SegWit must be stopped!

[TKeenan]

We must put an end to SegWit.  SegWit is an altcoin.  Protect Bitcoin by stopping SegWit. 

[calkob]

We must put an end to SegWit.  SegWit is an altcoin.  Protect Bitcoin by stopping SegWit. 

Cant see this going down well here, making a statement like that without even giving a legitamite reason as to why you feel that way is not going to help either   

[rapazev]

since you dont even try to argue about why we shouldn't support segWit, i'm gonna take this as trolling...

[franky1]

user nodes cannot veto it out.
and now you see why blockstream went for a soft fork.


all blockstream needs to do is coax 15-20 pools

so far they tried it by doing fully paid all inclusive weekend meetups..
they already had 4 this last year..
unless they were hoping the 'scaling bitcoin' in Milan this October would have been enough. (should have picked somewhere warmer)

but hey, theres always the new year to plan a nice tropical spring break to kiss some ass

anyway blockstream have a year to coax pools. no need to rush.
but here is a hint listen to the community: dynamic blocksize+segwit
like promised last year
heres another hint:

dynamic blocksize: default starting at 2mb base 4mb weight.

that way its both segwit and actual scaling.
and yes 2mb base 4mb weight DOES actually mean 1mb base 4mb weight is acceptable

do it as a 2 stage consensus
1a)usernodes, 95%(yes it might take upto a year, but nothing will happen before that so no harm in atleast releasing he code to give a choice)
1b)followed by a 2 week grace period.

THEN
2a)pool 95%(yes it might take upto a year, but nothing will happen before that so no harm)
2b)followed by a 2 week grace period.

so its win win

knowing the time of (1b)->(2b) than enough time to reduce the 260(5%)nodes of 5400 that didnt upgrade at (1a) by them upgrading

yep thats right the nodes get to have a say, after all they are the ones doing the validating, relaying and storing the blockchain. only fair they get to be part of activating something by being full node ready to accept it by the time it activates.... not after

unlike segwit is doing the opposite. which is going to wait for pools to activate and then waste a few weeks twiddling thumbs before actually releasing 0.14 that actually has segwit (and wallet) features fully utilisable.

but hey..
segwit thinks christmas seems "safe".. so they should not argue about any timescales.
especially knowing a real consensus upgrade wont actually activate without node consensus, the way it should be

i feel pity for anyone that may reply to defend blockstream and the 90 unpaid interns. purely "because blockstream rules".
i feel pity for anyone that may reply to defend blockstream and the 90 unpaid interns. purely "because blockstream should dictate".
i feel pity for anyone that may reply to defend blockstream and the 90 unpaid interns. purely "because blockstream owns bitcoin".

those types of people have no clue

[TKeenan]

those types of people have no clue

You said it.  Blockstream cheer squad is worse than a gaggle of little high school girls. 

Just because they sit behind a sign that says 'Core Devs' doesn't mean that their new coin is somehow original Bitcoin.  It is an altcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin. 

Bitcoin with 4MB blocks - is Bitcoin. 


Let Blockstream start their altcoin the same way everyone has to start an altcoin, on their own miners/chain.  Hijacking Bitcoin to launch an alt is pure and simple treason.  Just because they were able to sucker a few miners into agreeing with them, they now own Bitcoin. 

SegWit is an alt!!!!

[Lauda]

SegWit is an altcoin. 

Wrong. Even franky1 realizes that this is far from the truth and the definition of an altcoin. While Segwit is far from being some perfect solution, it most surely is no altcoin. Here's a more healthier stance on the matter:

[kiklo]

SegWit is an altcoin.  

Wrong. Even franky1 realizes that this is far from the truth and the definition of an altcoin. While Segwit is far from being some perfect solution, it most surely is no altcoin. Here's a more healthier stance on the matter:

Lightening Network can't work without SegWit being activated.
LN is a Offchain system that can be used instead of BTC OnChain Transactions,
while it is not an altcoin it is also not Bitcoin. An Alt Payment system might be more accurate.

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

 

[franky1]

those types of people have no clue

You said it.  Blockstream cheer squad is worse than a gaggle of little high school girls.  

Just because they sit behind a sign that says 'Core Devs' doesn't mean that their new coin is somehow original Bitcoin.  It is an altcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin.  

Bitcoin with 4MB blocks - is Bitcoin.  

Let Blockstream start their altcoin the same way everyone has to start an altcoin, on their own miners/chain.  Hijacking Bitcoin to launch an alt is pure and simple treason.  Just because they were able to sucker a few miners into agreeing with them, they now own Bitcoin.  

SegWit is an alt!!!!

segwit was a blockstream project under the "elements" codebase, unrelated and incompatible with bitcoin in 2015-mid 2016.
 
it was put onto its own sandbox (altcoin testnet) in the spring 2016, totally not emulating bitcoin, but thrashed about until it kinda resembled what bitcoin does. it did not even get a chance to be on a bitcoin emulating sandbox (testnet) until june 2016.

this means just to get basic bitcoin-esq functionality it has only been in bitcoin-esq ability for 4 months (june to october). even the latest release 0.13.1 is not a final, fully functioning version just waiting to be activated. it requires a further download after activation..

so TKEENAN, has got some things right as do the others with differing opinions on both sides. it is not the same 2009-2016 bitcoin we knew,
it is just an implementation that has been made compatible to then divert people away from the traditional bitcoin keypairs and data store methods for those that choose to use it for that possible one time capacity boost.
its been 1 year since their scaling promise(that also promised dynamic blocks) and they have only released activation parameters for a onetime boost. where that one time boost is only possible if everyone drops their standard private-public keypairs and moves funds to segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs.

it has required users to download 4 different implementations to get to a stage of even being close to activating their one time boost.

lets atleast hope that by the blockstream devs saying 'its all ok'. they are currently this second preparing that 5th download to include dynamic block sizes along with the actual segwit wallet capability to actually utilise segwit. so that everyone can get what they want.

after all, they obviously have spare time to work on dynamic blocks now they believe segwit code is ready and have nothing else to do.. right!?.

[Velkro]

since you dont even try to argue about why we shouldn't support segWit, i'm gonna take this as trolling...

Yup i could understand the point of author if there was a point. But there is not.
Segwit is now our only scaling solution out there.
Maybe blockstream is too much involved in this, maybe its not pure intentions but we have no choice now.

[achow101]

it was put onto its own sandbox (altcoin testnet) in the spring 2016,

The segnet was announced right on the new year on December 31st. IIRC it was running before the post to the mailing list.

totally not emulating bitcoin, but thrashed about until it kinda resembled what bitcoin does.

That is simply not true. Segwit was built on top of Bitcoin Core. It was not an altcoin that was modified to do what Bitcoin does, it was Bitcoin modified to do segwit stuff. However, the elements sidechain was probably completely incompatible, but that codebase was not modified to become Bitcoin but rather the other way around.

it did not even get a chance to be on a bitcoin emulating sandbox (testnet) until june 2016.

Segwit actually activated on testnet block 834624 which was in May.

even the latest release 0.13.1 is not a final, fully functioning version just waiting to be activated. it requires a further download after activation..

Not entirely true. Segwit fully works with Core 0.13.1 and you can do segwit transactions from the RPC. It does not have segwit wallet support unfortunately, but other wallets will. (If you couldn't tell, the Core devs tend to focus more on the node aspect of Core instead of the wallet.)

where that one time boost is only possible if everyone drops their standard private-public keypairs and moves funds to segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs.

That is just completely and absolutely false. There is no such thing as HD seeded keypairs. Segwit works only with the normal ECDSA keypairs, regardless of whether those keys were derived deterministically.

it has required users to download 4 different implementations to get to a stage of even being close to activating their one time boost.

What 4 different implementations? Users have only needed to download one implementation, the one that was released.


Please stop with the FUD and trolling. Actually fact check your statements before you make them.

[mikewirth]

Maybe blockstream is too much involved in this, maybe its not pure intentions but we have no choice now.

It's the morons that always roll-over and take it up the ass.  I'd rather fight it.

[gribble]

We must put an end to SegWit.  SegWit is an altcoin.  Protect Bitcoin by stopping SegWit. 

I agree and the miners especially from China will not be support for this project, and will become long debates without solution although the coindesk has wrote about this problem.  http://www.coindesk.com/why-arent-bitcoin-businesses-talking-segwit-protocol-upgrade/
The best solution is SegWit project be stoped.

[Viscount]

SegWit is not alt. It's upgraiding for Bitcoin. Bitcoin will be stronger than eva! And from what I gather, you are just bitcoin hater. You are too puny to become it's enemy

[Paashaas]

Op is a huge troll ore he doesnt know how to make Bitcoin mainstream. He thinks that Bitcoin will be ok with just 2 mb blocks....

We need something like 1gig blocks to make a good shot for mainstream, now lets sink that in...1 gig vs 2 mb  

There is nothing wrong with bigger blocks but to handle mainstream adoption we will need Segwit/Lightning.

[Decoded]

SegWit is not an alt. The only way to upgrade a decentralised system like this is to push it out to every single user. That's basically what a hardfork is.

I believe SegWit is for the better of the bitcoin ecosystem.

[franky1]

it was put onto its own sandbox (altcoin testnet) in the spring 2016,

The segnet was announced right on the new year on December 31st. IIRC it was running before the post to the mailing list.

and how many versions of segnet testnet did they go through.. 1,2,3,4 oh wait.
your talking about the first segnet back when it was the elements design..


im talking about in spring, you know march2016.. spring... you know the time after december, but before may/june... when they were thrashing about with it to get it to be bitcoin compatible.. so they could possibly use it on a bitcoin testnet

totally not emulating bitcoin, but thrashed about until it kinda resembled what bitcoin does.

That is simply not true. Segwit was built on top of Bitcoin Core. It was not an altcoin that was modified to do what Bitcoin does, it was Bitcoin modified to do segwit stuff. However, the elements sidechain was probably completely incompatible, but that codebase was not modified to become Bitcoin but rather the other way around.

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Segwit was originally implemented by Pieter Wuille and several other Blockstream developers on the Elements Project sidechain in April through June 2015 as a “from scratch” version that wasn’t intended to be compatible with previous Bitcoin software. This version has been used for every single transaction on Elements-based sidechains.

so if it was bitcoin -> segwit.. like your trying to suggest, then ask yourself..
why do segnet(testnet) first, second, third, fourth, to get it then compatible enough to then open the bitcoin testnet to then see if it would work with bitcoin transactions and bitcoin legacy nodes..

again.. if it was bitcoin first.. it would have run on a bitcoin testnet first. and then developed to be more segwit-esq later...
(chicken and egg! comes to mind.) but the observations are simple.. it was segwit first

it did not even get a chance to be on a bitcoin emulating sandbox (testnet) until june 2016.

Segwit actually activated on testnet block 834624 which was in May.

they activated on the 13th may.. but lets see when they actually organised some proper tests

so tests didnt really start properly until the 23rd. i call that closer to JUNE than the start of may.. oops i meant december 2015(like you imply as your right answer).. but screw it im a week and a half out.. boo hoo.. now your getting pedantic..
im secretly laughing by you "hinting" it was bitcoin compatible back before the december 31st announcement.. i really am
MOST tests that could be deemed bitcoin related (bar a week and a half) were done in JUNE onwards..

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Also in May 2016, twenty Bitcoin Core developers met in Switzerland for (among other things) an in-person review of the segwit code and ensuring that test coverage was adequate.

they then met up on the 20th.. to discuss for 3 days what tests they should do
https://bitcoincore.org/logs/2016-05-zurich-meeting-notes.html
link is them spending 3 days reviewing code and discussing what test to do on the bitcoin testnet..
EG not doing official tests before this date

i say june.. u say december.. actual quotes say may 20th-23rd ish...before they started officially testing

and you think im more in the wrong?? please!!
december----/may/june whos closer..
im one and a half weeks out.. your... 5 months...... come on

even the latest release 0.13.1 is not a final, fully functioning version just waiting to be activated. it requires a further download after activation..

Not entirely true. Segwit fully works with Core 0.13.1 and you can do segwit transactions from the RPC. It does not have segwit wallet support unfortunately, but other wallets will. (If you couldn't tell, the Core devs tend to focus more on the node aspect of Core instead of the wallet.)

i emboldened your words that explain my words. thank you its now self explanatory within the quotes. i even colour coded it
note the underlined future tense of achows response "will" and my future tense "after"
achow being pedantic yet again

ill add this just for fun
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

The wallet provided with Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 will continue to only generate non-segwit P2PKH addresses for receiving payment by default. Later releases are expected to allow users to choose to receive payments to segwit addresses.

where that one time boost is only possible if everyone drops their standard private-public keypairs and moves funds to segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs.

That is just completely and absolutely false. There is no such thing as HD seeded keypairs. Segwit works only with the normal ECDSA keypairs, regardless of whether those keys were derived deterministically.

if there is no change to the wallet... why withhold the wallet.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

If you do want to upgrade to segwit, you will first need to wait for miners to activate segwit, and then you will need a wallet that supports receiving and spending segwit-style payments. This applies to Bitcoin Core’s wallet, lightweight wallets, and wallets where third-parties send and receive bitcoins on your behalf (sometimes called web wallets). Users of Bitcoin Core or other full nodes should also read the section above about full nodes.

it has required users to download 4 different implementations to get to a stage of even being close to activating their one time boost.

What 4 different implementations? Users have only needed to download one implementation, the one that was released.

how many bips needed to be activated just to help segwit along.. think about it..

yea someone in 2018 does need to download all the 0.12's and 0.13's they can skip to the latest.. but im talking about people in the past needing to in the past dowload previous releases, to push bips into activation just to get this far.

FUD..

FUD??? nope. just not pedantic nazi inspector specific enough for a white paper scrutinising committee.
but im still laughing you thing it was bitcoin compatible in december 2015.. you made me laugh so i thank you and wish you a good day

[achow101]

and how many versions of segnet testnet did they go through.. 1,2,3,4 oh wait.
your talking about the first segnet back when it was the elements design..

The first segnet was not the elements design. It was based on Bitcoin Core. At that point in time, segwit was not ready or polished enough to be tested on testnet, so they created segnet.

im talking about in spring, you know march2016.. spring... you know the time after december, but before may/june... when they were thrashing about with it to get it to be bitcoin compatible.. so they could possibly use it on a bitcoin testnet

During that time, it was already bitcoin compatible, just not polished or ready for testnet, which is why the segnets were created. It was most certainly Bitcoin compatible by segnet3 since I was doing testing on segnet3 with normal Bitcoin transactions and it all went perfectly fine. I'm pretty sure that it was bitcoin compatible in the previous segnets, but I personally did not try them out.

so if it was bitcoin -> segwit.. like your trying to suggest, then ask yourself..
why do segnet first, second, third, fourth, to get it then compatible enough to then open the bitcoin testnet..

again.. if it was bitcoin first.. it would have run on a bitcoin testnet first. and then developed to be more segwit-esq later...
(chicken and egg! comes to mind.) but the observations are simple.. it was segwit first

The public version of segwit that is up for activation began as a fork and modification of Bitcoin Core. The concept started on elements, but it was not the elements code made compatible with Bitcoin. The reason it was not deployed on testnet when they began implementation was because it is a consensus change and the developers wanted to test their changes without fucking up anything used publicly (i.e. testnet). The segnets were for "private" testing of segnet so that they could break things without causing major problems with other developers who were using testnet. Breaking testnet would mean that testnet would need to be reset, a much larger and harder task than resetting the segnets.

they activated on the 13th.. but lets see when they actually organised some proper tests

so tests didnt really start properly until the 23rd. i call that closer to JUNE than the start of may.. but screw it im a week and a half out.. boo hoo.. now your getting pedantic..
im secretly laughing by you "hinting" it was bitcoin compatible back before the december 31st announcement.. i really am
MOST tests that could be deemed bitcoin related (bar a week and a half) were done in JUNE onwards..

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/06/24/segwit-next-steps/

Also in May 2016, twenty Bitcoin Core developers met in Switzerland for (among other things) an in-person review of the segwit code and ensuring that test coverage was adequate.

they then met up on the 20th.. to discuss for 3 days what tests they should do
https://bitcoincore.org/logs/2016-05-zurich-meeting-notes.html
link is them spending 3 days reviewing code and discussing what test to do on the bitcoin testnet..
EG not doing official tests before this date

i say june.. u say december.. actual quotes say may 20th-23rd ish...before they started officially testing

and you think im more in the wrong?? please!!
december----/may/june whos closer..
im one and a half weeks out.. your... 5 months...... come on

Tests were being done on the segnets long before it was deployed on testnet. Why do you think they would not test it beforehand before deploying it on a semi-important network? They had to be confident that it would not break the testnet so they did testing on the segnets.

if there is no change to the wallet... why withhold the wallet.

There is a change to the wallets, but not in the way that you are describing. The change is related to output and script creation, not to the ECDSA keypairs.

Also, the wallet part of Bitcoin Core does support segwit. You can have it create the segwit address for an address in your wallet and it will know to track it and how to spend from it. What it doesn't do now is default to using segwit addresses by default (i.e. it just doesn't give you a segwit address when you ask for a new address).

how many bips needed to be activated just to help segwit along.. think about it..

There are 4 BIPs that are being deployed that are related to segwit (peer services, consensus, transactions, GBT). However that does not mean that there are 4 different implementations. There is one implementation specified in 4 documents so that the changes to those things are clearly defined.

[franky1]

During that time, it was already bitcoin compatible, just not polished or ready for testnet, which is why the segnets were created. It was most certainly Bitcoin compatible by segnet3

ill leave you to argue with yourself .. just read what you wrote..
how can something be compatible, but not compatible but is compatible but isnt.. all in 2 sentances

[achow101]

During that time, it was already bitcoin compatible, just not polished or ready for testnet, which is why the segnets were created. It was most certainly Bitcoin compatible by segnet3

ill leave you to argue with yourself .. just read what you wrote..
how can something be compatible, but not compatible but is compatible but isnt.. all in 2 sentances

Polished and ready IS NOT THE SAME AS compatible.

Maybe you don't understand what I am writing, I'll try to break it down for you.

With the segnets, you could do all of the things that you can do NOW with Bitcoin. You couldn't do all of the things with segwit that you can do now on testnet, and some of those things that you tried to do could fail in a horrible way. But it was still compatible with Bitcoin, it did not break anything that you can do with Bitcoin NOW. Segwit was not polished and ready meaning that doing certain segwit related things with the implementation at the time could fail horribly or not work as expected.

[franky1]

There is a change to the wallets, but not in the way that you are describing. The change is related to output and script creation, not to the ECDSA keypairs.

LOL i see your: offtopic ECDSA mention
and i hint you: ripemd160->SHA256

There are 4 BIPs that are being deployed that are related to segwit (peer services, consensus, transactions, GBT). However that does not mean that there are 4 different implementations. There is one implementation specified in 4 documents so that the changes to those things are clearly defined.

im guessing your forgetting all the 0.12's and the 0.13's