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

[achow101]

What I believe the difference is that someone could send a SegWit transaction to a non-SegWit node that was never valid, but the node would treat said transaction as if it were valid.

That is possible, but the node still would not accept the transaction because segwit output are considered non standard. Such a transaction would thus be considered non standard and rejected by the node until it is included into a block.

If someone who has not upgraded to SegWit receives a SegWit transaction, are they able to spend outputs from said transaction?

There are in fact no such things as segwit transactions. There are transactions which spend from segwit output types. Because those output types are created by the receiver of a transaction, then it is impossible for a non segwit wallet to receive a segwit output to that wallet because there are no segwit outputs associated with the wallet. A transaction can spend from a segwit output types and spend to a legacy output type and that is perfectly fine and will be considered valid by the receiving non-segwit wallet (of course it has to be confirmed first because said transaction would be non-standard).

Is it true that if Segwit gets activated that Bitcoin addresses will start with "3" than the normal "1"? How are we going to be forced to make the switch with the most hassle free way possible?

There already addresses that start with a '3' and they have been standard for many years already. These addresses are called Pay to Script Hash (p2sh) addresses and are most commonly used for multisig addresses.

[1714139299]

1714139299

[1714139299]

1714139299

[1714139299]

1714139299

[1714139299]

1714139299

[kano]

So I guess no one noticed the blacklisting in the new 0.13.1 code?

So if you run 0.13.1 you will find that it will connect to other 0.13.1 nodes on the network, but not to 0.13.0 or lower.

i.e. you are disconnecting yourself from the majority of pools, mining transactions on the network.

At the moment that's ~75% of blocks.
Your txns can of course get to the pools via other roundabout ways, but you wont connect to them directly.

Yeah even the main core developers implement blacklists without making it clear they exist

[Carlton Banks]

So I guess no one noticed the blacklisting in the new 0.13.1 code?

So if you run 0.13.1 you will find that it will connect to other 0.13.1 nodes on the network, but not to 0.13.0 or lower.

i.e. you are disconnecting yourself from the majority of pools, mining transactions on the network.

At the moment that's ~75% of blocks.
Your txns can of course get to the pools via other roundabout ways, but you wont connect to them directly.

Yeah even the main core developers implement blacklists without making it clear they exist

Kano, your trolling is terrible. You're a disgrace to the technical community for posting this claim.


That's not the idea behind that code, the idea is to make sure that the soft-fork does not cause a network partition. Unless you've got something helpful or insightful to say, shut your mouth

It's not even an absolute connection preference, hence why those running sub 13.1 nodes do connect to 13.1 nodes with free connection slots. You should be ashamed of yourself

[achow101]

So I guess no one noticed the blacklisting in the new 0.13.1 code?

So if you run 0.13.1 you will find that it will connect to other 0.13.1 nodes on the network, but not to 0.13.0 or lower.

i.e. you are disconnecting yourself from the majority of pools, mining transactions on the network.

At the moment that's ~75% of blocks.
Your txns can of course get to the pools via other roundabout ways, but you wont connect to them directly.

Yeah even the main core developers implement blacklists without making it clear they exist

To ensure that the network is not partitioned and that segwit blocks are being passed to segwit enabled nodes, a Core 0.13.1 node will use its outgoing connection slots to connect to as many nodes with the NODE_WITNESS service bit as possible (right now only Core 0.13.1 nodes). However a 0.13.1 node will still accept incoming connections from older nodes. There is no blacklisting going on, just preference for the outgoing connections to connect to nodes of the same capabilities.

[kano]

The technical term is de-prioritisation.

Though I wont post the name of the dev who said

we were probably over-agressive on that logic, but a whole lot better than the alternative - having segwit blocks not make it across the network

There are no segwit blocks.

The result is effectively blacklisting.

[kano]

So I guess no one noticed the blacklisting in the new 0.13.1 code?

So if you run 0.13.1 you will find that it will connect to other 0.13.1 nodes on the network, but not to 0.13.0 or lower.

i.e. you are disconnecting yourself from the majority of pools, mining transactions on the network.

At the moment that's ~75% of blocks.
Your txns can of course get to the pools via other roundabout ways, but you wont connect to them directly.

Yeah even the main core developers implement blacklists without making it clear they exist

Kano, your trolling is terrible. You're a disgrace to the technical community for posting this claim.


That's not the idea behind that code, the idea is to make sure that the soft-fork does not cause a network partition. Unless you've got something helpful or insightful to say, shut your mouth

It's not even an absolute connection preference, hence why those running sub 13.1 nodes do connect to 13.1 nodes with free connection slots. You should be ashamed of yourself

Really?

[Carlton Banks]

The technical term is de-prioritisation.

Though I wont post the name of the dev who said

we were probably over-agressive on that logic, but a whole lot better than the alternative - having segwit blocks not make it across the network

There are no segwit blocks.

The result is effectively blacklisting.

Look, it's simple.

If 13.1 nodes are blacklisting lower versions, why then are 13.1 nodes connecting to lower versions? Is it because you're talking shit?

[kano]

The technical term is de-prioritisation.

Though I wont post the name of the dev who said

we were probably over-agressive on that logic, but a whole lot better than the alternative - having segwit blocks not make it across the network

There are no segwit blocks.

The result is effectively blacklisting.

Look, it's simple.

If 13.1 nodes are blacklisting lower versions, why then are 13.1 nodes connecting to lower versions? Is it because you're talking shit?

LOL read about how it works.

You're the one talking shit

[Carlton Banks]

The average user doesn't even need to read the code, they can fire up a 12.1 node and watch as it connects to a bunch of 13.1 nodes that you claim are blacklisting it. But by all means, keep talking

[kano]

The average user doesn't even need to read the code, they can fire up a 12.1 node and watch as it connects to a bunch of 13.1 nodes that you claim are blacklisting it. But by all means, keep talking

Go reread what I posted ... and reread it ... and reread it ... until you understand that what I posted is how it works, and that your segwit fanboyism is blinding you.

[Carlton Banks]

If you've come up with some genuine analysis as to why Segwit is a bad thing, I'm all ears. But what you wrote is seriously thin on explanation, I'm not going to attempt to read between the lines of some vague, incoherent handwaving. Either say exactly what you're getting at or be quiet.

[kano]

So I guess no one noticed the blacklisting in the new 0.13.1 code?

So if you run 0.13.1 you will find that it will connect to other 0.13.1 nodes on the network, but not to 0.13.0 or lower.

i.e. you are disconnecting yourself from the majority of pools, mining transactions on the network.

At the moment that's ~75% of blocks.
Your txns can of course get to the pools via other roundabout ways, but you wont connect to them directly.

Yeah even the main core developers implement blacklists without making it clear they exist

[OgNasty]

If we find ourselves well into 2017 and SegWit is still showing somewhere around 25-50% support, would it be reasonable for a 2mb blocksize limit in order to gain the support needed to activate SegWit?

[Lauda]

So I guess no one noticed the blacklisting in the new 0.13.1 code?

So if you run 0.13.1 you will find that it will connect to other 0.13.1 nodes on the network, but not to 0.13.0 or lower.

Clear and utter FUD. My node runs 0.13.1 and the majority of connections is not even to 0.13.1 nodes. It is so sad to see you go down this road.

[kano]

So I guess no one noticed the blacklisting in the new 0.13.1 code?

So if you run 0.13.1 you will find that it will connect to other 0.13.1 nodes on the network, but not to 0.13.0 or lower.

Clear and utter FUD. My node runs 0.13.1 and the majority of connections is not even to 0.13.1 nodes. It is so sad to see you go down this road.

Another person who doesn't know how 0.13.1 works

[Lauda]

Another person who doesn't know how 0.13.1 works

It seems like you're the one who doesn't know anything here. Explain the following in conjecture with your statement "0.13.1 will not connect to 0.13.0 or lower" then:



A 0.13.1 node connecting to peers that are older than 0.13.1. Is this magic?

[doc12]

This fight against core gets really annoying. We have a good solution on the table, which fits more transactions in one block using the same amount of resources. It makes no sense to implement a solution (bigger blocks), which uses more resources and has the same effective result ( double tx per block).

Technically there is no alternative to segwit. A real alternative would be a implementation which fits more tx in one block using a other methode then segwit. Segwit is real engineering, just rasing blocksize is scrypt kiddo style.

[kano]

Another person who doesn't know how 0.13.1 works

It seems like you're the one who doesn't know anything here. Explain the following in conjecture with your statement "0.13.1 will not connect to 0.13.0 or lower" then:

https://i.imgur.com/oTsN7q8.png
https://i.imgur.com/FkbrrRN.png
https://i.imgur.com/DceH4bN.png

Sigh, read achow101's post if you wont read mine

You WON'T connect to non 0.13.1 nodes.

Yes they CAN connect to you, but you blacklist making connections to them, since they are 'different'.

[Carlton Banks]

So 13.1 will make outgoing connections to lower version nodes, but won't make incoming connections to lower versions. Explain why you have to drag the soft-fork through the mud to make that point

[achow101]

Sigh, read achow101's post if you wont read mine

You WON'T connect to non 0.13.1 nodes.

Yes they CAN connect to you, but you blacklist making connections to them, since they are 'different'.

Actually technically that isn't entirely true either. 0.13.1 will still connect to nodes without the relevant services (i.e. no NODE_WITNESS) under certain circumstances. Right now that is 40 failed connections and having less than 4 outbound connections. Otherwise yes, it won't connect to nodes without the relevant services. This behavior is not limited to just segwit but in general for node services; it just happens to be that segwit is the only major node service right now.