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

[BitcoinBarrel]

Bitcoin has been scaling just fine in my opinion. If Bitcoin is unscalable and desperately needs this SegWit "fix", then why didn't the Devs get together and create their own alt-coin better than Bitcoin? Why change Bitcoin if it's obsolete?

[1714942254]

1714942254

[1714942254]

1714942254

[1714942254]

1714942254

[1714942254]

1714942254

[Carlton Banks]

in my opinion

Here's your problem. Your opinion doesn't comport well with facts.

[BitcoinBarrel]

in my opinion

Here's your problem. Your opinion doesn't comport well with facts.

Here's your problem, your facts? Where are they...

[Carlton Banks]

Written in places that do not constitute a total waste of time and effort, i.e. not in response to trolls

[BitcoinBarrel]

Making facts hard to find is not a good strategy for gaining support if you ask me.

[Quickseller]

Why was 95% adoption rate selected for activation as oppossed to 80% or 50% or even 5%?

So that the soft fork deploys with supermajority. It will essentially have consensus when it deploys. This ensures that the new rules will be deployed and enforced by the miners. The 95% rule has been used for all previous soft forks, no reason to change that now.

The consensus would be among the miners, and not necessarily among the entire Bitcoin economy. Just because 95% of the blocks that the miners produce doesn't mean that non-mining Bitcoin related companies and other Bitcoin users support SegWit (Note: ready to implement != support).

Technically speaking, the threshold is 50.694% (or potentially less depending on luck) for activation as the miners who support SegWit could decide to ignore blocks that lack a signal of support for SegWit.

[gmaxwell]

Just because 95% of the blocks that the miners produce doesn't mean that non-mining Bitcoin related companies and other Bitcoin users support SegWit (Note: ready to implement != support).

Well no one is forced to implement it; so ready to implement does suggest a small amount of support at least. FWIW, before segwit's activation was set in Bitcoin Core I reached out directly to most of the non-mining Bitcoin related companies that I could fine to specifically prompt for opposition. I received back many positive responses, none opposed, and the only negative comment was from a party that hoped activation would take longer so they would have more time to add support-- it's still possible that they don't support it,  apparently not enough to send a respond saying so. After that there was a public discussion on the bitcoin-development list and the only party that argued against it was Tom Zander.

Technically speaking, the threshold is 50.694% (or potentially less depending on luck) for activation as the miners who support SegWit could decide to ignore blocks that lack a signal of support for SegWit.

Yep, only just over half is strictly needed if they're willing to orphan the other almost-half.

[X7]

Just because 95% of the blocks that the miners produce doesn't mean that non-mining Bitcoin related companies and other Bitcoin users support SegWit (Note: ready to implement != support).

Well no one is forced to implement it; so ready to implement does suggest a small amount of support at least. FWIW, before segwit's activation was set in Bitcoin Core I reached out directly to most of the non-mining Bitcoin related companies that I could fine to specifically prompt for opposition. I received back many positive responses, none opposed, and the only negative comment was from a party that hoped activation would take longer so they would have more time to add support-- it's still possible that they don't support it,  apparently not enough to send a respond saying so. After that there was a public discussion on the bitcoin-development list and the only party that argued against it was Tom Zander.

Technically speaking, the threshold is 50.694% (or potentially less depending on luck) for activation as the miners who support SegWit could decide to ignore blocks that lack a signal of support for SegWit.

Yep, only just over half is strictly needed if they're willing to orphan the other almost-half.

What would be the ramifications of orphaning potentially half of the blocks found? (Besides perhaps a delay in confirmation times?)

[JayJuanGee]

Bitcoin has been scaling just fine in my opinion. If Bitcoin is unscalable and desperately needs this SegWit "fix", then why didn't the Devs get together and create their own alt-coin better than Bitcoin? Why change Bitcoin if it's obsolete?

Do you really believe what you are suggesting would have supposedly been a better approach?

First, as far as the evidence seems to suggest (and you seem to agree) bitcoin is not broken; however, no one is suggesting that Seg wit is any kind of "desperate" fix - instead, it was publicly proposed in December 2015, and it was applauded, touted and lauded by many of the technical insider folks to be a sound, reasonable and prudent direction forward.

Sure there were other things going on in respect to scaleability questions, and some folks that were spouting out misinformation and even seeming inclined to suggest that bitcoin was broken... but over several months, a lot of those folks have lost credibility in some circles, yet in other circles they continue to spout nonsense ideas about bitcoin being broken or that there some better path forward to make a hard increase in the blocksize limit prior to seeing how seg wit plays out...

The essence of the matter remains that bitcoin is a considerably non controversial way forward and an improvement upon bitcoin, even though it does seem like it is taking a bit of time for some of the miners to begin to signal it's support. 

Seems like segwit support signaling remains under 30%  (https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit)   (and I am considering that support level number will improve in the coming months and it just takes a bit of time for miners to incorporate segwit support into their software and practices). 

[cellard]

Bitcoin has been scaling just fine in my opinion. If Bitcoin is unscalable and desperately needs this SegWit "fix", then why didn't the Devs get together and create their own alt-coin better than Bitcoin? Why change Bitcoin if it's obsolete?

Dude you are not paying attention to the big picture. Segwit is not only about scaling, but about all the cool new features that will come with it. We are looking at increased privacy with segwit like Shnorr signatures, Confidential Transactions, fast velocity decentralized exchanges due improved LN... holy cow, how can anybody be against segwit in 2017 is beyond me.  I literally cannot imagine any other scenario but:

1) People that don't understand it
2) People paid to shit on Core/Blockstream and attempt to hijack the project with yet another XT/Classic/Unlimited/whatever they be shilling nowadays.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

So if their hard work is not activated, are they willing to remove the code ?

I think the fact that they could release a successive number of updates that all support Segwit kinda sways things in favor of it being adopted, unless the biggest miners adamantly stick to v 0.12.

Myself i'm not totally convinced this is the best solution, but it is progress... I would have said segwit + revert to original block size limit, that would have caused less argument while allowing a lot of room for scaling.

[-ck]

So if their hard work is not activated, are they willing to remove the code ?

I think the fact that they could release a successive number of updates that all support Segwit kinda sways things in favor of it being adopted, unless the biggest miners adamantly stick to v 0.12.

Myself i'm not totally convinced this is the best solution, but it is progress... I would have said segwit + revert to original block size limit, that would have caused less argument while allowing a lot of room for scaling.

There is no precedent on that front in terms of what happens should a soft/hard fork not activate so no one knows yet if/how the core devs would respond. On the other hand segwit has one year to activate and it's way too early to pass any kind of judgement on that front.

Changing to the original block limits would be 32MB, and since current transactions have a quadratic scaling problem, it would be possible to create 32MB of transaction(s) on one block that would take half hour to process with current bitcoind on the current network protocol, bringing the network to a standstill. By the way, segwit transactions don't have this scaling problem, they scale linearly.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

So if their hard work is not activated, are they willing to remove the code ?

I think the fact that they could release a successive number of updates that all support Segwit kinda sways things in favor of it being adopted, unless the biggest miners adamantly stick to v 0.12.

Myself i'm not totally convinced this is the best solution, but it is progress... I would have said segwit + revert to original block size limit, that would have caused less argument while allowing a lot of room for scaling.

There is no precedent on that front in terms of what happens should a soft/hard fork not activate so no one knows yet if/how the core devs would respond. On the other hand segwit has one year to activate and it's way too early to pass any kind of judgement on that front.

Changing to the original block limits would be 32MB, and since current transactions have a quadratic scaling problem, it would be possible to create 32MB of transaction(s) on one block that would take half hour to process with current bitcoind on the current network protocol, bringing the network to a standstill. By the way, segwit transactions don't have this scaling problem, they scale linearly.

I guess we'll see. I already knew about the 32 MB , which is what i actually prefer, that plus the highlighted advantages of Segwit would be awesome.

current transactions have a quadratic scaling problem, it would be possible to create 32MB of transaction(s) on one block that would take half hour to process with current bitcoind on the current network protocol, bringing the network to a standstill. By the way, segwit transactions don't have this scaling problem, they scale linearly.

I am only just beginning to spread my wings in the deeper aspects of the protocol, you have just given me some interesting tid bit for me to pursue.

But does this not re-enforce my statement ? Segwit + 32 MB blocks...?

I hope their idea works out, i am planning to change most of my monetary transactions to bitcoin based ones....would be a shame if it dies.

[Carlton Banks]

current transactions have a quadratic scaling problem, it would be possible to create 32MB of transaction(s) on one block that would take half hour to process with current bitcoind on the current network protocol, bringing the network to a standstill. By the way, segwit transactions don't have this scaling problem, they scale linearly.

I am only just beginning to spread my wings in the deeper aspects of the protocol, you have just given me some interesting tid bit for me to pursue.

But does this not re-enforce my statement ? Segwit + 32 MB blocks...?

No. Why would it?

Ask yourself this question: why was the 32 MB limit abandoned in favour of a 1MB limit

[cellard]

current transactions have a quadratic scaling problem, it would be possible to create 32MB of transaction(s) on one block that would take half hour to process with current bitcoind on the current network protocol, bringing the network to a standstill. By the way, segwit transactions don't have this scaling problem, they scale linearly.

I am only just beginning to spread my wings in the deeper aspects of the protocol, you have just given me some interesting tid bit for me to pursue.

But does this not re-enforce my statement ? Segwit + 32 MB blocks...?

No. Why would it?

Ask yourself this question: why was the 32 MB limit abandoned in favour of a 1MB limit

Most people that want massive blocks don't usually think... they just want stuff to be fast and cheap, but they don't think about what the consequences of fast and cheap means. Unfortunately, fast, cheap, global, decentralized, onchain massive volume transactions all in one doesn't exist. If someone came up with that idea, then that someone would release a new coin and this new coin would go from 0 to hero, but as of right now, it's a pipe dream.

So best we got is a "small-ish" or conservative block size, then building on top. I don't see any other method that would remain as decentralized. Im ok with an increase to 2MB, but we must do it right, and right means we must get segwit activated before doing so.

[Lauda]

-snip-
But does this not re-enforce my statement ? Segwit + 32 MB blocks...?

I hope their idea works out, i am planning to change most of my monetary transactions to bitcoin based ones....would be a shame if it dies.

That would be the *right* path towards decentralization. Good luck with a decentralized coin in which malicious entities can spam up to ~140 GB worth of data per month (and this is by just counting the 32 MB blocks).

-snip-
Unfortunately, fast, cheap, global, decentralized, onchain massive volume transactions all in one doesn't exist. If someone came up with that idea, then that someone would release a new coin and this new coin would go from 0 to hero, but as of right now, it's a pipe dream.

So best we got is a "small-ish" or conservative block size, then building on top. I don't see any other method that would remain as decentralized. Im ok with an increase to 2MB, but we must do it right, and right means we must get segwit activated before doing so.

If you take a look in r/btc you will find that some of these *people* tend to quote Satoshi often to suit their agenda. They seem to be fine with using SPV wallets (which is an absurd trade-off). You're right about the in-existence of the mentioned combination. Either it's a decentralized coin with small TPS (1 layer) or it's a centralized coin with a high TPS.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

current transactions have a quadratic scaling problem, it would be possible to create 32MB of transaction(s) on one block that would take half hour to process with current bitcoind on the current network protocol, bringing the network to a standstill. By the way, segwit transactions don't have this scaling problem, they scale linearly.

I am only just beginning to spread my wings in the deeper aspects of the protocol, you have just given me some interesting tid bit for me to pursue.

But does this not re-enforce my statement ? Segwit + 32 MB blocks...?

No. Why would it?

Ask yourself this question: why was the 32 MB limit abandoned in favour of a 1MB limit

i don't need to ask myself, i know.

Patronizing attitude aside, you did not address the issue. I am not campaigning for 32 MB blocks, simply making my position known and asking ..."why not?" It's a hell of a lot more expensive now to spam transactions , even with a script just to troll, you pay a significant amount and nothing short of a bored billionaire or state can sustain that.... now let's be honest, if a billionaire seriously decided to put the screws to bitcoin, we'd all feel it. they were willing to increase the overall size to just below 4 MB , why not just REVERT to 32 MB and have segwit?

[achow101]

Patronizing attitude aside, you did not address the issue. I am not campaigning for 32 MB blocks, simply making my position known and asking ..."why not?" It's a hell of a lot more expensive now to spam transactions , even with a script just to troll, you pay a significant amount and nothing short of a bored billionaire or state can sustain that.... now let's be honest, if a billionaire seriously decided to put the screws to bitcoin, we'd all feel it. they were willing to increase the overall size to just below 4 MB , why not just REVERT to 32 MB and have segwit?

First of all, the maximum block size is not actually 32 MB but rather the maximum message size. This effectively sets the upper limit of any maximum, so with segwit and largest possible blocks, that would be 8 MB max block size but 32 MB max block weight.

While segwit makes sighashing linear, having 32 times the maximum means that it will take at most 32 times longer to verify the worst case block. That can take up to several minutes.

That aside, making the maximum block size (with segwit and all, so actually max block weight) 32 MB puts a significant strain on all full nodes. That is a theoretically maximum of 32 MB every ten minutes, which amounts to ~4.6 GB every day. This means a few things: the blockchain will grow at a maximum rate of ~4.6 GB every single day, a lot of download bandwidth will be eaten up, and even more upload bandwidth will be eaten up. This means that it will become very difficult for regular users to maintain proper full nodes (i.e. default settings as people normally do, no bandwidth limiting). This will hurt decentralization as full nodes will be centralized to high bandwidth high powered servers likely located in data centers. At the very least, it becomes very costly to maintain a full node.

Besides the cost of operating a full node, having such a large maximum makes starting up a new full node even more expensive than it already is. The full node first has to download the entire blockchain. Right now it is at 100 GB. Should the blockchain grow at 4.6 GB per day, that would become very large, very quickly. People would be spending hours, probably days, to download and verify the entire thing.

Now you might say that this won't happen as this is the worst case scenario. However, with these proposals you always need to think of the worst case scenario. If the worst case scenario cannot be handled, then the proposal needs to be changed such that the worst case scenario can be handled. You can't just say that the worst case scenario probably won't happen because there is still a chance that the worst case can happen, and that is not good, especially with changing consensus being so difficult now.

[Carlton Banks]

current transactions have a quadratic scaling problem, it would be possible to create 32MB of transaction(s) on one block that would take half hour to process with current bitcoind on the current network protocol, bringing the network to a standstill. By the way, segwit transactions don't have this scaling problem, they scale linearly.

I am only just beginning to spread my wings in the deeper aspects of the protocol, you have just given me some interesting tid bit for me to pursue.

But does this not re-enforce my statement ? Segwit + 32 MB blocks...?

No. Why would it?

Ask yourself this question: why was the 32 MB limit abandoned in favour of a 1MB limit

i don't need to ask myself, i know.

Patronizing attitude aside, you did not address the issue.

I think you may be having problems interpreting my intentions


There was no content in what you or ck said that supported the idea that a 32 MB limit would be feasible. And yet you made a positive statement to the contrary (in bold above).

And so, I was asking you the most helpful question I could, in order to help you understand. If you're more interested in losing control of your ego/emotions, then you're definitely asking yourself the wrong questions (and asking in the wrong forum/website also, we don't help people with their emotional outburst problems here)

[Blockchain Mechanic]

Patronizing attitude aside, you did not address the issue. I am not campaigning for 32 MB blocks, simply making my position known and asking ..."why not?" It's a hell of a lot more expensive now to spam transactions , even with a script just to troll, you pay a significant amount and nothing short of a bored billionaire or state can sustain that.... now let's be honest, if a billionaire seriously decided to put the screws to bitcoin, we'd all feel it. they were willing to increase the overall size to just below 4 MB , why not just REVERT to 32 MB and have segwit?

First of all, the maximum block size is not actually 32 MB but rather the maximum message size. This effectively sets the upper limit of any maximum, so with segwit and largest possible blocks, that would be 8 MB max block size but 32 MB max block weight.

While segwit makes sighashing linear, having 32 times the maximum means that it will take at most 32 times longer to verify the worst case block. That can take up to several minutes.

That aside, making the maximum block size (with segwit and all, so actually max block weight) 32 MB puts a significant strain on all full nodes. That is a theoretically maximum of 32 MB every ten minutes, which amounts to ~4.6 GB every day. This means a few things: the blockchain will grow at a maximum rate of ~4.6 GB every single day, a lot of download bandwidth will be eaten up, and even more upload bandwidth will be eaten up. This means that it will become very difficult for regular users to maintain proper full nodes (i.e. default settings as people normally do, no bandwidth limiting). This will hurt decentralization as full nodes will be centralized to high bandwidth high powered servers likely located in data centers. At the very least, it becomes very costly to maintain a full node.

Besides the cost of operating a full node, having such a large maximum makes starting up a new full node even more expensive than it already is. The full node first has to download the entire blockchain. Right now it is at 100 GB. Should the blockchain grow at 4.6 GB per day, that would become very large, very quickly. People would be spending hours, probably days, to download and verify the entire thing.

Now you might say that this won't happen as this is the worst case scenario. However, with these proposals you always need to think of the worst case scenario. If the worst case scenario cannot be handled, then the proposal needs to be changed such that the worst case scenario can be handled. You can't just say that the worst case scenario probably won't happen because there is still a chance that the worst case can happen, and that is not good, especially with changing consensus being so difficult now.

Thank you for your detailed answer and explanations.... If you don't, mind... so two years from now... with segwit, we somehow start filling blocks again..now what ? Is the problem not compounded ?

I'm not just asking tech here, but socially as well, in two years , if segwit is overwhelmed, the nay sayers will start the "i told you so " carnival. 

Please, i actually have no idea how we could truly scale bitcoin, hence my choice of the best of both worlds. Worst case would ruin us but perhaps a self adjusting max block weight would serve us better ?