SegWit, are we sure about this?

[franky1]

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

also some of the RPC calls have changed so merchants will need to tweak their webserver to interpret the new RPC's and then translate them into a form that resembles the API quiries the webserver normally sends out to users. but please note some RPC's may give more info and as such some merchants may actually use the updated info from the RPC's, which means the user has to adjust to the new information.
but that all depends on the merchant and what API you are needing. best to check with the service your API calling.

there are a few other things to note. but i feel some fanboys are ready to pounce and declare segwit to be utopian perfection and that no one should worry, and simply sheep follow and obey.
so ill let them get their idolizations out the way before hinting at other issues

[calkob]

It sounds great and anything that can help with more transactions is a good first step, i dont think it is the final solutions tho

[Wind_FURY]

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

also some of the RPC calls have changed so merchants will need to tweak their webserver to interpret the new RPC's and then translate them into a form that resembles the API quiries the webserver normally sends out to users. but please note some RPC's may give more info and as such some merchants may actually use the updated info from the RPC's, which means the user has to adjust to the new information.
but that all depends on the merchant and what API you are needing. best to check with the service your API calling.

there are a few other things to note. but i feel some fanboys are ready to pounce and declare segwit to be utopian perfection and that no one should worry, and simply sheep follow and obey.
so ill let them get their idolizations out the way before hinting at other issues

Remove the name calling and the insults and get to the real issue at hand. It would be fair for the people who know what is going on to answer to the issues raised because they will cause some inconvenience for the exchanges, merchants, and all the other Bitcoin based businesses. It will also be a nuisance for the users especially the people who are not updated to what is going on with Bitcoin. They might just find out one day when they cannot send or receive coins.

Maybe 5 years ago this would be acceptable. But not today because Bitcoin is getting more professional and its legitimacy relies on the fact that there should be no downtime.

[serjent05]

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

also some of the RPC calls have changed so merchants will need to tweak their webserver to interpret the new RPC's and then translate them into a form that resembles the API quiries the webserver normally sends out to users. but please note some RPC's may give more info and as such some merchants may actually use the updated info from the RPC's, which means the user has to adjust to the new information.
but that all depends on the merchant and what API you are needing. best to check with the service your API calling.

there are a few other things to note. but i feel some fanboys are ready to pounce and declare segwit to be utopian perfection and that no one should worry, and simply sheep follow and obey.
so ill let them get their idolizations out the way before hinting at other issues

I think there is always an issue whenever an upgrade or some modification is made.  But going back before bitcoin was adopted by merchants, it was far more difficult back then because every one is so new to bitcoin.  They even undergo this kind of process when they are into adopting bitcoin and yet it was been established.  I think this is just a common ground to an ever evolving or upgrading system. 

It sounds great and anything that can help with more transactions is a good first step, i dont think it is the final solutions tho

I agree to this, as long as it does not go against the main purpose why bitcoin is created, I think it must be pushed.

[mikewirth]

I agree to this, as long as it does not go against the main purpose why bitcoin is created, I think it must be pushed.

It does go against the main purpose.  It is an alt.  A bad alt.  It is a radical change and unproven.  It doesn't work (as a scaling solution). 

Post your vote now.  Even if you are not a miner, let the community know you are against.

[Lauda]

It does go against the main purpose.  It is an alt.  A bad alt.  

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

It is a radical change and unproven.  It doesn't work (as a scaling solution).  

It has been proven and it works (at least on Bitcoin Testnet). It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.
It is so sad to see either misinformed people continuing to spread lies, or users *sponsored by unknown actors* continuing to spread FUD and dissent. Here's a better view on the issue:

[kiklo]

It does go against the main purpose.  It is an alt.  A bad alt.  

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

It is a radical change and unproven.  It doesn't work (as a scaling solution).  

It has been proven and it works (at least on Bitcoin Testnet). It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.
It is so sad to see either misinformed people continuing to spread lies, or users *sponsored by unknown actors* continuing to spread FUD and dissent. Here's a better view on the issue:

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

Just Curious.

 

[ufaiz50]

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

to my knowledge segwit effects will impact the bitcoin network significantly reduce the transactional data by deleting a set of data called Witness of the traditional structure of the transaction. This is thought to reduce the likelihood of blocks reaches maximum capacity

[kiklo]

To Increase BTC Transaction Capacity all they had to do was the following.
Increase BlockSize or Decrease Blockspeed , either or both would work

BTC Transactions Congestion Problems   

Simulation Example
each block has 1 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 4200 transactions per block with a 10 minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes
6 Blocks * 4200 Transactions =  25200 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

BTC Transactions Congestion Solutions   

Simulation Example Updated with Larger BlockSize and Shorter BlockSpeed
each block has 2 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 8400 transactions per block with a 2½ minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes

24 Blocks * 8400 Transactions = 201600 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

Compare Updated Simulation with Original
201600 / 25200  = 8
Updated Version can handle 8X the Transaction Capacity. 

Now the educated asshats that live in these forums will tell you it can't work or it is a security risk, (They are Lying!)
Real World Examples.
PoW coin LTC has a 2½ minute block time with no problems whatsoever from it.
In Fact Chinese Mining Pools are over 51% of the BTC Hash rate , and are also over 51% of the LTC Hashrate.
In Fact some alts run at a 30 second blockspeed.
Oh, they also will complain, it will affect the Block Reward and Halving Dates,
(All of that are Variables that can be modified to compensate for the changes)

If they lower the Blockspeed,
then they will have to increase the Final Supply Number of Bitcoins or allow it to get to the Final Supply Number 4X faster than it would have.

If they only increase the BlockSize ,
then the Block rewards and halving dates are not affected, and will not need modification.
But Transactions grow will be directly proportional to the increase in BlockSize.
IE: 2 MB Block only Double the Transaction Capacity
     8 MB Blocks would increase by 8X also   

Whole Point to SegWit is install code where the Lightening Network can be used to replace BTC Transactions with LN Transactions
LN does not use BTC as it is OFFCHAIN it is nothing more than a representative trade value of BTC / IOU for BTC.
LN=Bank

 

[gribble]

SegWit, are we sure about this? I'm embarrassed that I'm a little nervous.  Dose Bitcointalk have any doubts or are you guys pumped for SegWit?

I am doubt too about SegWit because of the miners won't support it, they have made investment into business mining with millions real assets and they won't be manipulated by the the people who not made investment on business mining.

[franky1]

It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.

dont oversell it.

that 1,8x old stat and the updated 2-2.1x new stat is ONLY TRUE. if 100% of people move funds away from legacy(old) keypairs and directs funds over to the new segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs, and 100% sticks with using segwit.

if not all users used segwit it WONT be close to your numbers. so dont oversell it

[Slark]

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

But situation where some bitcoins could be "lost in translation" while being send from old wallet of customer to new SegWit address on an exchange is not possible right?
Also is something could go wrong while updating HD Seed to SegWit beside exchanges being temporary out of service?

[mikewirth]

It does go against the main purpose.  It is an alt.  A bad alt.  

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

Yes, it is an altcoin.  I don't understand how you can argue that it is not.  Litecoin is more like Bitcoin than SegWit.
  It is clearly an altcoin.  Your shit is the FUD

[mikewirth]

It does go against the main purpose.  It is an alt.  A bad alt.  

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

It is a radical change and unproven.  It doesn't work (as a scaling solution).  

It has been proven and it works (at least on Bitcoin Testnet). It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.
It is so sad to see either misinformed people continuing to spread lies, or users *sponsored by unknown actors* continuing to spread FUD and dissent. Here's a better view on the issue:

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

Just Curious.

 

Of course.  He is just another one of the Blockstream army of idiots trying to takeover the protocol.