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

[hv_]

I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps this makes me a dick for saying this, but I hope Bitcoin Cash fails horribly. Wasn't Satoshi's original vision for bitcoin to have only 1MB for the block size? I'm not saying that he is correct with this stance, but I don't think it is cool that they use Satoshi's name like that to market themselves when it isn't his "original vision" like they say it is.

"We the people will breath new life into bitcoin"?? What is this? Most of us people don't want a fork, right?

Like so many you have been misinformed by those who wish to see bitcoin fail. The reality is the opposite of what you have been told, beware of the intense level of propaganda that prevails.

Satoshi's original design called for blocks to grow. The 1Mb limitation is currently imposed by a small and voiceful faction of the community who call themselves 'Core Developers' who don't want bitcoin to scale so they can implement an additional layer with their own technology on top of bitcoin.

So for all intents and purposes Bitcoin Cash is closest to Satoshi's vision.

Having said that, it doesn't mean the fork is a good idea. There is a community consensus to implement segwit on Aug 1st and then increase block sizes in November and this is what should be followed.

I agree with this post.

with segwit you add another layer of potential problems. when a simple modification to a 10mb block would have solved the issue temporary before raising to 100mb.

So why shall I have confidence in adding another layer to bitcoin? I am better using pivx for example where there will no problem or question about scaling the block size once the transaction capacity is reached (actually 70tps)...

it's pathetic. How do you plan to make money with segwit? Is there a way to host a second layer node and make some sats?

+1
Some people here get it - Yes it is far better to (free) scale on-chain, say 8MB or 10MB and let it work for some years. This is Satoshi.

How much years this would give us ?  about 3-5 or more  ?

On the other side you give Moores law a chance (also in Satoshi's vision), and let it work for us - next level technology = free.

Far far better mates!

SW is clearly over-engineering and keeps lots of defs away and the HF Monster needs to play the FUD role.

SW allows better 2nd layer engineering - but in terms of energy and resources this is just wasted and dilutes bitcoins absolutely strongest Satoshi security.

[B1tUnl0ck3r]

I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps this makes me a dick for saying this, but I hope Bitcoin Cash fails horribly. Wasn't Satoshi's original vision for bitcoin to have only 1MB for the block size? I'm not saying that he is correct with this stance, but I don't think it is cool that they use Satoshi's name like that to market themselves when it isn't his "original vision" like they say it is.

"We the people will breath new life into bitcoin"?? What is this? Most of us people don't want a fork, right?

Like so many you have been misinformed by those who wish to see bitcoin fail. The reality is the opposite of what you have been told, beware of the intense level of propaganda that prevails.

Satoshi's original design called for blocks to grow. The 1Mb limitation is currently imposed by a small and voiceful faction of the community who call themselves 'Core Developers' who don't want bitcoin to scale so they can implement an additional layer with their own technology on top of bitcoin.

So for all intents and purposes Bitcoin Cash is closest to Satoshi's vision.

Having said that, it doesn't mean the fork is a good idea. There is a community consensus to implement segwit on Aug 1st and then increase block sizes in November and this is what should be followed.

I agree with this post.

with segwit you add another layer of potential problems. when a simple modification to a 10mb block would have solved the issue temporary before raising to 100mb.

So why shall I have confidence in adding another layer to bitcoin? I am better using pivx for example where there will no problem or question about scaling the block size once the transaction capacity is reached (actually 70tps)...

it's pathetic. How do you plan to make money with segwit? Is there a way to host a second layer node and make some sats?

+1
Some people here get it - Yes it is far better to (free) scale on-chain, say 8MB or 10MB and let it work for some years. This is Satoshi.

How much years this would give us ?  about 3-5 or more  ?

On the other side you give Moores law a chance (also in Satoshi's vision), and let it work for us - next level technology = free.

Far far better mates!

SW is clearly over-engineering and keeps lots of defs away and the HF Monster needs to play the FUD role.

SW allows better 2nd layer engineering - but in terms of energy and resources this is just wasted and dilutes bitcoins absolutely strongest Satoshi security.

strong approval. How can I profit from segwit? I setup a node and get some fees?

[hv_]

I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps this makes me a dick for saying this, but I hope Bitcoin Cash fails horribly. Wasn't Satoshi's original vision for bitcoin to have only 1MB for the block size? I'm not saying that he is correct with this stance, but I don't think it is cool that they use Satoshi's name like that to market themselves when it isn't his "original vision" like they say it is.

"We the people will breath new life into bitcoin"?? What is this? Most of us people don't want a fork, right?

Like so many you have been misinformed by those who wish to see bitcoin fail. The reality is the opposite of what you have been told, beware of the intense level of propaganda that prevails.

Satoshi's original design called for blocks to grow. The 1Mb limitation is currently imposed by a small and voiceful faction of the community who call themselves 'Core Developers' who don't want bitcoin to scale so they can implement an additional layer with their own technology on top of bitcoin.

So for all intents and purposes Bitcoin Cash is closest to Satoshi's vision.

Having said that, it doesn't mean the fork is a good idea. There is a community consensus to implement segwit on Aug 1st and then increase block sizes in November and this is what should be followed.

I agree with this post.

with segwit you add another layer of potential problems. when a simple modification to a 10mb block would have solved the issue temporary before raising to 100mb.

So why shall I have confidence in adding another layer to bitcoin? I am better using pivx for example where there will no problem or question about scaling the block size once the transaction capacity is reached (actually 70tps)...

it's pathetic. How do you plan to make money with segwit? Is there a way to host a second layer node and make some sats?

+1
Some people here get it - Yes it is far better to (free) scale on-chain, say 8MB or 10MB and let it work for some years. This is Satoshi.

How much years this would give us ?  about 3-5 or more  ?

On the other side you give Moores law a chance (also in Satoshi's vision), and let it work for us - next level technology = free.

Far far better mates!

SW is clearly over-engineering and keeps lots of defs away and the HF Monster needs to play the FUD role.

SW allows better 2nd layer engineering - but in terms of energy and resources this is just wasted and dilutes bitcoins absolutely strongest Satoshi security.

strong approval. How can I profit from segwit? I setup a node and get some fees?

Hehehe  - not too quick

Lookup Lightning Network or similar projects ...  but as I say it's wasted energy to bitcoin on-chain secure scaling ....

[Mtoo]

Oh we should waiting no one knows if it's difficult for us

[nathan_24]

Hi! I have several doubts regarding SegWit.

Starting on August 1st, will ALL transactions in the blockchain be in segwit format? Is it a format imposed if you want your transaction included in the blockchain? Or is it optional? Or there is no transaction format change at all and it is just about the way it will be stored in the blockchain by the miners?

Thanks a lot in advance!

[achow101]

Starting on August 1st, will ALL transactions in the blockchain be in segwit format? Is it a format imposed if you want your transaction included in the blockchain? Or is it optional?

Segwit is completely optional. If you don't want to use it, you don't have to and you can use Bitcoin as you normally do now. It is completely backwards compatible so you can use non-segwit software even after segwit activates. The current transaction format, script types, and addresses aren't going anywhere. They will remain the same and unchanged and will function as they do now.

Also, segwit is not activating on August 1st. Segwit will be activating some time around August 24th as that is around when the lock in period will end. First it has to become locked in though. Over the next 2016 blocks, 1915 of them must signal for segwit in order for it to become locked in.

Or there is no transaction format change at all and it is just about the way it will be stored in the blockchain by the miners?

There is a format change, but only if you are spending from segwit outputs.

[Blockchain Mechanic]

I'm not entirely sure why, perhaps this makes me a dick for saying this, but I hope Bitcoin Cash fails horribly. Wasn't Satoshi's original vision for bitcoin to have only 1MB for the block size? I'm not saying that he is correct with this stance, but I don't think it is cool that they use Satoshi's name like that to market themselves when it isn't his "original vision" like they say it is.

"We the people will breath new life into bitcoin"?? What is this? Most of us people don't want a fork, right?

Like so many you have been misinformed by those who wish to see bitcoin fail. The reality is the opposite of what you have been told, beware of the intense level of propaganda that prevails.

Satoshi's original design called for blocks to grow. The 1Mb limitation is currently imposed by a small and voiceful faction of the community who call themselves 'Core Developers' who don't want bitcoin to scale so they can implement an additional layer with their own technology on top of bitcoin.

So for all intents and purposes Bitcoin Cash is closest to Satoshi's vision.

Having said that, it doesn't mean the fork is a good idea. There is a community consensus to implement segwit on Aug 1st and then increase block sizes in November and this is what should be followed.

I agree with this post.

with segwit you add another layer of potential problems. when a simple modification to a 10mb block would have solved the issue temporary before raising to 100mb.

So why shall I have confidence in adding another layer to bitcoin? I am better using pivx for example where there will no problem or question about scaling the block size once the transaction capacity is reached (actually 70tps)...

it's pathetic. How do you plan to make money with segwit? Is there a way to host a second layer node and make some sats?

+1
Some people here get it - Yes it is far better to (free) scale on-chain, say 8MB or 10MB and let it work for some years. This is Satoshi.

How much years this would give us ?  about 3-5 or more  ?

On the other side you give Moores law a chance (also in Satoshi's vision), and let it work for us - next level technology = free.

Far far better mates!

SW is clearly over-engineering and keeps lots of defs away and the HF Monster needs to play the FUD role.

SW allows better 2nd layer engineering - but in terms of energy and resources this is just wasted and dilutes bitcoins absolutely strongest Satoshi security.

Bitcoin originally had a theoretical max /message/ read :- block size  of 32MB , it was reduced by Satoshi himself/themselves to 1 MB but with pointers on how to scale it in future. Unfortunately , the Bitcoin Core developers have chosen to foist segwit, a potentially dangerous solution and caused a major schism in the community. A second issue with the refusal to increase the block size is the opposing views between those who want Bitcoin to be used as a store of value/asset and those who wish to use it as an everyday currency. In order to facilitate use as a currency, ie allow micro-transactions (buy coffee, pay bus fare etc) blocks must become larger to accommodate the transaction volumes this would entail.

The nature of bitcoin mining is such that miners typically opt to include transactions with higher fees first in the blocks they mine. As such when this debate initially began miners were against the increase in blocksize as it would mean a relative reduction in their profits from fees. This took a turn for the opposite when off-chain scaling was introduced into the conversation and miners figured out they were better off with a high quantity of small fees and large blocks than they were if these transactions went off-chain. Hence miners are now flip-flopping between whichever sounds like it will go in their favor and make the worst yard stick with which to measure community leanings.

Use of bitcoin has been steadily gaining traction over the years with many stores and people now accepting it as a means of settling payments. It is now a topic discussed at the highest levels in many central governments and these developments strengthen the argument that the protocol should reflect bitcoin as a currency , which requires its overall transaction capability to increase drastically.

I think reverting to the initial 32MB limit is the first step. This is not introduction of any new concept, and thus should not result in any backlash. If the Bitcoin Core team can still bring up Segwit at 32MB as a viable solution, IMO that would remove the shadow of their affiliation with off-chain projects as their motivation to suppress the blocksize increase.

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

[JayJuanGee]

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc.

[hv_]

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc.

You're missing the 'little' fact here that SW was not really ordered and also liked by the major hardware investors, the system runners, who finally have to buy and install that code...

So finally it doesn't matter at all how long and who was developing what.

[JayJuanGee]

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc.

You're missing the 'little' fact here that SW was not really ordered and also liked by the major hardware investors, the system runners, who finally have to buy and install that code...

So finally it doesn't matter at all how long and who was developing what.

I'm not sure if I get you.  I thought the activation of segwit does not require changes in code.  In other words, nodes and miners do not have to run it, if they prefer not to run it.  In that regard, are there some kind of implications that negate my points that segwit is nearly a done deal at this point?

[hv_]

The greatest danger now is not what solution actually ends up being chosen, it is actually the motivations behind those who propose that solution. This is true not only for core, but all proposed solutions.

You come off as a bit pie in the sky with your fairly lengthy attempt at a justification of bitcoin based on some supposed vision of satoshi 8 years ago.

The fact of the matter is that seg wit has already been chosen and has been in the works for a couple of years and appears to be in the final stages of locking in then soon thereafter activation, so your statement "what solution actually ends up being chosen" is either out of touch with actual facts and/r is striving to paint bitcoin to be something that it is not likely - based on some narrow preference that you have and possibly some other out of touch folks from r/btc.

You're missing the 'little' fact here that SW was not really ordered and also liked by the major hardware investors, the system runners, who finally have to buy and install that code...

So finally it doesn't matter at all how long and who was developing what.

I'm not sure if I get you.  I thought the activation of segwit does not require changes in code.  In other words, nodes and miners do not have to run it, if they prefer not to run it.  In that regard, are there some kind of implications that negate my points that segwit is nearly a done deal at this point?

We both know how status is for now

Most node runners bought core's SW from shelf because they ever did
Most miners did not buy SW, until UASF came up with stupid force to split Bitcoin and break Satoshi consensus.
They did the only right move and compromis to not let it shit-split and keep consensus near 100%.

You are right - miners still can skip mining SW-TX, despite SW2x is more or less live.
We will see how this plays out.

Still SW looks not like a good Scaling Work  rather like a Split Wedge  

[JayJuanGee]

Still SW looks not like a good Scaling Work  rather like a Split Wedge  

You mean that if no one runs segwit, then it is not going to do anything?

I think that a lot of folks will just run segwit and attempt to take advantage of its various features.  I agree that we have to see how it plays out, but if we do not really have sophisticated technical knowledge then it might take a bit of time to see whether there are any concrete applications that are built upon segwit that empowers the whole bitcoin system?

[hv_]

Still SW looks not like a good Scaling Work  rather like a Split Wedge  

You mean that if no one runs segwit, then it is not going to do anything?

I think that a lot of folks will just run segwit and attempt to take advantage of its various features.  I agree that we have to see how it plays out, but if we do not really have sophisticated technical knowledge then it might take a bit of time to see whether there are any concrete applications that are built upon segwit that empowers the whole bitcoin system?

Yep - I guess in the end we want the same thing - get Bitcoin around the world - to all poor and rich.

My concerns esp with SW are

- it takes really longer time to get into proper and wished scaling mode (also achow101 says this upthread) - we could lose the race with poor Asian's BCH

- it is complex code (this is a reason for ^) - on-chain's safety (-SW)  we know for 8+ year, why give that away?

- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it  - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?

- miners don't like it (this might b a reason ^ since all miners will suffer from that)

- too much splitting of community ^^^^

[Last of the V8s]

- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it  - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?

if that happened it would only be core's reputation that suffered, not bitcoin's in the long run.

[hv_]

- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it  - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?

if that happened it would only be core's reputation that suffered, not bitcoin's in the long run.

No - that's not realistic. We think of mass adoption here and the (uninformed) mass-press and the outer (poor) world will disrupt Bitcoin to be not working. As simple as  usual.

[achow101]

- it is complex code (this is a reason for ^) - on-chain's safety (-SW)  we know for 8+ year, why give that away?

Except we don't know about all of the other implications about on-chain capacity such as bandwidth, storage requirements, computing requirements, etc. We only know what happens when we get the worst case scenario with 1 MB and how that effects the network. We don't know how the worst case would effect the network if we have larger blocks.

- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it  - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?

That's not how 2nd layer scaling solutions work. They are all decentralized, not some central thing that can crash or scam or whatever.

- miners don't like it (this might b a reason ^ since all miners will suffer from that)

And miners wouldn't like increasing the block size either because that will lower the fees they gather in the short term. It would also mean that their nodes (which I'm told that many use fairly low end hardware) could be very negatively effected by various exhaustion attacks that come with larger blocks. So really miners want smaller blocks, not larger blocks.

[MoinCoin]

- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it  - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?

That's not how 2nd layer scaling solutions work. They are all decentralized, not some central thing that can crash or scam or whatever.

In the german subforum i explained this fact to hv_ numerous times - he has his own beliefs.
Even if it were a centralized payment channel system - hub cannot steal your bitcoins.

[hv_]

- it is sold to open many 2nd layer applications, but if there is only one (related to bitcoin for outer world!) is crashing / scam you name it -> entire Bitcoin gets the shit in the world press you name it  - do we want to risk Bitcoins entire reputation because a stupid 2nd layer shit is failing hard? Who does professional due-diligence here ?

That's not how 2nd layer scaling solutions work. They are all decentralized, not some central thing that can crash or scam or whatever.

In the german subforum i explained this fact to hv_ numerous times - he has his own beliefs.
Even if it were a centralized payment channel system - hub cannot steal your bitcoins.

Thx for your help, but I m about the general issues that are coming in with 2nd layer scaling and the variety of security models and peoples agendas behind these.

If you are fine and see no issues with all that, so would you back up your sales manners with your own money, your own resources and your own reputiation? Means if harm comes in from these, you will compensate?

Sure you would never, this shows it has more risks as on chain, where miners back up with their multi million investments front up.

Further you put exacly miner's investments on risk or would you back up this as well with your money?

[MoinCoin]

Thx for your help, but I m about the general issues that are coming in with 2nd layer scaling and the variety of security models and peoples agendas behind these.

If you are fine and see no issues with all that, so would you back up your sales manners with your own money, your own resources and your own reputiation? Means if harm comes in from these, you will compensate?

Sure you would never, this shows it has more risks as on chain, where miners back up with their multi million investments front up.

Further you put exacly miner's investments on risk or would you back up this as well with your money?

This exactly shows how deeply you misunderstand 2nd layers.
What security is provided by the miners on chain?
To prevent possible rewriting the history - the blockchain.
To prevent double spends.
Maybe to uphold the consensus rules.
To provide censorship resistant means of storing data / sending payments.
Or with other words: Good PoW guards from Evil PoW

2nd layers have this features/security intrinsically (derived).

Of course software can fail - but you cannot buy miners for x MM USD and increase the security of the BU software on layer 1.
So what is your point?
2nd layers are not susceptible to those kinds of attack - therefore you don't need to put hardware millions worth of dollars to protect it on that front.
Did Bitcoin Unlimited paid Bitcoin.com when they had the 1 MB blocksize bug?
Did they pay node operators, when the software crashed?
You just need good software.

Yes - i will back that up with my own money on my own payment channels.

[hv_]

Thx for your help, but I m about the general issues that are coming in with 2nd layer scaling and the variety of security models and peoples agendas behind these.

If you are fine and see no issues with all that, so would you back up your sales manners with your own money, your own resources and your own reputiation? Means if harm comes in from these, you will compensate?

Sure you would never, this shows it has more risks as on chain, where miners back up with their multi million investments front up.

Further you put exacly miner's investments on risk or would you back up this as well with your money?

This exactly shows how deeply you misunderstand 2nd layers.
What security is provided by the miners on chain?
To prevent possible rewriting the history - the blockchain.
To prevent double spends.
Maybe to uphold the consensus rules.
To provide censorship resistant means of storing data / sending payments.

2nd layers have this features/security intrinsically (derived).

Of course software can fail - but you cannot buy miners for x MM USD and increase the security of the BU software on layer 1.
So what is your point?
2nd layers are not susceptible to those kinds of attack - therefore you don't need to put hardware millions worth of dollars to protect it on that front.
Did Bitcoin Unlimited paid Bitcoin.com when they had the 1 MB blocksize bug?
Did they pay node operators, when the software crashed?
You just need good software.

Yes - i will back that up with my own money on my own payment channels.

First of all, you always forget one of the most important tasks miners have to follow, it is the Nash equilibrium. This is source for major security. From this comes all the rest you numbered down.

Second yes I understand very good on and off chain scalings thats not the point here.

I fear, no I learn, that no one here really understands risk management applied to insurance / financial industry in particular systemic and reputational risk as part of operational risk, but you all just platantly try to sale and deliver things where you have no clue about the inherent risks coming under the hood, but you ll learn when it s too late.

All your posts to this major - because money and reputation relevant-  questionary I do ends off topic and with more tech and specs that brings in new and more risk recursively.

You are just trapped still in the 'bitcoin is an experiment mode', so try it out but you ll never scale that immature way.

My advice is, learn risk management for finance and relevant software project management and come back.