Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!

[achow101]

I have a technical question on how SegWit works:

With current transactions, the number of confirmations acts as a guarantee of the Bitcoins deposited. Many services require between 3-6 confirmations to show that funds have been deposited.

With SegWit, does this logic still remain?

I may be confused with what SegWit and Lightning does. I've heard some mention that it can give an instantaneous guarantee of fund transfer, however I don't see how this would work without confirmations of the original transaction...

You're confusing Segwit with Lightning. Segwit does not touch confirmations or anything like that, it only affects the data itself. The number of confirmations required will still be the same.

Lightning is different and allows instantaneous transactions because the transactions actually happen off chain. The guarantee that your transactions are final are done through incentives and retaliation. The only onchain parts of lightning are the opening and closing of payment channels.

[1714107756]

1714107756

[1714107756]

1714107756

[1714107756]

1714107756

[1714107756]

1714107756

[1714107756]

1714107756

[Seal]

I have a technical question on how SegWit works:

With current transactions, the number of confirmations acts as a guarantee of the Bitcoins deposited. Many services require between 3-6 confirmations to show that funds have been deposited.

With SegWit, does this logic still remain?

I may be confused with what SegWit and Lightning does. I've heard some mention that it can give an instantaneous guarantee of fund transfer, however I don't see how this would work without confirmations of the original transaction...

You're confusing Segwit with Lightning. Segwit does not touch confirmations or anything like that, it only affects the data itself. The number of confirmations required will still be the same.

Lightning is different and allows instantaneous transactions because the transactions actually happen off chain. The guarantee that your transactions are final are done through incentives and retaliation. The only onchain parts of lightning are the opening and closing of payment channels.

Thanks for the clarification achow101. That gives me a few more questions to ask about Lightning... I'll save those for a more relevant post though. I'm starting to see how clever SegWit is now in what it does. Definitely a strong scaling option... coming from someone who was previously in the 2mb only camp.

[JayJuanGee]

I'm sure that you are a solid developer since you run a mining pool. Are you 100% confident that changing 4743 lines of code deep in the Bitcoin codebase won't have any issues?  And what about wallet and 3rd party software? When you add it all up, we're looking at tens of thousands of lines of code changes, which guarantees roughly 150-500 bugs (industry average) in all of this software, of which 2-5 are potentially catastrophic...

A hard fork to 2MB would involve one line of code change and some late-night sweating and swearing for a week 

Bitcoin Core does not follow normal industry standards in regards to defect rates, this is due to a huge emphasis on code review and testing by domain experts in cryptography and secure programming(a large amount of code written for SegWit is testing code), and when it comes to consensus critical code like SegWit extra care is taken during testing to prevent defects beyond what is typically done in areas of the codebase that aren't consensus critical. SegWit in Bitcoin Core is some of the most thoroughly tested code in the Bitcoin industry and is unlikely to have any bugs that would cause serious issues.

When it comes to support for wallets most rely on well reviewed 3rd party libraries that are ready to support SegWit. For some wallets like hardware wallets SegWit helps a lot since it fixes issues with the transaction format.

Interestingly enough a lot of the code that was written for SegWit would also have needed to be written in the event of a hard fork, for example the preferential peering code written for SegWit would also be needed for any hard fork. Due to the difficulty in activation coordination and other issues such as the sigop/sighash scaling issue there's no such thing as a simple 2MB hard fork.

Wow!!!!!!!   That is a very great explanation of reality, and you were even nice to the purposeful FUD spreader.   

[classicsucks]

I'm sure that you are a solid developer since you run a mining pool. Are you 100% confident that changing 4743 lines of code deep in the Bitcoin codebase won't have any issues?  And what about wallet and 3rd party software? When you add it all up, we're looking at tens of thousands of lines of code changes, which guarantees roughly 150-500 bugs (industry average) in all of this software, of which 2-5 are potentially catastrophic...

A hard fork to 2MB would involve one line of code change and some late-night sweating and swearing for a week 

Bitcoin Core does not follow normal industry standards in regards to defect rates, this is due to a huge emphasis on code review and testing by domain experts in cryptography and secure programming(a large amount of code written for SegWit is testing code), and when it comes to consensus critical code like SegWit extra care is taken during testing to prevent defects beyond what is typically done in areas of the codebase that aren't consensus critical.

I agree that Bitcoin core has had a lower rate of bugs per lines of code than industry average, but when you increase complexity, and particularly when you increase the number of lines of code, you create defects. It's a hard and fast rule of the software industry, ask anyone (except a Java programmer).

I find it very hard to believe that implementing Segwit support in existing software will be easier than a 2MB hard fork, please site a source for this.

[-ck]

I find it very hard to believe that implementing Segwit support in existing software will be easier than a 2MB hard fork, please cite a source for this.

No one said that, did they?

On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.

[JayJuanGee]

I'm sure that you are a solid developer since you run a mining pool. Are you 100% confident that changing 4743 lines of code deep in the Bitcoin codebase won't have any issues?  And what about wallet and 3rd party software? When you add it all up, we're looking at tens of thousands of lines of code changes, which guarantees roughly 150-500 bugs (industry average) in all of this software, of which 2-5 are potentially catastrophic...

A hard fork to 2MB would involve one line of code change and some late-night sweating and swearing for a week 

Bitcoin Core does not follow normal industry standards in regards to defect rates, this is due to a huge emphasis on code review and testing by domain experts in cryptography and secure programming(a large amount of code written for SegWit is testing code), and when it comes to consensus critical code like SegWit extra care is taken during testing to prevent defects beyond what is typically done in areas of the codebase that aren't consensus critical.

I agree that Bitcoin core has had a lower rate of bugs per lines of code than industry average, but when you increase complexity, and particularly when you increase the number of lines of code, you create defects. It's a hard and fast rule of the software industry, ask anyone (except a Java programmer).

I find it very hard to believe that implementing Segwit support in existing software will be easier than a 2MB hard fork, please site a source for this.

Ongoing and crazy attempts to shift the burden and to suggest some kind of emergency or facts that do not exist - namely, there is no emergency need to increase the blocksize that seems to be implied.

In other words, if there is no scaling problem, then what is the need for 2mb blocks?  Why implement something that is not needed?

Seg wit addresses issues other than just scaling, and has already been tested and vetted and is there and available to signal for adoption.

[bitsolutions]

I agree that Bitcoin core has had a lower rate of bugs per lines of code than industry average, but when you increase complexity, and particularly when you increase the number of lines of code, you create defects. It's a hard and fast rule of the software industry, ask anyone (except a Java programmer).

In reality SegWit is cleaning up a lot of technical debt with the transaction format and it's simplifying things for wallets that use it. SegWit simplifies transaction handling complexity by fixing the malleability issue fundamentally, this should reduce defects in all wallets that use it.

I find it very hard to believe that implementing Segwit support in existing software will be easier than a 2MB hard fork, please site a source for this.

SegWit(or a similar transaction format fix) is effectively a prerequisite for any block size increase hard fork due to the sighash issue. BIP109(Classic) ended up using the same limiter proposed in BIP101 which has issues(it makes testing of some codepaths more difficult for one), funny enough even Gavin argued against the approach ultimately used in BIP109, they used it anyways after realizing some pools used transactions over 100,000 bytes for payouts. SegWit is also backwards compatible so unlike a hard fork existing software doesn't have to rush code out without a chance to properly test. Rushing and skipping testing/code review is something that certainly increases defects in the software industry.

[classicsucks]

On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.

Remember: BU and Segwit are not the only two choices in the world... 2MB hard fork is VERY easy from the software side. The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.


At this point, lines are drawn, and people are unlikely to accept Segwit, regardless of whether a blocksize increase is included or not.


JayGuanGee, [facepalm], I can't even engage with you, please look at this chart and tell me there is no problem again: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7&timespan=all  (7-day average mempool size).

[JayJuanGee]

On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.

Remember: BU and Segwit are not the only two choices in the world... 2MB hard fork is VERY easy from the software side. The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.


At this point, lines are drawn, and people are unlikely to accept Segwit, regardless of whether a blocksize increase is included or not.


JayGuanGee, [facepalm], I can't even engage with you, please look at this chart and tell me there is no problem again: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7&timespan=all  (7-day average mempool size).

You cannot engage because you are continuing to exaggerate and to make things up.  Yes, blocks are still full, but transactions are going through and fees remain relatively low. and we are still achieving secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer of value.  This bitcoin thingie is world changing, and even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks), bitcoin brings a lot of value, even in its current state.  So don't be trying to suggest that bitcoin needs to compete with Visa or with some payment system, when it achieves a whole other level of added value, even in it's current state and even if some variation of its current state were to continue for the next 20 years.

[classicsucks]

...continuing to exaggerate and to make things up. 

The largest river in the world is DENIAL.

... even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks),

At least you're looking for solutions, even if there is "no problem".

[hv_]

On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.

Remember: BU and Segwit are not the only two choices in the world... 2MB hard fork is VERY easy from the software side. The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.


At this point, lines are drawn, and people are unlikely to accept Segwit, regardless of whether a blocksize increase is included or not.


JayGuanGee, [facepalm], I can't even engage with you, please look at this chart and tell me there is no problem again: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7&timespan=all  (7-day average mempool size).

You cannot engage because you are continuing to exaggerate and to make things up.  Yes, blocks are still full, but transactions are going through and fees remain relatively low. and we are still achieving secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer of value.  This bitcoin thingie is world changing, and even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks), bitcoin brings a lot of value, even in its current state.  So don't be trying to suggest that bitcoin needs to compete with Visa or with some payment system, when it achieves a whole other level of added value, even in it's current state and even if some variation of its current state were to continue for the next 20 years.

I feel sorry for you. You've also been fallen into the BS fee trap.  Do the math: Fees are just not needed for the next years...

[DevelopFI]

There are a lot of numbers being thrown around regarding Core vs Unlimited percentage of miners. Could someone please tell me how much does BTC Core need to go through with SegWit?

[gmaxwell]

The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.

No politics, only dishonesty, enh?

[JayJuanGee]

...continuing to exaggerate and to make things up. 

The largest river in the world is DENIAL.

... even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks),

At least you're looking for solutions, even if there is "no problem".

I may have chosen inexact words when I said "no solution", I was referring to the fact that even if bitcoin stays the same and there is no implementation of seg wit or anything else... my point was that even then, there is a lot of value in bitcoin.  Likely I don't need to elaborate anyhow because you are trying to suggest that there is some kind of emergency need to take emergency and ill-thought measures... so we are working on differing assumptions from the get go.

[JayJuanGee]

On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.

Remember: BU and Segwit are not the only two choices in the world... 2MB hard fork is VERY easy from the software side. The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.


At this point, lines are drawn, and people are unlikely to accept Segwit, regardless of whether a blocksize increase is included or not.


JayGuanGee, [facepalm], I can't even engage with you, please look at this chart and tell me there is no problem again: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7&timespan=all  (7-day average mempool size).

You cannot engage because you are continuing to exaggerate and to make things up.  Yes, blocks are still full, but transactions are going through and fees remain relatively low. and we are still achieving secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer of value.  This bitcoin thingie is world changing, and even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks), bitcoin brings a lot of value, even in its current state.  So don't be trying to suggest that bitcoin needs to compete with Visa or with some payment system, when it achieves a whole other level of added value, even in it's current state and even if some variation of its current state were to continue for the next 20 years.

I feel sorry for you. You've also been fallen into the BS fee trap.  Do the math: Fees are just not needed for the next years...

Maybe I don't get it.... what is the BS fee trap?  

I have done a lot of transactions on the blockchain in recent months (even in the past 12 months), and there has not been any meaningful or significant change in fees.  Yeah, surely that may change in several years or even change in 100 years, but our current situation does not seem to be an emergency, is it?  How could it be when I am paying between $.10 and $.50 with some variation and flexibility to send varying amounts of transactions in the .5BTC to 20BTC range....   Sure, if I send more, then there is a better value, but I still don't understand whatever point that you are attempting to make, hv_ regarding a supposed "BS fee trap."

[dadrdalk]

On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.

Remember: BU and Segwit are not the only two choices in the world... 2MB hard fork is VERY easy from the software side. The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.


At this point, lines are drawn, and people are unlikely to accept Segwit, regardless of whether a blocksize increase is included or not.


JayGuanGee, [facepalm], I can't even engage with you, please look at this chart and tell me there is no problem again: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7&timespan=all  (7-day average mempool size).

You cannot engage because you are continuing to exaggerate and to make things up.  Yes, blocks are still full, but transactions are going through and fees remain relatively low. and we are still achieving secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer of value.  This bitcoin thingie is world changing, and even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks), bitcoin brings a lot of value, even in its current state.  So don't be trying to suggest that bitcoin needs to compete with Visa or with some payment system, when it achieves a whole other level of added value, even in it's current state and even if some variation of its current state were to continue for the next 20 years.

I feel sorry for you. You've also been fallen into the BS fee trap.  Do the math: Fees are just not needed for the next years...

Maybe I don't get it.... what is the BS fee trap? 

I have done a lot of transactions on the blockchain in recent months (even in the past 12 months), and there has not been any meaningful or significant change in fees.  Yeah, surely that may change in several years or even change in 100 years, but our current situation does not seem to be an emergency, is it?  How could it be when I am paying between $.10 and $.50 with some variation and flexibility to send varying amounts of transactions in the .5BTC to 20BTC range....   Sure, if I send more, then there is a better value, but I still don't understand whatever point that you are attempting to make, hv_ regarding a supposed "BS fee trap."

That you do not have a problem does not mean there is not a problem.

1. This hinders mainstream adoption. If many more people use Bitcoin, they will have to either wait for an insane amount of time, or pay insane fees (or, most likely, both). In fact, I read somewhere that companies have been turning down Bitcoin because of scaling.

2. It may not be too much for you, but it may be too much for some people, and it certainly rules out some applications (like micropayments).

[JayJuanGee]

On the other hand, "minor" changes in the BU code even before their hard fork activation have already led to invalid block generation.

Remember: BU and Segwit are not the only two choices in the world... 2MB hard fork is VERY easy from the software side. The network must consent, but it has been done successfully in the past, in one day. No politics in that statement.


At this point, lines are drawn, and people are unlikely to accept Segwit, regardless of whether a blocksize increase is included or not.


JayGuanGee, [facepalm], I can't even engage with you, please look at this chart and tell me there is no problem again: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?daysAverageString=7&timespan=all  (7-day average mempool size).

You cannot engage because you are continuing to exaggerate and to make things up.  Yes, blocks are still full, but transactions are going through and fees remain relatively low. and we are still achieving secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer of value.  This bitcoin thingie is world changing, and even if there is no solution (such as seg wit or larger blocks), bitcoin brings a lot of value, even in its current state.  So don't be trying to suggest that bitcoin needs to compete with Visa or with some payment system, when it achieves a whole other level of added value, even in it's current state and even if some variation of its current state were to continue for the next 20 years.

I feel sorry for you. You've also been fallen into the BS fee trap.  Do the math: Fees are just not needed for the next years...

Maybe I don't get it.... what is the BS fee trap? 

I have done a lot of transactions on the blockchain in recent months (even in the past 12 months), and there has not been any meaningful or significant change in fees.  Yeah, surely that may change in several years or even change in 100 years, but our current situation does not seem to be an emergency, is it?  How could it be when I am paying between $.10 and $.50 with some variation and flexibility to send varying amounts of transactions in the .5BTC to 20BTC range....   Sure, if I send more, then there is a better value, but I still don't understand whatever point that you are attempting to make, hv_ regarding a supposed "BS fee trap."

That you do not have a problem does not mean there is not a problem.

I will agree with any kind of denigration of anecdotal evidence; however, I have made this assertion several times and in several threads.  If someone is attempting to suggest that there is a problem, then they have both an evidentiary and logic burden to establish the extent of the problem and to show how that problem logically is causing whatever issues that they suggest that it is causing and/or they have additional burdens to show that whatever actions that they are suggesting will fix the identified "problem".  The burden is not on me to show that there is not a problem.

1. This hinders mainstream adoption. If many more people use Bitcoin, they will have to either wait for an insane amount of time, or pay insane fees (or, most likely, both). In fact, I read somewhere that companies have been turning down Bitcoin because of scaling.

O.k.  first you assume that there is a problem of what?  fees?  transaction times?  And then you assume that mainstream adoption would be better if the "problems" did not exist.   These remain very difficult propositions to establish beyond merely saying them in a couple of sentences.

What is "an insane amount of time?"  and how do you know that an "insane amount of time" would develop?   sounds very speculative and without much of any factual or logical basis in such assertion.

I already described my waiting experiences to currently be between a few minutes and a few days with very low fees.  I find that quite amazing with the level of control and security and decentralization that exists in bitcoin.. I mean I control it and no third party is necessary, except to the extent that I choose those kinds of options instead of direct transactions.

Regarding companies turning down bitcoin:  They turn it down for all kinds of reasons.  So fucking what?  Adoption can take a long time and should not be rushed with some lame and ill-thought-out innovations.  We have already seen a lot of behind the scenes ways in which a lot of folks are getting into bitcoin (including companies with some of their bullshit blockchain discussions), and these kinds of ongoing adoptions by both consumers and companies are continuing to contribute to ongoing upwards price pressures.  In the coming years, we are likely going to continue to see a variety of continued adoptions by companies and individuals - some of that adoption, innovation and development will be upfront and public and other adoption, innovation and development will be behind the scenes.

And, yeah a lot of this would be better if seg wit were included in the mix, but even if seg wit is not included in the mix the ongoing adoption, innovation and development is going to continue to take place.. could be better, but we can also roll with the punches.. it is what it is... and if folks do not feel that bitcoin is ready for seg wit, then we continue in the current state of bitcoin until there is enough inspiration to include seg wit as another improvement to an already great and paradigm shifting phenomenon (namely bitcoin).

2. It may not be too much for you, but it may be too much for some people, and it certainly rules out some applications (like micropayments).

Again you are seeming to suggest that I have some kind of anecdotal experiences that do not matter.  Who are these supposed people that are anxious about scaling?   Are they reasonable people?  Are they expecting too much too quickly?  Are they considering matters beyond some superficial feelings?  If they are so anxious about the current state of bitcoin, then have them find a value storage and transfer system that is more comfortable for them and their situation and what they want to do or they can divest a bit of their investment in bitcoin into something else.    It is not really a big deal if bitcoin does not serve every single person and all situations. In many western countries, we have all kinds of micro-payment options, and those can be used to the extent that they provide value to folks.  Options are going to vary from place to place, and bitcoin's feasiblility is going to vary from place to place.

Sure, micropayments might not be as practical to bitcoin as compared with other systems, and so fucking what?  These areas are likely going to develop over time.  It seems that seg wit would likely assist with micropayments based on second layer solutions that can be added once seg wit is in place, but it seems very short sighted to either want bitcoin to currently serve as a micropayment system, when there is still a lot of applications and developments that need to evolve in the space - including the creations of additional user-friendly systems in bitcoin.  In other words, I don't really understand the desire to get all worked up about micropayments at this point in time, when bitcoin is offering all kinds of great stuff that includes secure immutable decentralized value storage and transfer.  There is no other coin or system that even comes close to bitcoin in that regard.  If you know of one, name it.

[Quickseller]

I would point out that a 2 input, 2 output transaction will cost about $0.56 to get confirmed in the next block with near certainty. If you assume that a merchant pays (and passes along the costs of) 3% for accepting a credit card payment, then the cost of using a credit card will be the same as using Bitcoin for a ~$18.70 transaction -- this means it is currently cheaper to use a credit card than Bitcoin for transactions under this economic size. I would certainly not call $20 (or $18.70) a "micro-transaction".

I have not seen enough active support for SegWit that would suggest that there is consensus that SegWit is desired by users.

I have however seen what I would consider to be a general consensus that scaling solutions for Bitcoin are desired and that lower fees for Bitcoin are desired. 

[JayJuanGee]

I would point out that a 2 input, 2 output transaction will cost about $0.56 to get confirmed in the next block with near certainty. If you assume that a merchant pays (and passes along the costs of) 3% for accepting a credit card payment, then the cost of using a credit card will be the same as using Bitcoin for a ~$18.70 transaction -- this means it is currently cheaper to use a credit card than Bitcoin for transactions under this economic size. I would certainly not call $20 (or $18.70) a "micro-transaction".

I will assume that your facts here are generally correct that currently bitcoin is not economically competitive for transactions of $20 or less as compared with credit cards or other similar payment competitor processes.  So fucking what?  Bitcoin has a lot of value, even if it is not competitive for smaller payment levels (even if bitcoin is currently not competitive for transactions under $100, bitcoin still brings a whole hell of a lot of value to the table).  

These matters are evolving, and individuals should find and balance their own uses to the extent feasible in order to find whatever system is the most competitive for whatever use that they are going to undertake.  Even assuming that bitcoin is not competitive for transactions under $100 for some folks does not mean that bitcoin should give up on its various advantages and developments and progress in order to try to become something that it is not... and yeah, maybe some day bitcoin will evolve into a "competitive" micropayments processor, but at this point, bitcoin has a whole hell-of-a lot of value outside of that particular narrow use case.

I have not seen enough active support for SegWit that would suggest that there is consensus that SegWit is desired by users.

Generally the large majority of various technical experts in bitcoin believe that seg wit is a great, useful and empowering innovation.

And, who gives a ratt's ass about what users think, because the vast majority of users do not sufficiently understand what seg wit provides, and possibly they don't even care, as long as bitcoin functions for them in whatever way that they chose to attempt to get it to function.  So, in the end, it does not really matter too much what a bunch of misinformed and whiney users on various big block forums think, if they don't really understand the issues and they are just believing that big is better for the sake of it.

I have however seen what I would consider to be a general consensus that scaling solutions for Bitcoin are desired and that lower fees for Bitcoin are desired.  

That assertion is pretty vague.  Ultimately people can chose what they want to use within bitcoin or not on an individual level in terms of fees, in terms of speed, or value or whatever, etc etc... So who cares?  Just let them chose what they would like based on what they perceive is being offered and then they can attempt to experience bitcoin or whatever for themselves and decide if they want to continue to use it or to diversify their investment or their useage into something else.

[Quickseller]

I would point out that a 2 input, 2 output transaction will cost about $0.56 to get confirmed in the next block with near certainty. If you assume that a merchant pays (and passes along the costs of) 3% for accepting a credit card payment, then the cost of using a credit card will be the same as using Bitcoin for a ~$18.70 transaction -- this means it is currently cheaper to use a credit card than Bitcoin for transactions under this economic size. I would certainly not call $20 (or $18.70) a "micro-transaction".

I will assume that your facts here are generally correct that currently bitcoin is not economically competitive for transactions of $20 or less as compared with credit cards or other similar payment competitor processes.

My assumptions were that a transaction would have two inputs and two outputs, and would pay a fee that actively outbid other transactions waiting for confirmation. It assumes that the merchant is not using a payment processor (like BitPay/Coinbase/ect., which would likely cause the tx fee to double (the transactions would likely require a second transaction), and the payment processor would generally want to take a 1% cut (what I can tell is the market rate for BTC payment processors).

So fucking what?  Bitcoin has a lot of value, even if it is not competitive for smaller payment levels (even if bitcoin is currently not competitive for transactions under $100, bitcoin still brings a whole hell of a lot of value to the table). 

This is going to hinder adoption. When someone who has no experience using any kind of cryptocurrency, they are not going to want to start with a million dollar transaction, they are going to want to start with an amount they can afford to lose, that makes sense to use economically (I would also point out that if it does not make economic sense to make spend $20 worth of bitcoin on Lunch, it is likely that not many restaurants will accept bitcoin as payment, so those considering to "test" bitcoin with small real world transactions would be unable to do so, even uneconomically).

I would also point out that high transaction fees create incentives to have additional mining centralization and for users to use various services (exchanges, pools, ect.) as banks.

Many users will combine their mining hashpower together at a mining pool; with pools it is not a huge deal if an individual pool were to get a large percentage of the network hashpower because if it were to start acting maliciously, miners would leave that pool in order to protect their future income. Generally speaking (at least based on what I have seen), mining pools will pay out mining earnings to individual miners once per day (I believe that some mining pools have the option to set minimum thresholds of payments, and otherwise hold payments back). It will cost a miner ~100x more money to spend $1 of their mining revenue who receives 0.01BTC per day, verses a miner whose equipment earn 1BTC per day -- this is important because miners generally will need to use a portion of their mining revenue to pay expenses. Mining is a very low margin industry that can be describes as a 'game of inches' and I believe that over time this will lead to further mining centralization based on ultimate control over the mining equipment.

I also believe that persistent high fees will cause users to gravitate towards services like exchanges (and other online services that have possession of users' coins) and use them as banks. This will cause the obvious problem that when these services eventually get hacked, customers' funds will be lost, and users will lose faith in bitcoin (and the net cost of using bitcoin will be high when taking into consideration the cost of having some of their coins stolen/lost). This will also cause further centralization in terms of bitcoin related businesses, as it will raise the barrier to entry.

These matters are evolving, and individuals should find and balance their own uses to the extent feasible in order to find whatever system is the most competitive for whatever use that they are going to undertake.  Even assuming that bitcoin is not competitive for transactions under $100 for some folks does not mean that bitcoin should give up on its various advantages and developments and progress in order to try to become something that it is not... and yeah, maybe some day bitcoin will evolve into a "competitive" micropayments processor, but at this point, bitcoin has a whole hell-of-a lot of value outside of that particular narrow use case.

This is exactly what Bitcoin was designed to be, a "peer-to-peer electronic cash system"

I have not seen enough active support for SegWit that would suggest that there is consensus that SegWit is desired by users.

Generally the large majority of various technical experts in bitcoin believe that seg wit is a great, useful and empowering innovation.

And, who gives a ratt's ass about what users think, because the vast majority of users do not sufficiently understand what seg wit provides, and possibly they don't even care, as long as bitcoin functions for them in whatever way that they chose to attempt to get it to function.  So, in the end, it does not really matter too much what a bunch of misinformed and whiney users on various big block forums think, if they don't really understand the issues and they are just believing that big is better for the sake of it.

Ummm, the last time I checked, what the devs want does not matter when it comes to consensus. The devs are merely advisors, and users can choose to take the advice or not. No one has given the devs any kind of authority to make any kind of decisions on behalf of anyone.

I have seen a large number of services that are ready for SegWit if implemented, however I have not seen them give active support, and I would say that there are a decent number of users with decent economic weight that are against SegWit. If anything, I would consider SegWit to be a contentious fork (only that I find it unlikely that it will activate, as the miners tend to be amongst those who are against SegWIt).

I have however seen what I would consider to be a general consensus that scaling solutions for Bitcoin are desired and that lower fees for Bitcoin are desired. 

That assertion is pretty vague.  Ultimately people can chose what they want to use within bitcoin or not on an individual level in terms of fees, in terms of speed, or value or whatever, etc etc... So who cares?  Just let them chose what they would like based on what they perceive is being offered and then they can attempt to experience bitcoin or whatever for themselves and decide if they want to continue to use it or to diversify their investment or their useage into something else.

The overall gist of this statement is that Bitcoin users seems to want scaling solutions, and they do not want SegWit; all this really leaves is an increase in the maximum block size. As stated above, most major Bitcoin related businesses are maintaining a neutral position on the subject, and users [in effect] want the max block size to be increased (via wanting lower fees, scaling, and not wanting segwit).

I think it is counterintuitive to say that users can do what they want to get around a problem that is being imposed by an artificial, arbitrary limit, that can be best described by unnecessary regulation by a central authority.