Pessimistic outcome: segwit won't be activated

[pianist]

We need LN. We need segwit.

But what if idiots like Bitcoin-com and Via will crumb the deal?

[1713997499]

1713997499

[1713997499]

1713997499

[1713997499]

1713997499

[Gahs]

Even if 95% of miners do not vote for Segwit, technological advancements will cushion the impact. Bitcoin will survive...

[Evil-Knievel]

I truly hope that the miners vote against SegWit. Constantly increasing a system's complexity inevitably results in a number of variables and interrelationships that, in this particular case, haven't been fully captured yet.

[CIYAM]

I truly hope that the miners vote against SegWit. Constantly increasing a system's complexity inevitably results in a number of variables and interrelationships that, in this particular case, haven't been fully captured yet.

It has been very thoroughly tested and in fact actually helps to simplify things (by getting rid of tx malleability). Please don't FUD.

Those supporting idiotic ideas like Bitcoin Unlimited might delay things but those with the majority of mining power can already see through the nonsense so I think it will get there (and kudos to the development team for sticking to 95% unlike those fork happy idiots like BU who are pushing to fork at 75%).

[Carlton Banks]

Constantly increasing a system's complexity inevitably results in a number of variables and interrelationships that, in this particular case, haven't been fully captured yet.

Leaving aside that your sentence isn't fully legible, what makes you think Segwit complicates the system?


It's a simple change: today, blocks contain transactions and signatures. After Segwit, the signatures can be put into a separate, parallel block structure.

If you're having problems with understanding that, Bitcoin isn't for you right now. You'll just have to wait until people that are capable of understanding these simplicities have established your faith in the change.

[TransaDox]

If you're having problems with understanding that, Bitcoin isn't for you right now. You'll just have to wait until people that are capable of understanding these simplicities have established your faith in the change.

Unhelpful elitism.

[Carlton Banks]

Where do I say "only a tiny proportion of people can understand this"?


I'm saying it's a simple change. And it's easy to comprehend. There's nothing elitist about that.

Why would I consistently go to the bother of explaining all sorts of things to people (who exhibit socially acceptable behaviour, of course) if my intentions are elitist? Helping people to understand Bitcoin, or to get their PC set up for the alternative wallet software I use, is the opposite of elitism. Unless you want to say I'm attempting to "grow the elite", lol

[Evil-Knievel]

Where do I say "only a tiny proportion of people can understand this"?
It's a simple change: today, blocks contain transactions and signatures. After Segwit, the signatures can be put into a separate, parallel block structure.

Got it! So it's as simple as swapping out all cars by autonomous vehicles right?
Today, cars are driven by human beings. After the swap, the cars drive by themselves! Sounds pretty simple!

Not really, what about changing the infrastructure? What to do with a mixture between "old cars" and "new cars". What about possible errors that might come to the surface (algorithm related or just related to the increased difficulty in using those new cars)? What to do with all the services that are tailored specifically to traditional cars like gas stations, repair shops, ... All I am saying is that if the swap is not planned (and timed) correctly, things may just get utterly mixed up.

But anyway, I think it's just better to accept the fact that .. how did you say it again? ... Bitcoin isn't for me right now cuz I am obviously still having problems with understanding that  

[IIOII]

I truly hope that the miners vote against SegWit. Constantly increasing a system's complexity inevitably results in a number of variables and interrelationships that, in this particular case, haven't been fully captured yet.

Sorry, but that's silly. The principle of SegWit isn't that complex. Compared to various altcoins like Ethereum or ZCash it's much easier to understand and maintain. It's an ingenious solution to make storage use of the blockchain more efficient. In addition it's a security improvement by fixing transaction malleability.

SegWit was thoroughly tested by various experts over many months. The FUD stories of Roger Ver and his propaganda trolls is entirely unwarranted - in fact the true threat are excessive blocksize increases which would destroy network decentralization.

[Carlton Banks]

Where do I say "only a tiny proportion of people can understand this"?
It's a simple change: today, blocks contain transactions and signatures. After Segwit, the signatures can be put into a separate, parallel block structure.

But anyway, I think it's just better to accept the fact that .. how did you say it again? ... Bitcoin isn't for me right now cuz I am obviously still having problems with understanding that  

I agree. Your capacity to understand it appears to be diminishing, I would recommend sitting this one out.

[pereira4]

I truly hope that the miners vote against SegWit. Constantly increasing a system's complexity inevitably results in a number of variables and interrelationships that, in this particular case, haven't been fully captured yet.

What's guaranteed to happen is that if you double the blocksize right now, we'll see nodes dropping faster than allies in normandy.
Unfortunately, there is no way to scale anywhere notable on-chain, it's just not realistic, unless of course, you don't mind bitcoin being hosted in centralized hubs, which would kill the point of bitcoin.

Objectively, segwit is the best thing we have now. Those not supporting it are simply not aware of the realities we are dealing it, or they are, but don't care that bitcoin's network becomes centralized.

Sooner or later, segwit will be actives. Even if the morons push a blocksize increase, they will quickly see the blocks full again and realize the futility of scaling on-chain through simple blocksize increases without other methods.

[Evil-Knievel]

I agree. Your capacity to understand it appears to be diminishing, I would recommend sitting this one out.

Alright, let's keep it that way.

Just as I was involved in the Core development before (for example in this release https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.10.1.md), I will be there to help fix things in case something blows to smithereens.  

Until then, I will remain calm and silent.

[Wind_FURY]

It all boils down to politics. This is about control too. I believe the people behind Bitcoin Unlimited want to take over development by forking Bitcoin away from the Core developers. Ver is backing BU because he has influence over it. In what his secret agenda is to this whole debacle, we do not know. Many people here assume that Ver is a straight and upstanding guy in the community. Sure I will give you that but do not forget that he is also human capable of nasty, deceitful things.

[TransaDox]

What's guaranteed to happen is that if you double the blocksize right now, we'll see nodes dropping faster than allies in normandy.
Unfortunately, there is no way to scale anywhere notable on-chain, it's just not realistic, unless of course, you don't mind bitcoin being hosted in centralized hubs, which would kill the point of bitcoin.

Objectively, segwit is the best thing we have now. Those not supporting it are simply not aware of the realities we are dealing it, or they are, but don't care that bitcoin's network becomes centralized.

Sooner or later, segwit will be actives. Even if the morons push a blocksize increase, they will quickly see the blocks full again and realize the futility of scaling on-chain through simple blocksize increases without other methods.

It's already hosted in centralised hubs. That boat sailed a long time ago. Now that no one cares about the on-disk size, why not make it 4 times bigger so that online wallets don't have to fix their database queries?

Block size is a distraction. Now the economists have made a scarcity market of the spam prevention, they will let that be resolved when hell freezes over.

[BuySomeBitcoins]

We need LN. We need segwit.

But what if idiots like Bitcoin-com and Via will crumb the deal?

Bitcoin com have absolutely nothing to do with bitcoin except the domain name.

Their forum is a BTCTalk clone.
Their blog is a CoinDesk / CoinTelegraph clone
Their games are gambling clones.

They do not contribute in any manner to bitcoin.

[g2com]

I don't think LN is the solution. It brings in more complexity which is counterproductive to security

[CIYAM]

I don't think LN is the solution. It brings in more complexity which is counterproductive to security

Luckily you do not need to use LN and can continue to use "standard" Bitcoin (which is why the SegWit changes are a "soft fork").

Also the changes that have been made for LN support are really not very complicated at all (and have been thoroughly tested for many months now).

[Hunyadi]

IMO this is very critical battle for those who want to control bitcoin. After segwit (and LN), there will be lots of innovation which can't be stopped, sidechains will be the game changer. Now it's possible to keep bitcoin hostage with the scaling issue, but after sidechains arrive, that won't be the case anymore.

[HostFat]

There is another proposal that gives the possibility for LN

Flexible Transactions
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0134.mediawiki

[BuySomeBitcoins]

There is another proposal that gives the possibility for LN

Flexible Transactions
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0134.mediawiki

what are the cons of this proposal ?

[Jet Cash]

Unfortunately, there is no way to scale anywhere notable on-chain, it's just not realistic, unless of course, you don't mind bitcoin being hosted in centralized hubs, which would kill the point of bitcoin.

Sorry to harp on about this, but that isn't strictly true. Halving the block generation time, and adjusting the mining rewards, doesn't seem to be a major task. Of course, that assumes consensus amongst the byzantine generals.

[Carlton Banks]

Unfortunately, there is no way to scale anywhere notable on-chain, it's just not realistic, unless of course, you don't mind bitcoin being hosted in centralized hubs, which would kill the point of bitcoin.

Sorry to harp on about this, but that isn't strictly true. Halving the block generation time, and adjusting the mining rewards, doesn't seem to be a major task. Of course, that assumes consensus amongst the byzantine generals.

In order for what pereira said to be untrue, your statement would need to be true. But your statement's wrong.


Everything you said was correct, in isolation. Except that none of what you said makes Bitcoin scalable. Because halving the block interval isn't going to be feasible more than once, and the majority technical opinion is that even cutting the 10 minute target carries too much risk from constant chain-reorgs.


I'm absolutely fine with people finding alternative scaling solutions, but they have to be actual alternatives, not just a pleasant thought-experiment that lasts 5 minutes.

[Searing]

We need LN. We need segwit.

But what if idiots like Bitcoin-com and Via will crumb the deal?

Bitcoin core won't care they see btc as a store of value transactions and speed don't matter.
and keeps decentralization.

Bitcoin miners and block size hard fork folk want more transactions thus more centralized  and
More transactions more fees and adoption.

 Bitcoin core.     Like gold. Holding good enough.

 Miners and transactions more due to btc as a currency etc more like silver coins

You could be right it may never happen. Stalemare