[Discussion] Blocks signalling SegWit Support

[OmegaStarScream]

You can check the current percentage at : https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

Percentage is currently 8% which is low If we take in consideration that we need to have 95% but It's increasing daily, do you think we are going to reach it or there is no chance and SegWit won't be activated ?

It's an open discussion so feel free to say your opinion about the whole SegWit thing and not only about Signalling.

[1715295209]

1715295209

[1715295209]

1715295209

[1715295209]

1715295209

[1715295209]

1715295209

[1715295209]

1715295209

[stdset]

Graph which you mentioned probably shows 2016 blocks average. 144 blocks average is more relevant now, since signalling begun much later than 2016 blocks ago.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/
2016 blocks average won't go above ~20% unless shorter term average goes up.
I think pool operators, Bitcoin core representatives, and all alternative Bitcoin implementations teams need to gather to discuss their concerns and come to a compromise. Otherwise Segwit won't be activated.

[franky1]

in short.

dont expect it by christmas

[franky1]

Graph which you mentioned probably shows 2016 blocks average. 144 blocks average is more relevant now, since signalling begun much later than

no

the RULE. the CODE. the BIP is about 95% of 2016 blocks.. (not average of 24 hours)

the important thing is
https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

the other metric of "average" "24 hours".. is not important.. it is just a generalised thing.

much like presidential elections.
the important thing is the vote count. however people can talk about short term 'polls' that change daily to gain some insight as to the 'ifs' and 'maybes' but choosing to think of polls as more important then the actual vote count is ludicrous, especially if the poll changes from 25%-14% 26%-16% at any time. its not a worthy metric.

if anything
use this..
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png

and yes its made by the guy that done segwit. that shows the 2 figures together

the "poll" (short term opinion) in blue
the "votes" (actual results that the code/rules look at) in red

[stdset]

Graph which you mentioned probably shows 2016 blocks average. 144 blocks average is more relevant now, since signalling begun much later than

no

the RULE. the CODE. the BIP is about 95% of 2016 blocks.. (not average of 24 hours)

Most blocks in 2016 interval were mined before the signalling has begun. So you just don't have that statistic yet. Imagine 100% of blocks flag support of segwit. 2016 blocks average would be 41-42% now, it would however reach 100% in several days. With current ~20% segwit signalling blocks, 2016 blocks average will stabilize around the same value: ~20% in several days, it won't go higher, unless short term average goes higher.

[franky1]

Graph which you mentioned probably shows 2016 blocks average. 144 blocks average is more relevant now, since signalling begun much later than

no

the RULE. the CODE. the BIP is about 95% of 2016 blocks.. (not average of 24 hours)

Most blocks in 2016 interval were mined before the signalling has begun. So you just don't have that statistic yet. Imagine 100% of blocks flag support of segwit. 2016 blocks average would be 41-42% now, it would however reach 100% in several days. With current ~20% segwit signalling blocks, 2016 blocks average will stabilize around the same value: ~20% in several days, it won't go higher, unless short term average goes higher.

yes and thats why the 20% is an opinion poll because the election has not been open long enough to have vote counts. but treating the opinion poll as the metric of activation and most important, is a failure of understanding.

as you say votes should be about 41-42%...... yet votes are at 8%

again blue line=opinion poll.. red line vote count.

there is nothing wrong with discussing opinion poll.. but atleast discuss it in the context of opinion rather than factual status of votes

[Carlton Banks]

I think:

pool operators, Bitcoin core representatives, and all alternative Bitcoin implementations teams need to gather to discuss their concerns and come to a compromise. Otherwise Segwit won't be activated.

I think you're wrong.

There's no need to compromise with "big blockists", as Segwit introduces bigger blocks. Simple, huh?

[Meuh6879]

  i prefer compact block. 

[OmegaStarScream]

It increased by 4% (12% now) since I made this thread (a couple of days ago) . If it continues to increase by this rate daily then we should expect seeing 95% by 45 days / 2 months max , for how long we should stay above 95% In order to get SegWit activated ?

[European Central Bank]

from the core website -  'if 95% of blocks during a 2,016-block retarget period signal support for segwit, the segwit soft-fork will be locked-in with activation scheduled for 2,016 blocks later (about two weeks)'

even if it was approaching that figure, i think there'd be enough weird moves from agitators to scupper it.

[OmegaStarScream]

I guess my above calculations were wrong after all , for some reasons , It seems like we are stuck at 22-23% since the last two/three days. What could've caused this ?

[Lauda]

I guess my above calculations were wrong after all , for some reasons , It seems like we are stuck at 22-23% since the last two/three days. What could've caused this ?

You made a very faulty assumption, i.e. that everyone is going to adopt Segwit in a short amount of time. Soft fork signalling/activation takes time, and it should not be any different for Segwit.

[franky1]

I guess my above calculations were wrong after all , for some reasons , It seems like we are stuck at 22-23% since the last two/three days. What could've caused this ?

well if only 20-25% of the hashpower was mining bitcoins in favour.. ofcourse it will end up settling at 25% when the 2016 block count progresses

this one seems to be better
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png
blue= future ROUGH expectation
red= current RULE measure

[densuj]

do you think we are going to reach it or there is no chance and SegWit won't be activated ?

It's an open discussion so feel free to say your opinion about the whole SegWit thing and not only about Signalling.

I think segwit won't be activated because
Miner’s stake is almost completely compatible with the whole ecological interests: “the main chain survives, the user expansion” is the guarantee of their interests.

Their decision-making mechanism is simple: to dig, or not to dig.
 Competitions among miners are simple, fierce and bitter. ASIC machines that are out-performed by new generations will be deserted ruthlessly.

No excuse from decision-making. ASIC miners are specialized equipments that have little reclamation value or secondary functions. Their investment on hardware is absolute sinking capital. There is no immediate and easy withdrawal from ecosystem for them. They have to make decisions with the best of their rationality.

If the segwit be activated bitcoin can be controled by government or corporation.

[MingLee]

in short.

dont expect it by christmas

Well, no kidding. Considering that we're looking at 8% support after it being talked about for a good few weeks now, it doesn't look like it is going to have any form of insane drumming up of support over the next week or two and there is no way that the 50% mark will be broken by Christmas, and probably not even until February 2017.

I still need to develop a proper opinion on this issue.

[franky1]

lukes new 2mb segwit (2mb base 4mb weight)
is getting to be a better proposal. though it is still kicking the can down the road.

it needs to be DYNAMIC
so that we are not reliant on devs to supply capacity scaling at their discretion, with community at their knees begging. but instead when the network independently chooses for it to happen without dev's 'control'

[kiklo]

I think:

pool operators, Bitcoin core representatives, and all alternative Bitcoin implementations teams need to gather to discuss their concerns and come to a compromise. Otherwise Segwit won't be activated.

I think you're wrong.

There's no need to compromise with "big blockists", as Segwit introduces bigger blocks. Simple, huh?

Really Simple , cause the Chinese Miners are going to Block Segwit.  


 

[yayayo]

I think:

pool operators, Bitcoin core representatives, and all alternative Bitcoin implementations teams need to gather to discuss their concerns and come to a compromise. Otherwise Segwit won't be activated.

I think you're wrong.

There's no need to compromise with "big blockists", as Segwit introduces bigger blocks. Simple, huh?

Really Simple , cause the Chinese Miners are going to Block Segwit.  

They won't. Apart from Roger Ver and his bribed shills at ViaBTC, Chinese pools will join much sooner than you expect. Ver won't succeed with his reckless altcoin trolling. I really hope he will waste a lot of funds in the process...

Regardless if endorsing bigger blocks or not, almost everyone with the slightest amount of technical understanding will agree that SegWit is a true improvement. It doesn't just only increase block capacity, it also improves security by fixing Tx malleability. Trying to block it to push for technologically inferior and less secure solution is a sign of a diseased mind.

ya.ya.yo!

[-ck]

http://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/block_version/30d?c=block_version&r=week&t=a

While the percentage of blocks signalling segwit support is rising, that's only because the relative proportion of blocks by the pools signalling support is getting closer to what they represent as a proportion of the network - the same 6 entities have been signalling support as soon as they could. A significant proportion of pools have not (+/-yet) started signalled support. I wouldn't take the rise in percentage of blocks signalling segwit to be indicative of support increasing for it. I'd watch the pool count supporting segwit as a better marker of whether it will get up or not - and at this stage there isn't remotely enough pools supporting it, but it's way too early to make a call about what will happen (note my pool is currently testing support for it and plans to but it's less than 0.1% of the network.)

[kiklo]

They won't. Apart from Roger Ver and his bribed shills at ViaBTC, Chinese pools will join much sooner than you expect. Ver won't succeed with his reckless altcoin trolling. I really hope he will waste a lot of funds in the process...

Regardless if endorsing bigger blocks or not, almost everyone with the slightest amount of technical understanding will agree that SegWit is a true improvement. It doesn't just only increase block capacity, it also improves security by fixing Tx malleability. Trying to block it to push for technologically inferior and less secure solution is a sign of a diseased mind.

Agreeing to segwit is giving transaction fees directly to Lightening Network and taking transaction fees out of the miners pockets.

So are you willing to give me the larger % of your paycheck, because you seem to think the Miners are dumb enough to give the larger % of their transaction fees to LN.  

Segwit will Fail.


 

[European Central Bank]

You have to make an on chain transaction to get in and out of a lightning network. and i'll guess that if it really takes off the main chain fees will be so stupidly high that miners will be rolling in it. that is until the users get totally sick of throwing their money away and find another coin to use.

[kiklo]

http://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/block_version/30d?c=block_version&r=week&t=a

While the percentage of blocks signalling segwit support is rising, that's only because the relative proportion of blocks by the pools signalling support is getting closer to what they represent as a proportion of the network - the same 6 entities have been signalling support as soon as they could. A significant proportion of pools have not (+/-yet) started signalled support. I wouldn't take the rise in percentage of blocks signalling segwit to be indicative of support increasing for it. I'd watch the pool count supporting segwit as a better marker of whether it will get up or not - and at this stage there isn't remotely enough pools supporting it, but it's way too early to make a call about what will happen (note my pool is currently testing support for it and plans to but it's less than 0.1% of the network.)

Segwit is not increasing, Highest it ever saw was 30%, it has only been dropping since.

https://coin.dance/blocks

Current #s are

SegWit       20.14%
8 MB          11.90%
Unlimited   10.00%

 


FYI:
Segwit leads the way for LN,
you might want to study that as it will lower the amount of transactions fees you receive in the future by keeping more transactions OffChain.

[kiklo]

You have to make an on chain transaction to get in and out of a lightning network. and i'll guess that if it really takes off the main chain fees will be so stupidly high that miners will be rolling in it. that is until the users get totally sick of throwing their money away and find another coin to use.

Once In,
There are no limits on how many transactions you can make,
BTC miners will see ZERO fees from those transactions and this will drop the number of ONChain Transactions by a large %.
LN has the potential to determine which miners actually process the transactions.  

 

FYI:
Have no illussions , LN is the Tool that will give control of BTC to the Bankers.

[Meuh6879]

The problem of SegWit is not ... SegWit
It's the developpers of Wallets (or associate services) : https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/



WIP is not good ...

[franky1]

http://data.bitcoinity.org/bitcoin/block_version/30d?c=block_version&r=week&t=a

While the percentage of blocks signalling segwit support is rising, that's only because the relative proportion of blocks by the pools signalling support is getting closer to what they represent as a proportion of the network - the same 6 entities have been signalling support as soon as they could. A significant proportion of pools have not (+/-yet) started signalled support. I wouldn't take the rise in percentage of blocks signalling segwit to be indicative of support increasing for it. I'd watch the pool count supporting segwit as a better marker of whether it will get up or not - and at this stage there isn't remotely enough pools supporting it, but it's way too early to make a call about what will happen (note my pool is currently testing support for it and plans to but it's less than 0.1% of the network.)

as above.. but with added:
those pools, being mainly BTCC, slush. they quickly rushed to flag their approval. this means the day the final code release was released they didnt tweak it and test it. they just ran it.

most pools have been watching the code since june (first real bitcoin testnets began) but because between june and october the code was continually changing many were not gonna bother writing their own implementations until final code was released. to then emulate.

so by running the final software pretty much as soon as it was released shows that btcc and shush didnt really independantly test it on bitcoins MAIN NET before flagging. they just trusted the TESTNET tests were adequate and just ran with it.

we should/may see more pools eventually flag for segwit after doing some MAINNET tests. but dont expect anything before the new year to get activated.

and as for anyone blaming Ver right now.. Ver only has 9% hashrate not 75%. so atleast stick to reality of realising its more then just Ver saying no right now.

[franky1]

The problem of SegWit is not ... SegWit
It's the developpers of Wallets (or associate services) : https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/

WIP is not good ...

WIP is good. it means they are peer reviewing, testing on mainnet and double checking... rather then "blind trust and run"

its like Windows. never blindly install and run a new version of windows until its atleast released its first batch of patches

[countryfree]

I used to blame the developers for being too slow to find a solution to the scalability issue. Now that we have one (well, sort of...), I may start to blame the miners for being too slow to implement it. At this rate, we'll be lucky if SegWit is adopted by Spring.

[franky1]

I used to blame the developers for being too slow to find a solution to the scalability issue. Now that we have one (well, sort of...), I may start to blame the miners for being too slow to implement it. At this rate, we'll be lucky if SegWit is adopted by Spring.

firstly ill repeat

its like Windows. never blindly install and run a new version of windows until its atleast released its first batch of patches

and then add
yet other proposals could have been released sooner..
segwit is just kicking the stone down the road.
at the moment pre-segwit we are getting ~2500tx (standard tx mix)
at the moment pre-segwit we are getting ~2100tx (standard/multisig tx mix)

only expect ~4500tx IF.. EMPHASIS: IF 100% of users use segwit.
yep the 1.8x of ~2500tx (standard tx mix) =~4500 IF 100% of users use segwit.
yep the 2.1x of ~2100tx (standard/multisig tx mix) ~4500 IF 100% of users use segwit.

but guess what.
if you look back to 2009-2013, transactions were leaner with the estimates of 4500tx (remember the good old days of 7tx/s hype)
thats right we are just going backwards to original expectations of 2009-2013..
and only able to reach OLD expectations IF EVERYONE used segwit

but a proper scalability of 2mb base 4mb weight. would offer ~5000tx without segwit and ~9000tx with segwit.

and making it dynamic means we are not waiting months/years for PEOPLE to decide to allow other people to download a change. it would happen as part of the network. meaning no political name calling or oliver twist scripts of "please sir can i have some more"

but hey we seem to have too many people protecting devs rather then bitcoins diversity and utility.