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

[Searing]

It looks likely LTC will incorporate seg witness first. That will be interesting indeed.

what would you like to see interesting?
Except of speculation about exchange rates, there will be nothing "interesting" there.

In my opinion, Litecoin's Segwit adoption could be indeed "interesting" for Bitcoin. If successful, it could show to Bitcoin miners that the soft fork is not so risky or "complicated" than some of them may fear. Also, as I understand there are miner groups involved in LTC and BTC mining that could try Segwit first with LTC where they hold less stake and then in case of success enable it in BTC too.

For this reasons, I expect Segwit adoption among Bitcoin miners (and probably also among normal nodes) to go up in case the LTC softfork happens without problems. It may not be enough to reach 95% inmediately but it could help pave the way to there.

Well...I hate to say this..but what happens if it just 'bottlenecks' here now w/o seq witness happening and/or bitcoin core standing firm on no hard fork block chain increase....

looking kinda dire..hell, I'd like to at least here that the various groups were 'AT LEAST' getting together in some forum/chat or something trying to work thru this. But

seems to me likely, nothing of note is being talked about with these guys about the 'elephant in the room'  At least at this time imho. Befuddling.

[1715640365]

1715640365

[1715640365]

1715640365

[1715640365]

1715640365

[1715640365]

1715640365

[JayJuanGee]

It looks likely LTC will incorporate seg witness first. That will be interesting indeed.

what would you like to see interesting?
Except of speculation about exchange rates, there will be nothing "interesting" there.

In my opinion, Litecoin's Segwit adoption could be indeed "interesting" for Bitcoin. If successful, it could show to Bitcoin miners that the soft fork is not so risky or "complicated" than some of them may fear. Also, as I understand there are miner groups involved in LTC and BTC mining that could try Segwit first with LTC where they hold less stake and then in case of success enable it in BTC too.

For this reasons, I expect Segwit adoption among Bitcoin miners (and probably also among normal nodes) to go up in case the LTC softfork happens without problems. It may not be enough to reach 95% inmediately but it could help pave the way to there.

Well...I hate to say this..but what happens if it just 'bottlenecks' here now w/o seq witness happening and/or bitcoin core standing firm on no hard fork block chain increase....

looking kinda dire..hell, I'd like to at least here that the various groups were 'AT LEAST' getting together in some forum/chat or something trying to work thru this. But

seems to me likely, nothing of note is being talked about with these guys about the 'elephant in the room'   At least at this time imho. Befuddling.

Maybe the below linked article explains the point fairly well, which in essence bitcoin is not broken and that it is likely a good thing that bitcoin is difficult to change.  


http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-scaling-biggest-problem-greatest-stregth-satoshi-roundtable/


So, in that regard, even if segwit does not get adopted in the near future, it is not a bad thing that it is difficult to add changes and features to bitcoin... even though I had thought that seg wit was pretty non controversial of an update, but if there are a significant number of folks who want to block its implementation, then we just have to stay with the bitcoin that we currently have, which is probably not a bad thing, no?

[classicsucks]

Hmm well I've started reading the arguments of the Bitcoin Unlimited project, and they are simple and concise. As painful as it is, I may start running their software. I feel it's the only way I can send the message to the core devs to increase the blocksize. I just spent 2 days trying to unf*ck a transaction sent during the latest transaction spam attack...

I thought I remember the core devs saying at one point that a blocksize increase was imminent, but maybe they only meant with Segwit?

I don't think it's fair to say that people are blocking Segwit, only 25% have adopted it!

[Searing]

Hmm well I've started reading the arguments of the Bitcoin Unlimited project, and they are simple and concise. As painful as it is, I may start running their software. I feel it's the only way I can send the message to the core devs to increase the blocksize. I just spent 2 days trying to unf*ck a transaction sent during the latest transaction spam attack...

I thought I remember the core devs saying at one point that a blocksize increase was imminent, but maybe they only meant with Segwit?

I don't think it's fair to say that people are blocking Segwit, only 25% have adopted it!

yeah how I'm seeing it....(eyeing bitseed v2 node in the basement ...blinking at me as we speak..yeah you heard right 'gender change to BU...blinking increases....)

[gmaxwell]

Hmm well I've started reading the arguments of the Bitcoin Unlimited project, and they are simple and concise. As painful as it is, I may start running their software. I feel it's the only way I can send the message to the core devs to

That isn't the message you send me by running it.

Segwit, only 25% have adopted it!

62% of listening nodes are signaling segwit support right now.

[amaclin]

62% of listening nodes are signaling segwit support right now.

a) How does non-mining node signal anything?
b) Who cares?

[Fatman3001]

It looks likely LTC will incorporate seg witness first. That will be interesting indeed.

what would you like to see interesting?
Except of speculation about exchange rates, there will be nothing "interesting" there.

In my opinion, Litecoin's Segwit adoption could be indeed "interesting" for Bitcoin. If successful, it could show to Bitcoin miners that the soft fork is not so risky or "complicated" than some of them may fear. Also, as I understand there are miner groups involved in LTC and BTC mining that could try Segwit first with LTC where they hold less stake and then in case of success enable it in BTC too.

For this reasons, I expect Segwit adoption among Bitcoin miners (and probably also among normal nodes) to go up in case the LTC softfork happens without problems. It may not be enough to reach 95% inmediately but it could help pave the way to there.

This a really interesting line of thought and I hope it has some truth to it. I would be more comfortable if this was clearly communicated between devs and the miners. And, if so, I see no reason not to communicate it to the community at large.

Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.

[mezzomix]

Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.

Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.

[achow101]

a) How does non-mining node signal anything?

They signal through service bits in the Version message. Those supporting Segwit will have the appropriate service bit set.

b) Who cares?

Decentralization and consensus does. The more nodes that support the change, the more the new rules will be enforced. The enforcers won't just be the miners, but it will also be the full nodes who verify and relay everything.

[amaclin]

They signal through service bits in the Version message.
Those supporting Segwit will have the appropriate service bit set.

Isn't this bit set by default in 0.13.x? So, this is not segwit signalling in fact, but a number of
users who does not change default client options

Decentralization and consensus does.

Sending bits in version message is not consensus. And decentralization is not a human object. It can not care about anything.

The enforcers won't just be the miners, but it will also be the full nodes who verify and relay everything.

The network *can* accept segwit consensus rules even if 3% (or even less) of relay nodes upgrade software.
I think you know it better than me. I do not understand this speculating about 62%. This is the number of nodes
with modern client, not segwit supporters

[Fatman3001]

Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.

Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.

But surely, looking at the mining community, that's a recipe for failure. I will ask again. Is there any substantial communication between core devs and the mining community to make progress more likely? Any progress? Or is it an "all or nothing" approach that's being pursued?

[Anon TumbleBit]

Is TumbleBit implemenntationn based on SegWit? In other words, TumbleBit can be implemented after SegWit activation, is it correct?

[mezzomix]

Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.

Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.

But surely, looking at the mining community, that's a recipe for failure.

It's not a failure to keep a working system when there is no consensus (on how) to change that system.

[Fatman3001]

Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.

Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.

But surely, looking at the mining community, that's a recipe for failure.

It's not a failure to keep a working system when there is no consensus (on how) to change that system.

Well, that's very zen of you. The question will soon have to be : working as what?

Already it's no good for micro tx's. Soon (if we're lucky) it won't be working in any meaningful way as digital cash. What's left then?

Some will say it will be the perfect digital gold then. To me it sounds more like a distributed decentralized pyramid scheme.

I hope your position isn't representative for the whole of core. I hope some in core see this as something more than an act of deep meditation.

[bit1]

Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.

Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.

Affirmative!  to put it in better perspective, maybe the word "classic" is the better sample of it  although wasn't related to scaling but it serves as an example, if the system is divided that what happens, subtracting strength from one and the other, and as some people think, maybe this would end up undermining credibility BTC, I am not very sure but I think that up to now only a 50-60 consensus has been reached despite the fact that considerable time has already passed, if that's the case, the balance will not tip anywhere yet, in any possible scenario, it is better to be prepared so as not to surprise the effects that might arise, therefore it is better to remain attentive to the evolution that mainly requires the scalability of BTC, what is clear is that in case of not achieving consensus there will be two networks less secure and one of them safer, that in the worst case.

[manselr]

Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.

Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.

But surely, looking at the mining community, that's a recipe for failure.

It's not a failure to keep a working system when there is no consensus (on how) to change that system.

Well, that's very zen of you. The question will soon have to be : working as what?

Already it's no good for micro tx's. Soon (if we're lucky) it won't be working in any meaningful way as digital cash. What's left then?

Some will say it will be the perfect digital gold then. To me it sounds more like a distributed decentralized pyramid scheme.

I hope your position isn't representative for the whole of core. I hope some in core see this as something more than an act of deep meditation.

ehh even satoshi advised against bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin xt, bitcoin classic etc.. hardfork attempts here in the forum, he predicted the ETH/ETC incident and knew this can happen with bitcoin if someone is stupid enough to hard fork and have bitcoin divided into two chains.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611

[classicsucks]

Hmm well I've started reading the arguments of the Bitcoin Unlimited project, and they are simple and concise. As painful as it is, I may start running their software. I feel it's the only way I can send the message to the core devs to

That isn't the message you send me by running it.

What message do you perceive? I know it probably seems like everyone is always attacking... not my intention, but I feel like dialogue has ended and a resolution has not emerged. So I voted - another BU node online.

Segwit, only 25% have adopted it!

62% of listening nodes are signaling segwit support right now.

According to https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/, 25% of mining capacity supports Segwit, it's my understanding that percentage of listening nodes is not relevant to the soft fork adoption threshold?

[Fatman3001]

Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.

Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.

But surely, looking at the mining community, that's a recipe for failure.

It's not a failure to keep a working system when there is no consensus (on how) to change that system.

Well, that's very zen of you. The question will soon have to be : working as what?

Already it's no good for micro tx's. Soon (if we're lucky) it won't be working in any meaningful way as digital cash. What's left then?

Some will say it will be the perfect digital gold then. To me it sounds more like a distributed decentralized pyramid scheme.

I hope your position isn't representative for the whole of core. I hope some in core see this as something more than an act of deep meditation.

ehh even satoshi advised against bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin xt, bitcoin classic etc.. hardfork attempts here in the forum, he predicted the ETH/ETC incident and knew this can happen with bitcoin if someone is stupid enough to hard fork and have bitcoin divided into two chains.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=195.msg1611

I'd hate to argue with Craig through a third party about this, but the "eth/etc incident" was just that. Eth still lives and thrives and another shitcoin was born. But I thought the whole point of doing segwit as a softfork was that this wouldn't happen even with a much lower threshold?

[Gimpeline]

62% of listening nodes are signaling segwit support right now.

a) How does non-mining node signal anything?
b) Who cares?

The miners will have support of the 5% of nodes that is signaling BU support.
How do you think the network will work with 5% node support?

[limpbrains]

Hi
I have a wallet software ( https://github.com/limpbrains/django-cc ) built on top of the bitcoind. It allows you to create multiply wallets and handle their balances separately.
It uses api calls, such as gettransaction, sendmany, getblockhash, listsinceblock and some other.
Will output of api change ?
How do you think, will segwit break something for me, or not ?