Innovative scaling, like the dao. The segwit disaster is lurking.

Here we go again: Complaining without actually doing anything that could be remotely considered helpful. The Segwit code does not have something that could be a potentially huge disaster such as the DAO one. A lot of the code (as described) is for testing.

So we get both! (or neither) Cool!

Let's stall consensus and blame Core afterwards. Good idea!  

Good news. This is well needed! But what's with the backporting again? Just update the current version and end support for older versions... Makes no sense.

They have an informative website that contains good information now: Lifecycle.

[rizzlarolla]

They're increasing more than what the Antpool owner has demanded, so what his issue is, I'm not sure tbh.

You need to catch up chum.

[AliceGored]

According to Jihan Wu, who controls Antpool (25% of global hashrate), there won't be any live segwit without a HF blocksize increase for 2017 activation.

So we get both! (or neither) Cool!

[img ]https://i.imgur.com/S89dQkA.png[/img]

This is very good, and is very important that he holds his ground. Bitcoin is in desperate need of a max block size increase, and as long as the blockstream core devs hold a veto card for any HF, it will be difficult to get a max block size increase without withholding support for something that the blockstream core devs need.

Core team are increasing the blocksize, Segwit is that increase. They're increasing more than what the Antpool owner has demanded, so what his issue is, I'm not sure tbh. Let's not all forget that Antpool might have ~7% hashrate today, but tomorrow is another story. Even next Tuesday is a bit uncertain

You may have been out of the loop, that's OK Carlton, it's difficult keeping up with everything.

Everyone at the agreement understood segwit could provide up to 1.8MB (less than 2, afaict) equiv if everyone uses segwit(which they won't). I suggest you carefully read the agreement as it sounds like you have been misinformed, or are simply uninformed.  

https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/bitcoin-roundtable-consensus-266d475a61ff

Antpool has 17% of the hashrate today (we were both wrong but I was closer ). Also, they were not the only mining pool to be a signatory to that agreement, there is a good chance that Jihan is sticking his neck out and taking the heat for the rest of them.



The fact remains, an agreement was reached with people who have the power to keep segwit unactivated unless their quite reasonable counter request is met. Without Core making a tiny compromise, segwit very likely could remain a monumental hypothetical coding exercise.

Cheers  

[rizzlarolla]

After months of testing, coding, and work,

Er, that fucks it for me.

Just increase the blocksize for now please Jihan, segwit needs more, er, testing.

[topiOleg]

So we get both! (or neither) Cool!

Let's stall consensus and blame Core afterwards. Good idea! 

The HK agreement between miners and blockstream (basically Core) represents consensus. It clearly says both 2 MB hardfork and Segwit to be delivered. Doing one but not the other one is actually stalling - not to mention breaking intentionally agreement is quick way to loose all credibility - not best day for Bitcoin if it really happens considering blockstream basically represents Core, the most used Bitcoin full node implementation today.

[achow101]

So we get both! (or neither) Cool!

Let's stall consensus and blame Core afterwards. Good idea! 

The HK agreement between miners and blockstream (basically Core) represents consensus. It clearly says both 2 MB hardfork and Segwit to be delivered. Doing one but not the other one is actually stalling - not to mention breaking intentionally agreement is quick way to loose all credibility - not best day for Bitcoin if it really happens considering blockstream basically represents Core, the most used Bitcoin full node implementation today.

Blockstream does not "basically represent core". That is a common misunderstanding spread by r/btc FUDers.

The Hong Kong agreement explicitly states that the hard fork code would be ready within 3 months of Segwit's release, something that has not happened yet. The miners agreed that they would run Segwit in production in the meantime. IT DOES NOT SAY THAT BOTH A HARD FORK AND SEGWIT WOULD BE DELIVERED AT THE SAME TIME.