NOT Upgrading to SegWit who's with me?!

[BitcoinBarrel]

Or at least until Satoshi makes a public statement about it. 

[TKeenan]

SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin being pushed by Blockstream/Core.  

Do not do the upgrade.

It is not in fact 'network inconsistent'.  SegWit is inconsistent with Bitcoin.  The provided warning is a total lie/sham.  They are propagating that warning to trick people into supporting something that is plainly not Bitcoin. 

[Meuh6879]

If you don't want SegWit ... i don't want a block inflate. 
Local Blockchain is at 102GB now. 

So, SegWit only for me (because i can prune after).

[TKeenan]

If you don't want SegWit ... i don't want a block inflate.  
Local Blockchain is at 102GB now.  

So, SegWit only for me (because i can prune after).

SegWit isn't to prevent block inflate.  SegWit is to prepare the network for Blockstream proprietary off-chain scaling solution that will allow them to 'shift' network fees away from miners and into their own hands.  

It is nothing less than a Coup d'état*

* I did that for you French guy.

[BitcoinBarrel]

That's why I fired back up my CPU miner hashing at an impressive 600 kh/s to attempt a solo block mine. Free Market FTW!

[Swisscoinex]

That's why I fired back up my CPU miner hashing at an impressive 600 kh/s to attempt a solo block mine. Free Market FTW!

Fingers crossed, let us know how that works out for you!

[Yakamoto]

I just don't really care right now, I'll let the community let the chips fall where they may, and I'll just roll along with whatever is decided.

Do I think SegWit is a good idea that'll fix everything? Not really. Will it? Maybe. Right now though there is no point when it comes to choosing a side definitively now because a lot can still change.

[pooya87]

the funny thing is that nobody cares what we do, whether we upgrade to segwit or not, implementing it would fall to what miners decide since they are the ones signalling segwit implementation.

in other words if all nodes switch to segwit the percentage is still a plateau at 24% https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

[franky1]

the funny thing is that nobody cares what we do, whether we upgrade to segwit or not, implementing it would fall to what miners decide since they are the ones signalling segwit implementation.

in other words if all nodes switch to segwit the percentage is still a plateau at 24% https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

^ this guy gets it

[cmbconcretefire]

Segwit? Nope. I'm with OP.

[Vaccinus]

satoshi will never happen again, or he simply don't care anymore, it's up tot he miner to decide, hope they make it fast

[Herbert2020]

Or at least until Satoshi makes a public statement about it. 

you are mistaking bitcoin with a bank issued note or something!

even if satoshi comes out of anonymity and says "I am for or against Segwit" it should not matter either way. any person should make their own decisions on these matters, satoshi is not god

[hv_]

I would do if the  blocksize limit falls with it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULQSPaLSOxk


- Reunion the community - we all want the same  - scale !

[spartacusrex]

..SegWit is to prepare the network for Blockstream proprietary off-chain scaling solution that will allow them to 'shift' network fees away from miners and into their own hands.  

It is nothing less than a Coup d'état*

.. hmmm..

no - I'm afraid it's not.

ANYONE can use SEGWIT / LIGHTNING NETWORK / SIDECHAINS / OFF-CHAIN scaling solution. A.N.Y.O.N.E.

It is OPEN SOURCE.

It is NOT PROPRIETARY.

I'll admit - It is quite complicated (to set up an LN network / Sidechain), and requires SKILL / KNOWLEDGE, and yes, if you wanted someone to set it up for you, Blocksteam would be my first choice. Is that a crime now ?

so please.. '..It's a little early in the morning for Kung Fu..'

..

@OP - Can you come up with a FIX for txn malleability (the root of MANY issues) ? If you can, I'm all ears.

[aarturka]

Actually we don't have a choise. Bitcoin must evolve to satisfy demand for increasing number of transactions as more and more people are using it. And Core is the best team in this field. Nobody came with a better solution and nobody can.
In short we accept Segwit and those who don't like it, can sell their bitcoins and buy dogcoin or whatever

[Yutikas_11920]

Actually we don't have a choise. Bitcoin must evolve to satisfy demand for increasing number of transactions as more and more people are using it. And Core is the best team in this field. Nobody came with a better solution and nobody can.
In short we accept Segwit and those who don't like it, can sell their bitcoins and buy dogcoin or whatever

Hmm, it does have a level of weakness in the bitcoin system. Because the owner or creator of the bitcoin did not want to reveal his identity and that is a hard thing to browse, because it will only make us become crazy because all the data jerumus to the owner of the bitcoin must have been in the faces. Although we cannot make deals bigger, but it's all already gives us a pretty good advantage when we can use the bitcoin correctly. This problem may be able to overcome if it is indeed the owner of the bitcoin appear or there might be a person who helps to fix this problem

[unamis76]

Free Market FTW!

Indeed... Couldn't agree more.


On subject: If you're not upgrading, I assume you're against any scaling solution. SegWit is the only scaling solution that's been tried, tested and thus far supported by most people... Is SegWit the best solution? Maybe not. But it's the best we have so far and we have to work with it.

As for Satoshi, I hope you're sitting while waiting for his opinion on the matter. I also wonder why would his opinion influence yours and influence Bitcoin's destiny so much...

the funny thing is that nobody cares what we do, whether we upgrade to segwit or not, implementing it would fall to what miners decide since they are the ones signalling segwit implementation.

in other words if all nodes switch to segwit the percentage is still a plateau at 24% https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

This is part of what I wanted to include in my post too.

[franky1]

@OP - Can you come up with a FIX for txn malleability (the root of MANY issues) ? If you can, I'm all ears.

transaction malleability..

what does it solve. you show me what you think it solves and i can easily counter it with how that is an over hyped exaggeration used to push bitcoin in one direction that does not really give us any more expectations than the 'possibles' of 2009-2013

[muhcoins]

..SegWit is to prepare the network for Blockstream proprietary off-chain scaling solution that will allow them to 'shift' network fees away from miners and into their own hands.  

It is nothing less than a Coup d'état*

.. hmmm..

no - I'm afraid it's not.

ANYONE can use SEGWIT / LIGHTNING NETWORK / SIDECHAINS / OFF-CHAIN scaling solution. A.N.Y.O.N.E.

It is OPEN SOURCE.

It is NOT PROPRIETARY.

I'll admit - It is quite complicated (to set up an LN network / Sidechain), and requires SKILL / KNOWLEDGE, and yes, if you wanted someone to set it up for you, Blocksteam would be my first choice. Is that a crime now ?

so please.. '..It's a little early in the morning for Kung Fu..'

..

@OP - Can you come up with a FIX for txn malleability (the root of MANY issues) ? If you can, I'm all ears.

perfect!
i'm not a technician but from everything i've seen it's the best solution for the problems we have right now(i've upgraded already).

a few users always try to go against it, but generally it's just like this thread:
"i'm not upgrading! reasons? because i dont want to".

sometimes starts a whole conspiracy theory, but i never seen any fact.

[Meuh6879]

What if we only accept SegWit, but refuse the next step such as LN or something else that we don't know yet?

SegWit Allow LN.
Block Inflate don't do this ... AT ALL.

SegWit solve malleability hole and double-spend.
Block Inflate don't solve this ... AT ALL.

SegWit allow the SPV mode for the whole network WITH malleability FIX (include NODES).
Block Inflate don't introduce this ... AT ALL.





Block Inflate is for members that they don't see the network solution.
Only the coin/fees result ... in SPV world of wallet (on phones or exchanges or block explorer).

[franky1]

SegWit solve malleability hole and double-spend.
Block Inflate don't solve this ... AT ALL.

lol
1. the double spend issue is still a problem RBF, CPFP, CSV and others still make it possible to bait someone with one tx, but have it not confirm due to another tx confirming that goes to another destination.

2. even the glossy roadmap explains the problem and hints to the solution. 'this caused accounting issues by services that only verify by TXID'
merchants should fully check the tx and wait for a confirm.

3. block inflate.. oooh so ur against blocks being above 0.1mb in 2009, 0.3mb in 2012 0.5mb in 2013 0.7mb in 2014. 0.9mb in 2015..
do you even grasp code/logic/understanding of how bitcoin works, it seems not. or are you just spitting out the same script as blockstream fanatics, like some christmas carol singers

3. as for LN
did you know it requires dual signatures..
meaning the tx is only valid if both sides sign the same thing. meaning a malicious party cannot then create a second malleated tx because the second party would be needed. and that second party wont sign something with obvious changes. thus it wont even be accepted into pools with only one signature.
the truth is LN solves malleability, not the other way round. by dual signing only one correct tx is acceptable thus malleability is not even a process that could be used within LN even if it wasnt fixed

[CoinCidental]

I also will NOt be upgrading to SEGWIT in its current form ...

If segwit came with a dynamic blocksize it would be a more appropriate solution
but a segwit we have no choice but rather forced upon us is not equivalent to the product of a free market

[BitHodler]

I personally haven't upgraded my Core client to the .13 version yet, but that's mostly due to the fact that I haven't taken any effort to do so.

Another factor that is part to me not having updated yet, is that people complain about the notifications that pop up when you receive transactions. They are gone.

I am however not sure if the notifications are put back in place with the .13.1 update. Would be nice to hear someone confirm that as I don't want to miss this feature.

[franky1]

I personally haven't upgraded my Core client to the .13 version yet, but that's mostly due to the fact that I haven't taken any effort to do so.

Another factor that is part to me not having updated yet, is that people complain about the notifications that pop up when you receive transactions. They are gone.

I am however not sure if the notifications are put back in place with the .13.1 update. Would be nice to hear someone confirm that as I don't want to miss this feature.

the human broadcasted alerts have gone and wont return.
but your node whether its super old or even latest will still alert you when your node itself cannot verify block/tx data

in short dont expect a message from a person telling you of issues.(as this has changed)
 but instead rely on your node doing its own independant checks/validation and alert you if there was a problem(this has not changed)

[Meuh6879]

lol
1. the double spend issue is still a problem

2. even the glossy roadmap explains the problem

3. block inflate.. oooh so ur against blocks being above 0.1mb in 2009, 0.3mb in 2012 0.5mb in 2013 0.7mb in 2014. 0.9mb in 2015..

4. as for LN
did you know it requires dual signatures..

1) In the ACTUAL network (mainnet) yes ... not in the TestNet SegWit.

2) You use the merchand problem, ok ... merchant MUST upgrade when SegWit is Enforced = problem solve.

3) Block Inflate want 8Mb permanently. You don't host a FULL node, yeah ... ? That's why you don't understand the decentralized manner of store the information and segregate this information for the storage.

4) And ?
LN is supported by the server in an offchain server ... not a problem.
Only benefic for HACKED exchanges (example, but plastic card is the next challenger for NFC/RFID Hack proximity sniffing).

[spartacusrex]

@OP - Can you come up with a FIX for txn malleability (the root of MANY issues) ? If you can, I'm all ears.

transaction malleability..

what does it solve. you show me what you think it solves and i can easily counter it with how that is an over hyped exaggeration used to push bitcoin in one direction that does not really give us any more expectations than the 'possibles' of 2009-2013

..eh ?

You such a 'hater' lately - Frank. 

Was the $1 billion dollars stolen from MtGOX an 'over hyped exaggeration' ?

I know - sloppy code. Well - what if every other exchange out there, (with BUCKETS of code complicating things trying to get around txn malleability), could now NOT worry about that issue, and simplify their withdrawal process by a factor of, I dunno, 100 ? Pretty useful if you ask me. (And I actually write code for an exchange)

..I could go on.. (there's almost too much).. but I know you're going to lay into this post whatever I say.. 

[European Central Bank]

I don't understand enough to pass a judgement. I am very curious to see what it looks like. Sounds like an alt such as lite coin may implement it first which should clear up a lot of shit talking, or confirm it.

[Kprawn]

That is the beauty of this technology, majority rules and everyone has a choice. If you do not want to switch, then that would be your choice.

We will soon see if other people agree with you, and if LiteCoin will test it successfully. You got to luv the ingenuity of this experiment. 

How hard can it be to implement something else that address the major issues and exclude preparation for LN and still upgrade the block

size?   

[CoinCidental]

@OP - Can you come up with a FIX for txn malleability (the root of MANY issues) ? If you can, I'm all ears.

transaction malleability..

what does it solve. you show me what you think it solves and i can easily counter it with how that is an over hyped exaggeration used to push bitcoin in one direction that does not really give us any more expectations than the 'possibles' of 2009-2013

..eh ?

You such a 'hater' lately - Frank. 

Was the $1 billion dollars stolen from MtGOX an 'over hyped exaggeration' ?

I know - sloppy code. Well - what if every other exchange out there, (with BUCKETS of code complicating things trying to get around txn malleability), could now NOT worry about that issue, and simplify their withdrawal process by a factor of, I dunno, 100 ? Pretty useful if you ask me. (And I actually write code for an exchange)

..I could go on.. (there's almost too much).. but I know you're going to lay into this post whatever I say.. 

karpeles robbed mt gox blind
tx malleability was a convenient excuse but if it ws that big of a problem ,it would have affected every player in the industry ,not only gox lol

[calkob]

Or at least until Satoshi makes a public statement about it. 

Nope,,,,,, your on your own 

[calkob]

SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin being pushed by Blockstream/Core.  

Do not do the upgrade.

It is not in fact 'network inconsistent'.  SegWit is inconsistent with Bitcoin.  The provided warning is a total lie/sham.  They are propagating that warning to trick people into supporting something that is plainly not Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin is what the majority of the community say it is.......... simple

[TKeenan]

SegWit is not Bitcoin.  SegWit is an altcoin being pushed by Blockstream/Core.  

Do not do the upgrade.

It is not in fact 'network inconsistent'.  SegWit is inconsistent with Bitcoin.  The provided warning is a total lie/sham.  They are propagating that warning to trick people into supporting something that is plainly not Bitcoin. 

Bitcoin is what the majority of the community say it is.......... simple

'Bitcoin Protocol Consensus' has been arbitrarily defined by Greg Maxwell as 95%. 
'majority' is merely 51% 

So which is it? 

[pereira4]

Only idiots that don't understand technology want to block segwit. Andreas Antonopoulos has advice several times to activate segwit before we try to raise the blocksize, because it's a mistake and brings up many new vectors of attack.

Segwit first, blocksize increase later. If there is no segwit, blocksize will stay 1MB forever, so your choice.

[ebliever]

I don't see any basis for opposition to Segwit from this thread. The allegation is made that allowing Segwit will open the door to Blockstream (or whomever) creating off-chain payment channels that they can earn a profit on. Well, so what? If they succeed with the LN, sidechains, or whatever, is there anything in SegWit or anything else being discussed that will FORCE me to use their off-chain payment channel? Looks like the answer is no, so I can just choose to keep making on-chain transfers.

In other words, people seem to be afraid of increased choice, with no loss of the current option of doing on-chain TX. Does that make any sense?

[gmaxwell]

The amount of uncorrected lies in this thread is really absurd.

Segwit doesn't have anything to do with lightning. Lightning is already possible without it and can't be blocked. So if you're against having actual scalablity in Bitcoin: well too bad and fuck you: you already lost the day Satoshi released the software.  Similar, sidechains at least of the federated type are existing, unblockable, and undetectable.  If you want to force other people to not use them? Again too bad. You can't.


BitcoinBarrel, the notice in your software has nothing to do with segwit.  You're inconsistent with the network because you're not even running something that implements CSV.  You should at least run 0.13.0; if you do you won't get a notice until segwit activates.

Another factor that is part to me not having updated yet, is that people complain about the notifications that pop up when you receive transactions. They are gone.

I am not aware of any change here, have you opened an issue? https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/

[CoinCidental]

I don't see any basis for opposition to Segwit from this thread. The allegation is made that allowing Segwit will open the door to Blockstream (or whomever) creating off-chain payment channels that they can earn a profit on. Well, so what? If they succeed with the LN, sidechains, or whatever, is there anything in SegWit or anything else being discussed that will FORCE me to use their off-chain payment channel? Looks like the answer is no, so I can just choose to keep making on-chain transfers.

In other words, people seem to be afraid of increased choice, with no loss of the current option of doing on-chain TX. Does that make any sense?

youre ignoring the basics here
if the block stays at 1MB everyone will be shoehorned onto LN whether they want to be or not
the space in the 1mb block will become so expensive that only businesses like coinbase etc can afford to use it

if we had dynamic blocks + LN at least there would be some choice ,if LN is cheaper ,faster and better everyone will use it anyway so why the need to force them ?

[franky1]

1) In the ACTUAL network (mainnet) yes ... not in the TestNet SegWit.

2) You use the merchand problem, ok ... merchant MUST upgrade when SegWit is Enforced = problem solve.

3) Block Inflate want 8Mb permanently. You don't host a FULL node, yeah ... ? That's why you don't understand the decentralized manner of store the information and segregate this information for the storage.

4) And ?
LN is supported by the server in an offchain server ... not a problem.
Only benefic for HACKED exchanges (example, but plastic card is the next challenger for NFC/RFID Hack proximity sniffing).

i have recieved many attempts of malleability in the past.. but guess what. i reject them, i never been a victim of malleability because i know what to look for.
however things like RBF, CPFP CSV open up a new can of worms.. the funny part is you snipped off that part because you fear talking about it to realise im right. double spends have not been fixed for those too lame to do proper checks.

if you think double spends have been fixed. your in for a rude awakening.

block inflate??, 8mb... um.. no.. the consensus round tables and multiple debates have settled and compromised to a 2mb base 4mb weight.
i think you need to call your cries a 'block exaggeration'.. because its only you inflating the numbers of the real debate
wake up to reality and learn whats real.

..eh ?

You such a 'hater' lately - Frank.  

im a realist.
RBF CPFP CSV... learn it.

yes they take away malleability as a way to double spend.. but then open up and give the world atleast 3 NEW ways to double spend. meaning double spend is not solved.

much like someone changing the locks on the front door of your house to avoid you getting robbed but then taking away the lock on the back door.. leaving a window open that cant be locked and leaving the garage door without a lock. all of which used to be secure

no point circle jerking to people that already know bitcoin by using fake adverts that bitcoin is utopia.. when bitcoin still has issues. people should be aware of the issues so that they can do some proper checks on the data they handle. rather then stick head in the sand, ass in the air shouting thank you core now take me up the rear.

[Meuh6879]

i reject them, i never been a victim of malleability because i know what to look for.

Yes, good for you.
But in a network view ... this BUG is NOT acceptable.

network MUST refuse to transfer in mempool a wrongly connected transaction to "in-instant" other transaction in mempool.

lucky for all, SPV don't have mempool.
only miner ... and nodes.

that's why we MUST delete this BUG before open the SPV feature in the nodes (and miners).
that's why LN will be not deploy before SegWit.

LN don't work with malleability BUG in action.
LN must have access to mempool and be sure to not cross malleability transaction.

if you believe that you can emit double-spend in a (enforced) segwit network, you dream in color ... litterally.
https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_wallet_dev/

[Meuh6879]

i think you need to call your cries a 'block exaggeration'.. because its only you inflating the numbers of the real debate
wake up to reality and learn whats real.

I'm really award of a congestion scenario ... and Block Inflate is NOT a spam protection.
If you want block Inflate, run 100 nodes ... and deal with this after 3 months.

[franky1]

i think you need to call your cries a 'block exaggeration'.. because its only you inflating the numbers of the real debate
wake up to reality and learn whats real.

I'm really award of a congestion scenario ... and Block Inflate is NOT a spam protection.
If you want block Inflate, run 100 nodes ... and deal with this after 3 months.

lol you are really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
the funny thing is
2mb base 4mb weight.
or
1mb base 4mb weight.

amount to the SAME maximum bloat potential either way, for CONFIRMED BLOCKS (not in mempool anymore)

allowing more tx's into a block, does not actually cause mempools to get flooded. quite the opposite

this 4mb max is also on the contingent that EVERYONE uses segwit to achieve the 4mb max. or we will see a more realistic well under 2mb expectation within under 3 months time frame you gave.
after all when any scalability is activated. it takes time for nodes to use the feature and takes time for pools to test the water at 1.001mb for orphan risk and slowly grow once they get confident. so dont expect max bloat straight away

again learn reality and stop exaggerating.

as for running 100 nodes.. why would someone do that and why would running 100 nodes mean anything.
if your currently running 100 nodes then your shooting yourself in the foot with a sybil attempt that is only hurting yourself.

but if you are worried about mempool bottleneck . worry more about nlocktime of 1 hour 59 minutes. that can force mempools to fill up

[Meuh6879]

nodes for me ... are with a COMPLETE local blockchain.

when you have 102GB since 2009, i take care about the size of a block ... and love the SPAM feature include in this actual restriction of 1Mb (976kb).

i accept Segwit because it solves something.
block inflate solve NOTHING AT ALL.

---

are you even use the freenet network ... and learn what it's to decentralize the storage of a whole network over time ?

[RawDog]

nodes for me ... are with a COMPLETE local blockchain.

when you have 102GB since 2009, i take care about the size of a block ... and love the SPAM feature include in this actual restriction of 1Mb (976kb).

i accept Segwit because it solves something.
block inflate solve NOTHING AT ALL.

---

are you even use the freenet network ... and learn what it's to decentralize the storage of a whole network over time ?

I'll tell you what, I know computer hardware is very scarce in France, and that they typically get versions of things about 3 years late, but I'll pay for and send you a hard drive with 2 terabytes on it.  I know if you are French it seems impossible to have a hard drive with such capacity, but in the rest of the world these are so fucking cheap they are nearly free.  102GB is TINY.  Laughably tiny.  Your French node can get upgraded to 2000GB for less than 50 Euro.  Are you still afraid of 102GB (7 years of blockchain)?  

[franky1]

I'll tell you what, I know computer hardware is very scarce in France,

your lack of understanding other countries seems to be your Achilles heel. you seem to be very biased about america and treat other countries as inferior or a threat
even a simple google search found 2tb hard drives available in france
http://www.darty.com/nav/achat/mp/informatique/disque_dur_cle_usb/disque_dur_interne/seagate_technology_seagate_barracuda_7200_14_sata_6gb_s_2_to__MK154801146.html


though you seem OVER patriotic to america. your sense of awareness of other countries and your racist hypocrisy leaves me to let you watch this.
https://youtu.be/VMqcLUqYqrs?t=32s
dont just watch the first minute. watch it all. it will awaken you that america is not great and perfect

[RawDog]

https://youtu.be/VMqcLUqYqrs?t=32s
dont just watch the first minute.

lol - I am not even going to watch the first second.  That anti-American rubbish is all a bunch of contrived shit for consumption by morons.  You probably enjoyed it very much.

[jbreher]

Was the $1 billion dollars stolen from MtGOX an 'over hyped exaggeration' ?

Well, two over-hyped exaggerations for the price of one, maybe.

1) Was not a billion. Less than half a billion.
    1a) ...and the half billion is calculated using the fake inflated WillyBot price, so really... much lower.
2) The Karpeles claim that the MtGox implosion was the result of malleability was an obvious lie.

Let's keep it real out there, gentlemen.

[franky1]

https://youtu.be/VMqcLUqYqrs?t=32s
dont just watch the first minute.

lol - I am not even going to watch the first second.  That anti-American rubbish is all a bunch of contrived shit for consumption by morons.  You probably enjoyed it very much.

here is america reporting on ITSELF
28th out of 188

[RawDog]

OK - you low grade nut job, I've got to go home now and kick my dog and fuck my wife.  I'll beat the shit out of you more tomorrow.

[franky1]

back to the topic
i am a realist. i dont oversell exaggerate things and i dont kiss ass to any particular group.

all of segwit 'features' are exaggerated and just kicking the stone down the road, delaying REAL chances of scaling and REAL growth.
basically bait and switching.

no malleability to double spend. so core adds atleast 3 new mechanisms to cause double spends (facepalm).. end result is that double spends are still an issue.
the bribary 'segwit tx fee discount' is not bringing prices back below 1cent. it instead will bring prices to 4cents.. the same average as 6-12 months ago.

this is done by adding new things to push the price forward so the price when discounted is just reverting to prices AFTER hyping up segwit last year.

the tx increase of 1.8x-2.1x is based on 100% of users using segwit. so dont expect that in reality.

new features like CLTV and CSV combined to be a real world reality for LN users of 'chargebacks'
CLTV add a 'maturity' date that is much like having funds put on hold and not available balance (like mining rewards have a 100block maturity)
CSV have a revoke code ability that during this maturity period. the other LN party can revoke the funds (chargeback)
making LN a paypal/visa 2.0. yep you can do lots of tx's real fast, but when it comes to settling. you have to wait and hope your settlement is not revoked/charged back

[Dahhi]

Infact there are more miners who are not in support of SEGWIT than those in support of it. But looking at things, Segwit has come to stay - it seems

[hv_]

Seen from an analytic perspective (try to be a bitcoin-outsider) the situation looks like this:


Core & BU are both willing to solve the needs and have provided 2 controversial solutions.


If  one of those solutions have the class of a 'no-brainer' (as many try to chill / dictate in different forums & ways)  - so why is there any need to discuss this?


So either one of those solutions is not such a 'no-brainer'  = they failed to deliver

or


core / BU  failed on convincing / marketing their solution.


Both do not lead to anything thats a no-brainer.

Only way out of this dead lock:

Combine core & BU solutions (I 'd recommend) and try again  or fork...

Cheers

[franky1]

Only way out of this dead lock:
Combine core & BU solutions (I 'd recommend) and try again

[Mike8]

I use lite wallet, like many others. So no SegWit signaling.
How many have signaled SegWit? 25%? 30%? There is a fricking long way until 95% and we can safely say "it's not gonna happen".
Dynamic block size WTG!

[Gimpeline]

I use lite wallet, like many others. So no SegWit signaling.
How many have signaled SegWit? 25%? 30%? There is a fricking long way until 95% and we can safely say "it's not gonna happen".
Dynamic block size WTG!

It's just been a few weeks. Give it some time.
It's not going to 95% over night

[btcxyzzz]

Segwit is poison pill for Bitcoin. Accept it if you want the Bitcoin to be destroyed.

[ebliever]

I don't see any basis for opposition to Segwit from this thread. The allegation is made that allowing Segwit will open the door to Blockstream (or whomever) creating off-chain payment channels that they can earn a profit on. Well, so what? If they succeed with the LN, sidechains, or whatever, is there anything in SegWit or anything else being discussed that will FORCE me to use their off-chain payment channel? Looks like the answer is no, so I can just choose to keep making on-chain transfers.

In other words, people seem to be afraid of increased choice, with no loss of the current option of doing on-chain TX. Does that make any sense?

youre ignoring the basics here
if the block stays at 1MB everyone will be shoehorned onto LN whether they want to be or not
the space in the 1mb block will become so expensive that only businesses like coinbase etc can afford to use it

if we had dynamic blocks + LN at least there would be some choice ,if LN is cheaper ,faster and better everyone will use it anyway so why the need to force them ?

This thread is about Segwit. You can have Segwit with blocks of any size. The two are not inherently related, except in the sense that if one solves a need it may reduce motivation to adopt the other. And that seems to be the driving concern of the big-block advocates here - I sense strong anxiety that Segwit could "work" and that would somehow prevent larger blocks.

This doesn't make much sense to me. If Segwit takes hold and TX capacity is still too small and TX fees keep rising, OF COURSE we can look at upping the block size. There is no rule that says that if we accept Segwit then we are stuck at 1 MB forever and ever.

Also - I'd point out that Moore's Law died a long while ago, which many folks don't seem to grasp yet. The off-the-shelf desktop computer I bought in 2009 with 8 GB of RAM still has more RAM than many new machines being sold today. When I shopped for a hard drive, I was surprised that HD capacities have barely budged as well - maybe 2X in a similar timeframe. And from what I've been reading about die shrink roadmaps and so forth, the end of the road is in sight (c. 2021) for increased density of information storage. So I would not blithely count on blockchain bloat being solved by ever-larger storage capacities in the future.

[Meuh6879]

and we talk about SSD now.
have you buy a mecanical magnetic drive again ... for other than a backup (no 24h/24 plugged) ?

no.
I have replace all my HDD by SSD since 2 years now because the price is OK (less than 200 USD).


strangely, it's the Bitcoin Full Node that it has the bigger SSD = 500GB.  
that's why i talk always about the Storage.
not a backup : a efficiently (fast) and reliability storage (chip).

September 2016 :

December 2016 :

[ebliever]

and we talk about SSD now.

And what is your plan once SSD storage density maxes out in the next few years while the blockchain keeps growing?

I think some combination of off-chain and sidechain type TX strategies will be inevitable for most bitcoin TX. The idea of bitcoin going mainstream with the resulting GB-sized blocks every few minutes just is not realistic. Alternatively we can accept the idea of bitcoin as a rarely-traded "digital gold" but that wrecks the dreams of every bitcoin entrepreneur who is trying to mainstream it for everyday use.

[RawDog]

and we talk about SSD now.
have you buy a mecanical magnetic drive again ... for other than a backup (no 24h/24 plugged) ?

no.
I have replace all my HDD by SSD since 2 years now because the price is OK (less than 200 USD).


strangely, it's the Bitcoin Full Node that it has the bigger SSD = 500GB.  
that's why i talk always about the Storage.
not a backup : a efficiently (fast) and reliability storage (chip).

September 2016 :

December 2016 :

lol.  What the fuck are you talking about? 

[RawDog]

and we talk about SSD now.

And what is your plan once SSD storage density maxes out in the next few years while the blockchain keeps growing?

There is no requirement that a local blockchain be keep on a single disk.  It is possible to store a blockchain on a disk array. BAM!!!  Now your node can have 400TB with ease and cheap.  Cheap, cheap, cheap.  Storage is not a problem and it never will be.  You probably won't be able to effect a node on your laptop.  But, a node can have a cheap disk array on the backend and this will accommodate a blockchain that is pretty fucking big. 

[kiklo]

perfect!
i'm not a technician but from everything i've seen it's the best solution for the problems we have right now(i've upgraded already).

a few users always try to go against it, but generally it's just like this thread:
"i'm not upgrading! reasons? because i dont want to".

sometimes starts a whole conspiracy theory, but i never seen any fact.

Here you admit you really don't understand what is being discussed => i'm not a technician

Then you claim knowledge to a Solution to a Problem , You Don't Understand => it's the best solution for the problems

On one hand you are stupid , on the other hand you claim to have the answer.  

Is that it or would you like to contradict yourself some more in the same sentence.


Fact : You claim to be a miner, meaning you make some % off of the transaction fees.
Fact : LN needs Segwit to activate.
Fact : LN is Offchain , meaning you will not receive any fees for the trillions of transactions that take place OFFCHAIN
         You will only receive fees with they are ONCHAIN transactions. (Which LN will Reduce.)  

If you can not see how that will lower the % of fee money you receive, I don't think you are going to last as a miner for too much longer.

Plus Next Block Reward Halving Date is 02 Jul 2020 .
You might want to read : On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward
http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

IXcoin block reward just ended, and their network is basically dead.
If Ixcoin dies then Bitcoin is also doomed
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1713542.0

 

[spartacusrex]

..for the trillions of transactions that take place OFFCHAIN..

..the thought of that turns me on..

[Jet Cash]

SegWit - good
Big-blocks - bad
Changing the way micro-transactions are handled - good
Introducing side chains - good
Removing bloat - good
Reducing the number of under-utiling blocks - good
Trying to stop beneficial enhancements - bad
Getting on with improvements and implementing them - good
Using Bitcoin through full nodes - good

Just my unsophisticated opinin.

[franky1]

SegWit - user experience not much will change, its been oversold/overhyped to the extreme
Big-blocks - good - if done using consensus and dynamically, without dev spoonfeeding
Changing the way micro-transactions are handled - good aslong as it doesnt require 'buy in services with chargeback features'
Introducing side chains - good if merge mining using bitcoin mining, and not diverting hash power over to the altcoins
Removing bloat - good
Reducing the number of under-utiling blocks - bad if that means lowering limits to "fill" arbitrary numbers
Trying to stop beneficial enhancements - bad
Getting on with improvements and implementing them - good
Using Bitcoin through full nodes - good

Just my unsophisticated opinin.

edited while sticking to rational expectations of each of your opinions

[pereira4]

Again, all experts agree: Segwit before blocksize increase, any other option is stupid. If anyone is listening too people that spend all day on forums talking but not getting anything done, and putting their opinion as more valuable than Andreas and the rest of experts, you are an idiot or you are making money by shilling BU and being anti-segwit and blockstream.

[BitcoinHodler]

Can someone point me to thread or article about this segwit that would enlighten me on what the hell is going on. I'm just a plain bitcoin user, how will this affect me?

there are articles on bitcoincore.org about segwit that may interest you to know what is generally going on like this: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

but as for other resources that may argue both pros and also cons of segwit and also is not biased i have not seen anything worth mentioning.

[ghostON]

Can someone point me to thread or article about this segwit that would enlighten me on what the hell is going on. I'm just a plain bitcoin user, how will this affect me?

there are articles on bitcoincore.org about segwit that may interest you to know what is generally going on like this: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

but as for other resources that may argue both pros and also cons of segwit and also is not biased i have not seen anything worth mentioning.

Thanks! Will read on it and see what I can find out about it. Reading here, I would assume that bitcoin's usage (how we use it) could be affected by some decision of people. I was under the impression before that bitcoin is already unchangeable and fixed already until forever. Well, I hope this enlightens me.

[DooMAD]

Can someone point me to thread or article about this segwit that would enlighten me on what the hell is going on. I'm just a plain bitcoin user, how will this affect me?

Most users won't really notice any difference to be perfectly honest.  There's far more drama about this than there really needs to be, so don't be too concerned.  The dispute is more about the future direction of the project, not so much about how it works right now.  

Think of it as an optimisation to be more efficient and use less resources.  You might need to update your wallet software at some point, but SegWit is being implemented in such a way that it doesn't matter if you are still using old software when SegWit activates.  You can still send and receive transactions without upgrading (although you may not *see* the optimised SegWit transactions you've received until you upgrade, but you will still receive them), so there's no need to worry.  Ultimately, there is no urgent action you need to take.  But the faster everyone upgrades, the more efficient things will be.  If you're using a webwallet or exchange (but please don't use either of those to store any large sums long term, because it's just asking for trouble), you don't need to do anything at all.  

Plus it hasn't activated yet, so unless you're running a full node or mining, literally nothing has changed yet.

[BitcoinHodler]

Can someone point me to thread or article about this segwit that would enlighten me on what the hell is going on. I'm just a plain bitcoin user, how will this affect me?

there are articles on bitcoincore.org about segwit that may interest you to know what is generally going on like this: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

but as for other resources that may argue both pros and also cons of segwit and also is not biased i have not seen anything worth mentioning.

Thanks! Will read on it and see what I can find out about it. Reading here, I would assume that bitcoin's usage (how we use it) could be affected by some decision of people. I was under the impression before that bitcoin is already unchangeable and fixed already until forever. Well, I hope this enlightens me.

no problem.
about usage i have to say, i don't see it changing a lot because i believe that (just my opinion) more than 80% of people are only investing in bitcoin and only trading it and that 20% are mostly gambling with it and use it a little as currency.

about the change i have to say bitcoin has changed a lot since it was first released. we are using something a lot different than what satishi introduced to us.

[thejaytiesto]

Can someone point me to thread or article about this segwit that would enlighten me on what the hell is going on. I'm just a plain bitcoin user, how will this affect me?

there are articles on bitcoincore.org about segwit that may interest you to know what is generally going on like this: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

but as for other resources that may argue both pros and also cons of segwit and also is not biased i have not seen anything worth mentioning.

Thanks! Will read on it and see what I can find out about it. Reading here, I would assume that bitcoin's usage (how we use it) could be affected by some decision of people. I was under the impression before that bitcoin is already unchangeable and fixed already until forever. Well, I hope this enlightens me.

no problem.
about usage i have to say, i don't see it changing a lot because i believe that (just my opinion) more than 80% of people are only investing in bitcoin and only trading it and that 20% are mostly gambling with it and use it a little as currency.

about the change i have to say bitcoin has changed a lot since it was first released. we are using something a lot different than what satishi introduced to us.

We have a lot of people here making nonsensical claims, and always appeal to "satoshi" as if he was the ultimate prophet or jesus christ himself. satoshi did a lot of mistakes, he came up with the original idea, but he did not predict that things would end up like this.

Core devs have adjusted to the situation in the correct way, and that is, to put the node decentralization as the first priority. satoshi would have agreed with them if he was still around. He would hate to see the stupid situation we are at right now with idiots claiming segwit is a bad idea.

[RawDog]

He would hate to see the stupid situation we are at right now with idiots claiming segwit is a bad idea.

SegWit is a very dumb idea.  Attack vectors from every direction.  Does almost nothing at all to improve network tx capacity.  The only reason it gets any attention is the folks who wish to shift tx fees to 'off-chain' schemes - or to privatize blockchain fees - are in need of SegWit.

[CoinCidental]

Segwit is not even economical, even if we ignored the security risks it presents
We get to use around 56% of the extra space for txs

Nobody who isn't brainwashed by core would put segwit ahead of a bigger block....

[RawDog]

Segwit is not even economical, even if we ignored the security risks it presents
We get to use around 56% of the extra space for txs

Nobody who isn't brainwashed by core would put segwit ahead of a bigger block....

A 4MB block size gives us 400% throughput improvement, no new attack vectors and has been quite readily admitted as have no adverse effect on decentralization.  

Fuck Core.  Those guys are a bunch of morons trying to angle for their proprietary systems.

[CoinCidental]

Segwit is not even economical, even if we ignored the security risks it presents
We get to use around 56% of the extra space for txs

Nobody who isn't brainwashed by core would put segwit ahead of a bigger block....

A 4MB block size gives us 400% throughput improvement, no new attack vectors and has been quite readily admitted as have no adverse effect on decentralization.  

Fuck Core.  Those guys are a bunch of morons trying to angle for their proprietary systems.

At least You and me can see very clearly the agenda to privatise bitcoin tx revenue by blockstream core....
Im still amazed by how gullible the community at large is but it seems the tide is slowly turning and some more Chinese are not going to take this cock in the ass (segwit)

[franky1]

Core devs have adjusted to the situation in the correct way, and that is, to put the node decentralization as the first priority. satoshi would have agreed with them if he was still around. He would hate to see the stupid situation we are at right now with idiots claiming segwit is a bad idea.

lol

your talking about node distribution. but CORE want to be center of bitcoin. they want to be at the CORE. thats why they chose that name.
they call anything not CORE an altcoin.

if everyone is running core code and require the spoon feeding of core devs.. then its not decentralized even if the distribution was scattered over a million locations.

yes data is scattered but the rules are dictated from one location. no choice no valiance no chance to veto out bad idea's.. whatever core hand out the sheep accept. blindly following the hand that feeds them

so put distribution in your left hand.. and then look in your right hand and you will see that core want control. centralization is about control. not location.

[RawDog]

they call anything not CORE an altcoin.

CORE is the fucking altcoin.  SegWit and LN is core's bullshit to shift fees from miners and toward 'off chain' solutions.  I wonder what happens to decentralization once you remove all those fees away from mining?   

Ironic because core loves to say the reason for 1MB limit is to avoid centralization.  A ridiculous concept.

[franky1]

Ironic because core loves to say the reason for 1MB limit is to avoid centralization.  A ridiculous concept.

i agree with you on this point.
their bait: more then 1mb is too much bloat.. their switch: but here is 2-4mb that old style wont get to use, but new style will have bloat
their bait: bitcoin is slow, dont let more old style transactions through their switch: lets make a new network and move people away from fullnodes

eg
if they are running a node for the lightning network*, why would they run a node for the bitcoin network if they are not doing anything on the bitcoin network while on the lightening network*

eg
imagine it like you used to drink starbucks everyday at the store. but now you get to make it yourself at home. would you still walk into a starbucks store everyday just to help keep the appearance of supporting the store, even if you dont buy anything instore everyday.
ofcourse not.
peoples 'devotion' will wane and though they will vocally stay devoted, they physically act differently.

people need to be honest. if they are not going to use a network every day. why would they continue supporting it everyday.
cores actions will cause more disruption to the REAL FULL node count than anything ever envisioned before
*(emphasis on the literal neon hint that lightning is a separate network)


as for segwit. the way it treats data and decides what nodes it prefers to talk to or not. even the pruned mode changes the whole node network philosophy

but although segwit is not the full definition of an altcoin.. its far more altcoiny than core calling other implementations an altcoin

[densuj]

Or at least until Satoshi makes a public statement about it. 

Segwit is still trial and error.
Satoshi Nakamoto will not makes a public statement about segwit i guess, i think it is depend on the users will be upgrade to segwit or not and the miners will not upgrade to segwit.
Because of they will not bitcoin become centralization coin and can be controled by government,corporation or other people.

[TKeenan]

Segwit is still trial and error.

SegWit is losing.  Probably not going to happen now.  No support.  Not even near 95% required.

[jbreher]

SegWit is losing.  Probably not going to happen now.  No support.  Not even near 95% required.

Anything over 50% (sustained) is the actual activation criteria. While it would require a whole lot of crow-eating, we might soon see Core pulling back on the 95% acceptance threshold.

In true Greggian fashion (i.e., probably as an anticipatory tactical fallback measure merely so he can later point to it and say '...I've been telling you all along...'), u/nullc made a statement to this effect in a day or two after 0.13.1 release.

[RawDog]

Anything over 50% (sustained) is the actual activation criteria.

Not really.  What you are talking about is called a 51% attack.  SegWit and Maxwell might be able to organize a 51% attack to get their alt to replace bitcoin on the main chain.  But this comes with some severe problems. 

[jbreher]

Anything over 50% (sustained) is the actual activation criteria.

Not really.  What you are talking about is called a 51% attack. 

Yes, really. Whether it is called 'attack' or called 'consensus' is a meaningless discernment. In reality, the net effect is what it is.

SegWit and Maxwell might be able to organize a 51% attack to get their alt to replace bitcoin on the main chain.  But this comes with some severe problems. 

Such as?

[CoinCidental]

Anything over 50% (sustained) is the actual activation criteria.

Not really.  What you are talking about is called a 51% attack. 

Yes, really. Whether it is called 'attack' or called 'consensus' is a meaningless discernment. In reality, the net effect is what it is.

SegWit and Maxwell might be able to organize a 51% attack to get their alt to replace bitcoin on the main chain.  But this comes with some severe problems. 

Such as?

Resistance.... I will put more funding into alternatives to block segwit if they try and force  it on us...

[Quantus]

If the block stays at 1MB everyone will be shoehorned onto LN whether they want to be or not
the space in the 1mb block will become so expensive that only businesses like coinbase etc can afford to use it.

This is my fear.

My thinking is this, Storage of the blockchain is cheap but persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of the data to more then 8 peers is very costly. Most of the worlds population is restricted to 1MB download and 1/5 of that in upload speeds. Latency is high.

For Bitcoin's long term security we must remain at all times decentralized. With the highest possible number of full nodes. If we are to be truly beyond the reach of any form of government control we must be able to run our own hardware with our own code at our own homes and do it at low latency and low cost.

Right now the greatest cost to a full node operator/host is bandwidth not storage. When you hear someone say "blocks are to big" they are not complaining about storage!

We must make sacrifices. Until the World Wide Internet's infrastructure is more universally robust and low cost we must micro manage block size to the best of our ability to minimize spam and incentivize a robust mining community.


For these reasons I do not support SegWit or any update that moves transactions off chain because they reduce the incentive to grow the block size in the long term and reduces income/incentive to the mining community. It adds a great deal of complexity to the system and reduces security to the end users of these side chains.

In time the internet will become more robust and vastly cheaper then it is today. When that time comes we can increase the block size accommodating more micro transactions at lower fees but until then we must be willing to make sacrifices.

It is better to suffer these higher fees and reduced capabilities now then to sell out to this blatant corporate take over.

These side-chains will be run by private companies and banks (don't forget the banks) under the the control of their host governments at reduced security. I do not trust my Government, the banks or private corporations, so why should I trust these side-chains run by them? I would never use them myself so how can I support something I would never use or recommend to other people? I can't and I won't.  

And this is why I won't be upgrading my full node.

I beg all readers of this post to run a full node from your home for one month 24/7 too fully understand my point of view. Watch in horror as your ISP disconnects you from the internet without any warning for violating some obscure clause in your contract or charges you over $200 dollars for going over your bandwidth cap. See how hard it is to download files, play online games, use VOIP or watch Netflix with a full node running on your home network. Then and only then will you fully understand my point of view. And then call your government representatives and demand better internet.

[CoinCidental]

If the block stays at 1MB everyone will be shoehorned onto LN whether they want to be or not
the space in the 1mb block will become so expensive that only businesses like coinbase etc can afford to use it.

This is my fear.

My thinking is this, Storage of the blockchain is cheap but persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of the data to more then 8 peers is very costly. Most of the worlds population is restricted to 1MB download and 1/5 of that in upload speeds. Latency is high.

For Bitcoin's long term security we must remain at all times decentralized. With the highest possible number of full nodes. If we are to be truly beyond the reach of any form of government control we must be able to run our own hardware with our own code at our own homes and do it at low latency and low cost.

Right now the greatest cost to a full node operator/host is bandwidth not storage. When you hear someone say "blocks are to big" they are not complaining about storage!

We must make sacrifices. Until the World Wide Internet's infrastructure is more universally robust and low cost we must micro manage block size to the best of our ability to minimize spam and incentivize a robust mining community.


For these reasons I do not support SegWit or any update that moves transactions off chain because they reduce the incentive to grow the block size in the long term and reduces income/incentive to the mining community. It adds a great deal of complexity to the system and reduces security to the end users of the these side chains.

In time the internet will become more robust and vastly cheaper then it is today. When that time comes we can increase the block size accommodating more micro transactions at lower fees but until then we must be willing to make sacrifices.

It is better to suffer these higher fees and reduced capabilities now then to sell out to this blatant corporate take over.

These side-chains will be run by private companies and banks (don't forget the banks) under the the control of their host governments at reduced security. I do not trust my Government, the banks or private corporations, so why should I trust these side-chains run by them? I would never use them myself so how can I support something I would never use or recommend to other people? I can't and I won't.  

And this is why I won't be upgrading my full node.

I beg all readers of this post to run a full node from your home for one month 24/7 too fully understand my point of view. Watch in horror as your ISP disconnects you from the internet without any warning for violating some obscure clause in your contract or charges you over $200 dollars for going over your bandwidth cap. See how hard it is to download files, play online games, use VOIP or watch Netflix with a full node running on your home network. Then and only then will you fully understand my point of view. And then call your government representatives and demand better internet.

You must be doing something wrong, a node is very light on system resources once you get the chain fully synced

I use Bitcoin Unlimited client and it uses xThin block technology so only uploads about 500-700mb a day

Also, most of the world has faster Internet than 1mb/s now
Satoshi never wanted every user to run a node anyways.... But I agree more people should run them in places they can afford it...

Obviously not Africa where people can't even afford to  eat will or should be expected to run a full node to use btc....

[Quantus]

You must be doing something wrong, 1) a node is very light on system resources once you get the chain fully synced

I use Bitcoin Unlimited client and it uses xThin block technology so 2) only uploads about 500-700mb a day

3) Also, most of the world has faster Internet than 1mb/s now
4) Satoshi never wanted every user to run a node anyways.... But I agree more people should run them in places they can afford it...

Obviously not Africa where people can't even afford to  eat will or should be expected to run a full node to use btc....

1) This has nothing to do with system resources! Its about the cost of a persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of blocks, It's about bandwidth.

2) Running a client with bandwidth limiters is not a solution for people who can't even afford a 1MB/s sustained up/down connection. The average American has a 5GB up/down cap. So the average american can only run a full node for about 1 week (your #s) per month before hitting their bandwidth cap.  

3) No the world dose not have faster internet then 1mb/s now. Only around 40% of the world's population, 80% in America have any internet access at all. Even in America the average is 4mb/s down half a mb up with a 5GB combined upload and download Bandwidth cap. Thats what most Americans are forced to accept.  

4) I don't give a flying fuck what Satoshi wanted or thought would happen nor should anyone else. He had one really great idea and he ran with it but he was not omnipotent, he was not the son of God, he had no fucking idea how any of this would all play out.

[CoinCidental]

You must be doing something wrong, 1) a node is very light on system resources once you get the chain fully synced

I use Bitcoin Unlimited client and it uses xThin block technology so 2) only uploads about 500-700mb a day

3) Also, most of the world has faster Internet than 1mb/s now
4) Satoshi never wanted every user to run a node anyways.... But I agree more people should run them in places they can afford it...

Obviously not Africa where people can't even afford to  eat will or should be expected to run a full node to use btc....

1) This has nothing to do with system resources! Its about the cost of a persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of blocks, It's about bandwidth.

2) Running a client with bandwidth limiters is not a solution for people who can't even afford a 1MB/s sustained up/down connection. The average American has a 5GB up/down cap. So the average american can only run a full node for about 1 week (your #s) per month before hitting their bandwidth cap.  

3) No the world dose not have faster internet then 1mb/s now. Only around 40% of the world's population, 80% in America have any internet access at all. Even in America the average is 4mb/s down half a mb up with a 5GB combined upload and download Bandwidth cap. Thats what most Americans are forced to accept.  

4) I don't give a flying fuck what Satoshi wanted or thought would happen nor should anyone else. He had one really great idea and he ran with it but he was not omnipotent, he was not the son of God, he had no fucking idea how any of this would all play out.

where do you live with your 5GB cap ??

[thejaytiesto]

There are a lot of places in the developed world where you may live in an area that doesn't give you access to very fast internet. In any case, if you raise the blocksize to 2MB, then so what? it's going to get filled fast, probably it wouldn't even take a year. What then? do we keep raising it as soon as we hit the blocks being filled?

Also in case you didn't know, all Core dev want to raise the blocksize (except one) and all experts including Andreas Antonopoulos agree that Segwit should be activated before attempting any blocksize raises, so you can thank the anti Segwit crew for the lack of scaling and innovation.

[jacobmayes94]

Segwit is the only decent solution.

Purists want to keep 1 MB blocks = Madness if bitcoin has a future outside of an investment

Some want a one time increase = band-aid

Some want unlimited blocks = Insane propagation times, blocks of several hunded megabytes if transaction volume approaches that of visa and mastercard - Madness

Segwit = Best solution to the problem, allowing bi directional payment channels, for those who don't like it they can still use the main chain without doing so and it is a soft fork unlike any of the other solutions! I am someone who heavily researches world conspiracies and finds my own truth in the matter and rejects bullcrap, and after doing much digging and hours of reading and research on different areas, I feel the core developers do have the best solution in my opinion if it is to be used as a currency.

[Quantus]

You must be doing something wrong, 1) a node is very light on system resources once you get the chain fully synced

I use Bitcoin Unlimited client and it uses xThin block technology so 2) only uploads about 500-700mb a day

3) Also, most of the world has faster Internet than 1mb/s now
4) Satoshi never wanted every user to run a node anyways.... But I agree more people should run them in places they can afford it...

Obviously not Africa where people can't even afford to  eat will or should be expected to run a full node to use btc....

1) This has nothing to do with system resources! Its about the cost of a persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of blocks, It's about bandwidth.

2) Running a client with bandwidth limiters is not a solution for people who can't even afford a 1MB/s sustained up/down connection. The average American has a 5GB up/down cap. So the average american can only run a full node for about 1 week (your #s) per month before hitting their bandwidth cap.  

3) No the world dose not have faster internet then 1mb/s now. Only around 40% of the world's population, 80% in America have any internet access at all. Even in America the average is 4mb/s down half a mb up with a 5GB combined upload and download Bandwidth cap. Thats what most Americans are forced to accept.  

4) I don't give a flying fuck what Satoshi wanted or thought would happen nor should anyone else. He had one really great idea and he ran with it but he was not omnipotent, he was not the son of God, he had no fucking idea how any of this would all play out.

where do you live with your 5GB cap ??

Your mom's house you should really call her more often.

[jacobmayes94]

I travel around a lot, and in the eastern world, 512 kbps to 2mbps are common maximum speeds.

Those who live in western countries have come to take it for granted... South korea is an exception...

[CoinCidental]

You must be doing something wrong, 1) a node is very light on system resources once you get the chain fully synced

I use Bitcoin Unlimited client and it uses xThin block technology so 2) only uploads about 500-700mb a day

3) Also, most of the world has faster Internet than 1mb/s now
4) Satoshi never wanted every user to run a node anyways.... But I agree more people should run them in places they can afford it...

Obviously not Africa where people can't even afford to  eat will or should be expected to run a full node to use btc....

1) This has nothing to do with system resources! Its about the cost of a persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of blocks, It's about bandwidth.

2) Running a client with bandwidth limiters is not a solution for people who can't even afford a 1MB/s sustained up/down connection. The average American has a 5GB up/down cap. So the average american can only run a full node for about 1 week (your #s) per month before hitting their bandwidth cap.  

3) No the world dose not have faster internet then 1mb/s now. Only around 40% of the world's population, 80% in America have any internet access at all. Even in America the average is 4mb/s down half a mb up with a 5GB combined upload and download Bandwidth cap. Thats what most Americans are forced to accept.  

4) I don't give a flying fuck what Satoshi wanted or thought would happen nor should anyone else. He had one really great idea and he ran with it but he was not omnipotent, he was not the son of God, he had no fucking idea how any of this would all play out.

where do you live with your 5GB cap ??

Your mom's house you should really call her more often.

You must have an interesting lifestyle considering shes dead ......

another troubled teenage gimp living with his parents no doubt 

[CraigWrightBTC]

I am waiting until the miners upgrading to segwit, but i am doubt about that the miners will be upgrading to segwit.
They think the segwit will make bitcoin be controled by government or someone out there.
It is one of many reasons why the segwit not be activated yet.

[Quantus]

You must be doing something wrong, 1) a node is very light on system resources once you get the chain fully synced

I use Bitcoin Unlimited client and it uses xThin block technology so 2) only uploads about 500-700mb a day

3) Also, most of the world has faster Internet than 1mb/s now
4) Satoshi never wanted every user to run a node anyways.... But I agree more people should run them in places they can afford it...

Obviously not Africa where people can't even afford to  eat will or should be expected to run a full node to use btc....

1) This has nothing to do with system resources! Its about the cost of a persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of blocks, It's about bandwidth.

2) Running a client with bandwidth limiters is not a solution for people who can't even afford a 1MB/s sustained up/down connection. The average American has a 5GB up/down cap. So the average american can only run a full node for about 1 week (your #s) per month before hitting their bandwidth cap.  

3) No the world dose not have faster internet then 1mb/s now. Only around 40% of the world's population, 80% in America have any internet access at all. Even in America the average is 4mb/s down half a mb up with a 5GB combined upload and download Bandwidth cap. Thats what most Americans are forced to accept.  

4) I don't give a flying fuck what Satoshi wanted or thought would happen nor should anyone else. He had one really great idea and he ran with it but he was not omnipotent, he was not the son of God, he had no fucking idea how any of this would all play out.

where do you live with your 5GB cap ??

Your mom's house you should really call her more often.

You must have an interesting lifestyle considering shes dead ......

another troubled teenage gimp living with his parents no doubt 

[thejaytiesto]

I am waiting until the miners upgrading to segwit, but i am doubt about that the miners will be upgrading to segwit.
They think the segwit will make bitcoin be controled by government or someone out there.
It is one of many reasons why the segwit not be activated yet.

You should update your Bitcoin Core software to 0.13.1 no matter what miners do. Already 40%+ of people moved to 0.13.1, if you don't you are missing out on bug fixes and so on. Also it shows miners how most people want Segwit. It's a matter of time miners become reasonable and do the right thing (that is, to activate segwit).

[CoinCidental]

You must be doing something wrong, 1) a node is very light on system resources once you get the chain fully synced

I use Bitcoin Unlimited client and it uses xThin block technology so 2) only uploads about 500-700mb a day

3) Also, most of the world has faster Internet than 1mb/s now
4) Satoshi never wanted every user to run a node anyways.... But I agree more people should run them in places they can afford it...

Obviously not Africa where people can't even afford to  eat will or should be expected to run a full node to use btc....

1) This has nothing to do with system resources! Its about the cost of a persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of blocks, It's about bandwidth.

2) Running a client with bandwidth limiters is not a solution for people who can't even afford a 1MB/s sustained up/down connection. The average American has a 5GB up/down cap. So the average american can only run a full node for about 1 week (your #s) per month before hitting their bandwidth cap.  

3) No the world dose not have faster internet then 1mb/s now. Only around 40% of the world's population, 80% in America have any internet access at all. Even in America the average is 4mb/s down half a mb up with a 5GB combined upload and download Bandwidth cap. Thats what most Americans are forced to accept.  

4) I don't give a flying fuck what Satoshi wanted or thought would happen nor should anyone else. He had one really great idea and he ran with it but he was not omnipotent, he was not the son of God, he had no fucking idea how any of this would all play out.

where do you live with your 5GB cap ??

Your mom's house you should really call her more often.

You must have an interesting lifestyle considering shes dead ......

another troubled teenage gimp living with his parents no doubt 

just keep gimping along son ,this game is  best left for the big boys 

[CoinCidental]

I am waiting until the miners upgrading to segwit, but i am doubt about that the miners will be upgrading to segwit.
They think the segwit will make bitcoin be controled by government or someone out there.
It is one of many reasons why the segwit not be activated yet.

You should update your Bitcoin Core software to 0.13.1 no matter what miners do. Already 40%+ of people moved to 0.13.1, if you don't you are missing out on bug fixes and so on. Also it shows miners how most people want Segwit. It's a matter of time miners become reasonable and do the right thing (that is, to activate segwit).

From the looks of things the  miners wont take segwit in its current state ,if it came with a larger block and implemented via HF then that would be a differnt story but jihan wu and some of the influential people in china are holding out for a better solution and i think its wise to take the larger block and HF segwit if a compromise has to be made .....

[jacobmayes94]

Isn't a soft fork the better option for all concerned? Or am I missing anything?

[CoinCidental]

Isn't a soft fork the better option for all concerned? Or am I missing anything?

not really when you account for zombie nodes that cant fully understand the new txs  ........
and the blocksize  gains are exaggerated because they only work if everyone moves into segwit
and all txs are segwit txs (and everyone isnt onboard ......yet)
the signature data is also  bloated compared to a simpler solution like a 4mb block or a dynamic blocksize
that starts at 1.1MB and rise slowly  as btc grows .......

LN can be incorporated into a larger /dynamic block without segwit if it is deemed to carry too much technical debt into the future

[DooMAD]

While I'm still curious to see SegWit in action to find out if the scaling claims prove to be accurate, there have been some fairly strongly worded warnings doing the rounds online.  Anyone care to refute or debunk?  Or is there a thread about that article elsewhere on the board that I've missed?

I am waiting until the miners upgrading to segwit, but i am doubt about that the miners will be upgrading to segwit.
They think the segwit will make bitcoin be controled by government or someone out there.
It is one of many reasons why the segwit not be activated yet.

You should update your Bitcoin Core software to 0.13.1 no matter what miners do. Already 40%+ of people moved to 0.13.1, if you don't you are missing out on bug fixes and so on. Also it shows miners how most people want Segwit. It's a matter of time miners become reasonable and do the right thing (that is, to activate segwit).

Incorrect.  Users should weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves if they should update or not, no matter what anyone else says or does.  It's the users who determine the code that governs the network.  Consensus is not simply a herd mentality.  That would be something altogether different.

[CoinCidental]

Litecoin will do segwit anyway so people may decide to wait and see that result first

[Lauda]

While I'm still curious to see SegWit in action to find out if the scaling claims prove to be accurate, there have been some fairly strongly worded warnings doing the rounds online.  Anyone care to refute or debunk?  Or is there a thread about that article elsewhere on the board that I've missed?

I think the majority of the people do not even want to bother trying to refute such stuff anymore. The problem is that biased people keep spewing up articles with either completely misleading information, half-truths and whatnot in an attempt to completely undermine Segwit. Just read through the recent article on the Bitcoin Classic (Segwit vs. Flexible Transactions) and you will see (it has been mentioned on #bitcoin-core-dev). Some aren't sure whether Garzik truly believes some of the nonsense that was written on there.

Here is a small example:

In practice, based on the average transaction size today and the types of transactions made, the block size limit is expected to have a maximum limit of ~1.7 MB post-SW.

They use outdated date to make it seem like Segwit brings only a little improvement for a 'lot of complexity'. Latest transaction pattern usage review shows that we can expect around 2.1 MB.

3.6 Once activated, SW cannot be undone and must remain in Bitcoin codebase forever.
If any critical bugs resulting from SW are discovered down the road, bugs serious enough to contemplate rolling it back, then anyone will be able to spend native SW outputs, leading to a catastrophic loss of funds.

Segwit can be undone with a hard fork, just like any other soft fork. Surely it won't be simple very simple due to the Segwit UTXO, but it will not lead to a catastrophic loss of funds (exaggerating).
I'm too tired to even attempt to refute anything technical or economical, and there are surely people that are better fit to do this. You could ask on IRC in #Bitcoin (you may get lucky).
The idea of a free-market block size limit is also absurd as it gets. If anything has been shown in the Bitcoin world, it is that markets behave irrationally. Bitcoin was never intended to have a free market block size limit as per Satoshi (who they seem to quote only when and in a context that suits themselves).

[CoinCidental]

segwit cannot be easily undone and there is a danger that funds in segwit addreses could be spendable by anyone (stolen)
if segwit has to be rolled back

hopefully the litecoin experiment can be used as a working testnet while a better solution is developed

if we have to use segwit ,give everyone plenty of warning and do it via HF in combination with a blocksize increase

[Lauda]

segwit cannot be easily undone and there is a danger that funds in segwit addreses could be spendable by anyone (stolen)
if segwit has to be rolled back

Nobody claimed that it can be easily undone (or at least I hope so).

hopefully the litecoin experiment can be used as a working testnet while a better solution is developed

There is no better alternative.

if we have to use segwit ,give everyone plenty of warning and do it via HF in combination with a blocksize increase

It seems that someone managed to spread the false idea that Segwit would be so much better with a HF. Guess what? It wouldn't, and the code change would almost be trivial.

[OmegaStarScream]

I'm with activating SegWit but I don't see it being activated honestly , at least not in the next few months. Looking at the charts[1][2] and how It's stable in 24-25% range for almost three weeks now make It very difficult to believe that It will get activated , I don't see what could change the miners mind to start supporting it at the moment.


[1] https://coin.dance/blocks
[2] https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

[CoinCidental]

I'm with activating SegWit but I don't see it being activated honestly , at least not in the next few months. Looking at the charts[1][2] and how It's stable in 24-25% range for almost three weeks now make It very difficult to believe that It will get activated , I don't see what could change the miners mind to start supporting it at the moment.


[1] https://coin.dance/blocks
[2] https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

segwit in its current form will not activate
there is a bigger chance of bitcoin unlimited being adopted unless blockstream core
are willing to make some concession to raise their artificially imposed  1mb blocksize cap

[The End Is Neigh]

I'm with activating SegWit but I don't see it being activated honestly , at least not in the next few months. Looking at the charts[1][2] and how It's stable in 24-25% range for almost three weeks now make It very difficult to believe that It will get activated , I don't see what could change the miners mind to start supporting it at the moment.


[1] https://coin.dance/blocks
[2] https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

Ugh I thought this was supposed to be up and running but I can see that people are holding back at this point. I really don't see any negatives to segwit and I've looked it over a lot.

If you don't like blockstream and that's the reason you aren't upgrading then you are a petty fool. I don't like the government but I sure as hell still use their money.

[jbreher]

persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of the data to more then 8 peers is very costly.

Very costly? You must be quite impoverished. Sorry for your state. Quite surprised by this, actually, given your status as a long-term bitcoiner.

Most of the worlds population is restricted to 1MB download and 1/5 of that in upload speeds.

That is categorically, unmitigatedly false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds

Last year's figures show not a single country that has an average internet bandwidth limit as low as you claim. Not one. Even the absolute lowest listed average bandwidth is 50% greater than your claimed figure. There may be some unlisted country that has an average rate as low as you claim, but they will of necessity be inconsequential to decentralization anyway.

Further, 1MB/s is well in excess of the rate needed to operate a meaningfully-connected full node. As is 200KB/s (your 1/5 figure).

Until the World Wide Internet's infrastructure is more universally robust and low cost we must micro manage block size to the best of our ability to minimize spam and incentivize a robust mining community.

Seems the world's internet infrastructure already got a whole lot more robust while you weren't paying attention.

I beg all readers of this post to run a full node from your home for one month 24/7 too fully understand my point of view.

Have been. Several on one physical machine, actually. No, I don't understand your point of view.

Watch in horror as your ISP disconnects you from the internet without any warning for violating some obscure clause in your contract

In your statement that you do run a full node, you implicitly admit that this has not happened to you. Why are you fearmongering?

See how hard it is to download files, play online games, use VOIP or watch Netflix with a full node running on your home network.

If your commitment to your games is greater than your commitment to Bitcoin, then Bitcoin does not need your help.

Then and only then will you fully understand my point of view.

Nope. Don't understand your point of view at all. Maybe if you restate your concerns in some manner that makes sense?

And then call your government representatives and demand better internet.

Calling on government to fix some issue peripheral to Bitcoin seems like a very odd thing to do. Would it not make more sense to figure out some way to create a higher bandwidth connection for all within your geographic community? That is, if bandwidth is an actual barrier to your running a full node - a case which you have not yet made convincingly.

Now, there are valid reasons to resist the adoption of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (i.e., Core 0.13.1 et. seq.). However, bandwidth concerns may be the weakest argument you could possibly make. We have sufficient bandwidth to maintain decentralization - be it bigger blocks though The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, or bigger blocks through a simple bump of maxblocksize.

[jbreher]

all experts including Andreas Antonopoulos agree that Segwit should be activated before attempting any blocksize raises

I'm still waiting for you to support this claim with a link to AA stating such.

Thanks

(Not that it _really_ matters, when there are 'experts' on both sides of this debate, but it would be nice if you were actually able to back up this claim that you have been repeating)

[jbreher]

Some want unlimited blocks

Who are these people? Can you point to any? Is it possible your 'extensive research' somehow missed what the 'Unlimited' in 'Bitcoin Unlimited' actually means?

[jbreher]

Just read through the recent article on the Bitcoin Classic (Segwit vs. Flexible Transactions)

I'd love to. Can you provide a link?

[CraigWrightBTC]

I am waiting until the miners upgrading to segwit, but i am doubt about that the miners will be upgrading to segwit.
They think the segwit will make bitcoin be controled by government or someone out there.
It is one of many reasons why the segwit not be activated yet.

You should update your Bitcoin Core software to 0.13.1 no matter what miners do. Already 40%+ of people moved to 0.13.1, if you don't you are missing out on bug fixes and so on. Also it shows miners how most people want Segwit. It's a matter of time miners become reasonable and do the right thing (that is, to activate segwit).

No problem if i have to missing out on bug fixes, do you know why the segwit is still not be activated yet?
Because as you said just 40% of peoples moved to  0.13.1, and it is not enough.

[Lauda]

Just read through the recent article on the Bitcoin Classic (Segwit vs. Flexible Transactions)

I'd love to. Can you provide a link?

Apologies for the late response. This time of the year there is a lot of work to be done in several aspects. Here's the article: https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html . Keep in mind that it has been updated at least once to correct some obvious mistakes that it had.

No problem if i have to missing out on bug fixes, do you know why the segwit is still not be activated yet? Because as you said just 40% of peoples moved to  0.13.1, and it is not enough.

Node support is not counted towards activation, but rather 95% of the last 2016 blocks (+1 more period). However, node support over a long time period is a decent metric. The current Segwit node support is over 43% (counting the 0.13.99 nodes as well)[1].
[1] - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/

[jbreher]

Just read through the recent article on the Bitcoin Classic (Segwit vs. Flexible Transactions)

I'd love to. Can you provide a link?

Apologies for the late response. This time of the year there is a lot of work to be done in several aspects.

Understood. No apologies necessary.

Here's the article: https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html . Keep in mind that it has been updated at least once to correct some obvious mistakes that it had.

Has it changed so much that your rebuttal points no linger have anything to do with the paper's content? I see nothing therein about Garzik, nor are your two quotes to be found anywhere therein.

Perhaps you meant to link elsewhere?

[OmegaStarScream]

If we ever fail to implement SegWit , does it mean that there is no chance for Lightning Network and TumbleBit[1] to be implemented as well or they don't need each other?

[1] https://github.com/BUSEC/TumbleBit

[Lauda]

Has it changed so much that your rebuttal points no linger have anything to do with the paper's content? I see nothing therein about Garzik, nor are your two quotes to be found anywhere therein.

Perhaps you meant to link elsewhere?

No. As I've outlined in the previous post, people are tired of refuting stuff like this over and over again (my points weren't directed at the article). I'm certain that this was written by Garzik (and/or Zander), even though there's no indication of an author. You can find some of the rebuttal here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5ijtzv/flextransvssegwit_by_tom_zander_of_bitcoin_classic/

If we ever fail to implement SegWit , does it mean that there is no chance for Lightning Network and TumbleBit[1] to be implemented as well or they don't need each other?

[1] https://github.com/BUSEC/TumbleBit

While I'm not entirely sure about Tumblebit, I'm fairly positive that LN can be implemented without Segwit. Segwit just makes LN easier and more efficient to implement.

[kiklo]

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network/

Lightning Network uses payment channels with Hashed TimeLock Contracts.
Both of those things are currently usable on Bitcoin mainnet without segwit, so LN is possible without segwit.
However, without segwit or another malleability fix,
LN channels have to deal with situations where transactions get mutated ("malleated"), which makes them get stuck at various steps.
Preventing them from getting stuck permanently requires either introducing trust (which we don't want to do) or setting some annoying timeouts that limit the efficiency of channels.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5eqm2b/can_ln_work_without_segwit/

Yes, but it's not as awesome without Segwit, and we would miss out on a lot of the other benefits that Segwit brings to the table.
Segwit makes Lightning Network easier to deploy and makes channel creation cheaper.
It also makes lightweight Lightning wallets possible (think mobile phones).
Without Segwit, running a full bitcoin node would be mandatory to make sure nobody is trying to cheat you.
With Segwit, you can outsource channel monitoring.

 

FYI:
LN will introduce fractional reserve banking into BTC using Offchain Transactions. 

[franky1]

They use outdated date to make it seem like Segwit brings only a little improvement for a 'lot of complexity'. Latest transaction pattern usage review shows that we can expect around 2.1 MB.

2.1mb IF 100% of people made 100% segwit versioned transactions compared to legacy transactions.
so 2.1mb is the best possibility. not the realistic expectation

its also funny that lauda has quietened down on the linear/quadratics debate now that i think he knows that an LN settlement is just a 2in 2out transaction. thus the amount of sigops is small and not an issue especially when an update to the libsecp256k1 brought a 5x efficiency gain.

lastly. LN relies on dual signing. so parties can check and double check the contents of a tx before signing to see if its able to malleate. thus by signing, the other party cannot then make another tx because it requires dual signatures. thus malleability is not an issue. they would refuse to sign a tx if it were showing the signs that the first tx was malleated.

im also laughing how core and their fanboys want to offset LN into the litenode category and then offer third parties to 'outsource' (paid to manage) the mainnet server connection to LN. where the manager has control to deploy revoke codes. and take a fee, impose a penalty
um hello. delayed spendability(AKA 3-5 banking day fund maturity/spendability (CLTV)) revoke codes (chargebacks (CSV)) and middleman management paid service(outsourced monitoring)...

LN has its utility but lets not kid ourselves. its just a 'banking' service that should be voluntary on the side.. not to be pushed as the end/only solution for bitcoin.

LN is not a permission-less, open, trustless system.
dual signatures = permissioned
outsourced monitoring = trust required

atleast be honest with yourself and sell LN on its real merits for the certain niches where it would be useful(exchanges, faucets, adsense, gambling). rather then overselling LN as the ultimate solution for everyone, while hiding its limitations and issues that will make it impractical for some people that actually dont want middlemen and locked funds managed with excess fee's/penalties, chargebacks and settlement delays.

LN is being pushed not for the benefit of bitcoin. but for the benefit of blockstream becoming the outsourced managers so that they can claim fee's and penalties to repay their investors.

[BitcoinBarrel]

I've heard a lot of responses from SegWit supporters but no real hard evidence at why Bitcoin needs to be changed. I've been using Bitcoin every day for nearly 4 years now. My original Bitcoin QT client hasn't been upgraded for years. I have sent and received thousands of transactions with many different addresses, online wallets, QT, etc.

Bitcoin has worked so well, I don't understand the issue?!

SO WHAT if it takes 10-30 minutes for a confirmation? It takes days/weeks to get paid by the bank.

I have been sending the recommended fee of 0.0001 for years until recently when blocks started slowing down. Now I send 0.00015 (OMG 15 cents!) and my payments are confirmed under 30 minutes every time, usually 15 minutes.

I've said it before, LEAVE BITCOIN ALONE.

If it's obsolete, then let a better Alt coin take over. That's free market.

It's NOT WORTH THE RISK of changing Bitcoin, and potentially RUINING a perfectly good crypto-currency. All because you are too lazy to wait 30 minutes for a confirmation. 

[Carlton Banks]

It's NOT WORTH THE RISK of changing Bitcoin, and potentially RUINING a perfectly good crypto-currency. All because you are too lazy to wait 30 minutes for a confirmation. 

Obvious canard, Barrel. You're trolling, desperately

a) Bitcoin's been changed dozens and dozens of times before, hence version 13.1. If it had stayed the same as Satoshi's version 0.1, it wouldn't exist now, 0.1 had too many very serious problems


b) Segwit has nothing to do with changing any aspect of how quickly transactions confirm


I'm not going to waste my time explaining what the actually purpose of Segwit is with someone who isn't interested in the facts

[BitcoinBarrel]

It's NOT WORTH THE RISK of changing Bitcoin, and potentially RUINING a perfectly good crypto-currency. All because you are too lazy to wait 30 minutes for a confirmation. 

Obvious canard, Barrel. You're trolling, desperately

a) Bitcoin's been changed dozens and dozens of times before, hence version 13.1. If it had stayed the same as Satoshi's version 0.1, it wouldn't exist now, 0.1 had too many very serious problems


b) Segwit has nothing to do with changing any aspect of how quickly transactions confirm


I'm not going to waste my time explaining what the actually purpose of Segwit is with someone who isn't interested in the facts

You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?

Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"

[Carlton Banks]

I'm not going to waste my time explaining what the actual purpose of Segwit is with someone who isn't interested in the facts

[Lauda]

You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?

Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"

1) It is broken. TX malleability is a existing vulnerability. I don't expect you to be aware of this though.
2) If we follow that 'phrase', the same can be said for increasing the block size limit.
2.1) The same can be said for anything proposed by Classic (FlexTrans) & BU (random 'improvements').

[franky1]

You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?

Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"

1) It is broken. TX malleability is a existing vulnerability. I don't expect you to be aware of this though.
2) If we follow that 'phrase', the same can be said for increasing the block size limit.
2.1) The same can be said for anything proposed by Classic (FlexTrans) & BU (random 'improvements').

lauda.. do you even understand malleability.
and how it is not a problem in multisig, and how RFB CPFP are the replacements for double spends. meaning malleability is not a big deal, because solving malleability solves nothing.

its been an 'issue' but not a big deal problem... after all ~2000-2500tx every ten minutes for the last 2 years have had no massive complaints/problems. the only time it was of any drama was a couple years ago when kerpeles used it as a fake reason to embezzle funds and blame bitcoin.

even the latest exchange embezzlings, which fake cried hacks didnt use the malleability screams of lost funds, because they know people would laugh at them because of the obvious fake excuses if they did blame malleability

wake up and research. learn that people have found work arounds and ways to double check and reduce risk

its time you spend less time being spoin fed on IRC and instead do your own independant research

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB. 

What  a revelation.

[moonpie45]

You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?

Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"

1) It is broken. TX malleability is a existing vulnerability. I don't expect you to be aware of this though.
2) If we follow that 'phrase', the same can be said for increasing the block size limit.
2.1) The same can be said for anything proposed by Classic (FlexTrans) & BU (random 'improvements').

1 - TX malleability is only a vulnerability for those that take actions on transactions that have not yet confirmed. The simple fix to this is to not rely upon unconfirmed transactions unless the person you are accepting the transaction from can be trusted with at least the amount of the value of the transaction.

To my knowledge, the biggest problem with TX malleability is that it can be annoying when transaction IDs get changed. Can you point to any financial losses that resulted from TX malleability?

2 - Blocks frequently are effectively 1 MB in size, sometimes for days at a time. Even if this was because of "fake" transactions, the attack was possible because of the low block size, and would have been less effective had the maximum allowable block size been greater.

2a - One selling point of segwit is that it is effectively increasing the block size. If this is not 'something that needs to be fixed', then why is segwit being sold this way?

[kiklo]

2a - One selling point of segwit is that it is effectively increasing the block size. If this is not 'something that needs to be fixed', then why is segwit being sold this way?

Segwit only real purpose is to enable the way for Lightening Network (Offchain Transactions),
even thru it is possible to implement a version of LN without segwit.
Using LN with Segwit , will move the power from the Miners to the ones controlling LN.
Without segwit, miners will still be the stronger force.
Power Grab by BTC core , pure & simple.

Chinese mining pools agreed to accept up to an 8MB blocksize,
BTC core could have hard forked it and been done for years, because the mining pools would have updated almost overnight.

Instead the shenanigans with pushing segit as a solution was just a trick, to try and get people to activate it so BTC core could assume power with LN.
Chinese Mining Pools did not fall for the trick , which is why segwit will never have more than ~30% ,
last count Chinese Mining Pools totaled were ~67%, which means they are in charge of BTC.
BTC=Better Trust China


 

[jbreher]

BTC core could have ...

The Bitcoin Foundation at one time seemed to have a certain existence with wide ranging influence as well.

#justsayin'

[Amph]

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB. 

What  a revelation.

they will be forced at some point to go with the 2MB hard fork, we can't remain forever at 1MB this is a 100% sure thing

i want to ask what is the exact reason why miners are aginst segwit now?

[kiklo]

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB.  

What  a revelation.

they will be forced at some point to go with the 2MB hard fork, we can't remain forever at 1MB this is a 100% sure thing

i want to ask what is the exact reason why miners are aginst segwit now?

Hard fork with larger blocksize can be done without segwit, segwit is not needed at all to go to a larger blocksize.
(That is the myth spread by BTC core.)

Segwit will allow LN, to run Offchain Transactions, with more control over onchain transactions placement.
Miners will not receive any transaction fees for Offchain Transactions.

LN with Segwit, will probably give LN the ability to actually choose which block their very few onchain transactions is included in,
meaning they would be able to cut the Chinese miners completely out of all fees from LN.
(LN onchain Transactions will be only included in one of their 30% controlled BTC miner's Blocks.)

LN without segwit will not have that capability, which leaves the Chinese Miners in control of which block includes a transaction.
Segwit is a Power Grab by BTC core to control the transaction fees, nothing more nothing less.

 

[hv_]

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB.  

What  a revelation.

they will be forced at some point to go with the 2MB hard fork, we can't remain forever at 1MB this is a 100% sure thing

i want to ask what is the exact reason why miners are aginst segwit now?

Hard fork with larger blocksize can be done without segwit, segwit is not needed at all to go to a larger blocksize.
(That is the myth spread by BTC core.)

Segwit will allow LN, to run Offchain Transactions, with more control over onchain transactions placement.
Miners will not receive any transaction fees for Offchain Transactions.

LN with Segwit, will probably give LN the ability to actually choose which block their very few onchain transactions is included in,
meaning they would be able to cut the Chinese miners completely out of all fees from LN.
(LN onchain Transactions will be only included in one of their 30% controlled BTC miner's Blocks.)

LN without segwit will not have that capability, which leaves the Chinese Miners in control of which block includes a transaction.
Segwit is a Power Grab by BTC core to control the transaction fees, nothing more nothing less.

 

BTC core is in the driver seat and have done lots of good things and now they look failing to provide such a nobrainer solution everybody must accept.

This might be the issue of a king loosing the ground after winning endless battles.

They are on own logics now and spread fear for the hardfork of the blockchain, code and bitcoin but this has lead to the even worse hardfork in the community.

Who can fix that and how?

[cellard]

Segwit's been out now, what, six weeks?  And still 70% of block solvers are voting to keep block size at 1MB. 

What  a revelation.

they will be forced at some point to go with the 2MB hard fork, we can't remain forever at 1MB this is a 100% sure thing

i want to ask what is the exact reason why miners are aginst segwit now?

Everyone in Core team wants to go 2mb eventually, except 1 developer which i cant remember right now, so im pretty sure we will eventually go to 2mb, but not before we see segwit, since segwit is a fundamental requirement to see a blocksize increase, even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake. No one that knows how bitcoin works is against segwit.

[jbreher]

even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake

Got a link to AA actually saying that? Thanks.

[franky1]

you can always spot the blockstream sheep

they want to avoid onchain scaling.
they think offchain is the only way.
they love the idea of a fee war onchain
they love bloating onchain transactions by kilobytes via confidential payment commitments

[moonpie45]

2a - One selling point of segwit is that it is effectively increasing the block size. If this is not 'something that needs to be fixed', then why is segwit being sold this way?

Segwit only real purpose is to enable the way for Lightening Network (Offchain Transactions),
even thru it is possible to implement a version of LN without segwit.
Using LN with Segwit , will move the power from the Miners to the ones controlling LN.
Without segwit, miners will still be the stronger force.
Power Grab by BTC core , pure & simple.

Yes, I was pointing out the hypocrisy behind how SegWit is being sold.

I know it is claimed by BTC Core that LN is possible without SegWit, but I am not so sure, especially not with the features that LN has in it's current planned form. I simply do not see how two parties could generate chained dependent unconfirmed transactions that are both guaranteed to contain valid signatures without malleability being addressed.  

you can always spot the blockstream sheep

they want to avoid onchain scaling.
they think offchain is the only way.
they love the idea of a fee war onchain
they love bloating onchain transactions by kilobytes via confidential payment commitments

I have noticed that many of the blockstream fanboys like to echo eachother, almost uniformly

[xyzzy099]

even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake

Got a link to AA actually saying that? Thanks.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/792436751901921280

[Carlton Banks]

I know it is claimed by BTC Core that LN is possible without SegWit, but I am not so sure

There's a simple cure for that. Find out how it works. Simply asserting "I don't get it" doesn't magically make something impossible, it just means you don't get it

[moonpie45]

I know it is claimed by BTC Core that LN is possible without SegWit, but I am not so sure

There's a simple cure for that. Find out how it works. Simply asserting "I don't get it" doesn't magically make something impossible, it just means you don't get it

Why don't you explain it if it is in fact possible?

It should be very easy to explain that something is possible, but it is very difficult to prove something is impossible

[Carlton Banks]

Ok, here's bitcointalk's TierNolan explaining it for you:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1711460.msg17148441#msg17148441




Original text from TierNolan:

This is a protocol for opening a permanent lightning channel even if malleability is not fixed.  It only requires check locktime and check sequence verify.

Both sides put down a deposit to eliminate the hold-out risk.  If either of the parties refuses to proceed either the other party is compensated or both get a full refund.

Step 1

Alice picks A1 and sends HA1, Hash(A1), to Bob.
Bob picks B1 and sends HB1, Hash(B1), to Alice.

They can both create this transaction.

Code:

TX1:
0) Pays 3x: (Alice + HA1 after T1) or (Bob after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob) 
1) Pays x: (HB1 + Alice) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
2) Pays x: (HA1 + Bob) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
3) Pays 3x: (Bob + HB1 after T1) or (Alice after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
4) Pays Alice's change: (Alice)
5) Pays Bob's change: (Bob)

Alice and Bob create the transaction and sign and broadcast it.

Abort during step 1

If one party signs the transaction and then the other refuses, then the signer should send at least one of the inputs to another address.  This invalidates the transaction.

Abort after step 1

Alice can wait T1 and then reclaim output 0.  This automatically gives Bob HA1, which allows him claim output 2.

Likewise, Bob can wait T1 and then reclaim output 3.  This automatically gives Alice HB1, which allows her claim output 1.

This is a full refund all parties.

If Alice refuses to claim output 0, then Bob can claim it after [T1 + T2] (and output 3), which gives him 6x and Alice nothing.  

Likewise, if Bob refuses to claim output 3, then Alice gets 6x and Bob nothing.

Both parties are incentivized to comply with the abort at this stage.

Step 2

Alice and Bob create the initial channel state transaction.  This supports a channel close that gives x to Alice and x to Bob and spends outputs 1 and 2.

The initial state transaction is different for Bob and Alice due to the way Lightning works.  Only Alice has both signatures for her version and only Bob has both signatures for his version.

Step 2a

Alice signs Bob's version of the transaction and sends the signature to Bob.

Abort after step 2a

If Bob broadcasts his initial state transaction, then that counts as him closing the channel.  Alice gets her x refund and then can reclaim output 0 (after T1).

If he doesn't broadcast it, then she can just follow the same abort procedure from step 1.

Bob can abort using the procedure from step 1 or broadcasting the initial state transaction.

In all cases, Alice and Bob get their money back.

Step 2b

Bob signs Alice's version of the transaction and sends the signature to Alice.

Abort after step 2b

Alice (or Bob) can simply close the channel so that both get x each from outputs 1 and 2.

Once the channel is closed, she can then claim output 0 safely (after 1 week).

Likewise, Bob gets x when the channel is closed (he can close it himself too) and then claims output 3 safely.

This gives both parties a full refund.

Step 3

Alice and Bob create a transaction which sends outputs 0 and 3 back to them.  This requires both outputs to be 2 of 2 signed (so 2 signatures each).

This transaction is broadcast.  If either party refuses to sign, then it counts as an abort after step 2b.

Once step 3 is finished, they now have established an initial lightning channel state with unlimited duration.

It is important that neither reveal their hash lock as that allows the other to spend the funding output.

[moonpie45]

Ok, here's bitcointalk's TierNolan explaining it for you:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1711460.msg17148441#msg17148441




Original text from TierNolan:

This is a protocol for opening a permanent lightning channel even if malleability is not fixed.  It only requires check locktime and check sequence verify.

Both sides put down a deposit to eliminate the hold-out risk.  If either of the parties refuses to proceed either the other party is compensated or both get a full refund.

Step 1

Alice picks A1 and sends HA1, Hash(A1), to Bob.
Bob picks B1 and sends HB1, Hash(B1), to Alice.

They can both create this transaction.

Code:

TX1:
0) Pays 3x: (Alice + HA1 after T1) or (Bob after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob) 
1) Pays x: (HB1 + Alice) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
2) Pays x: (HA1 + Bob) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
3) Pays 3x: (Bob + HB1 after T1) or (Alice after T1 + T2) or (2 of 2 Alice + Bob)
4) Pays Alice's change: (Alice)
5) Pays Bob's change: (Bob)

Alice and Bob create the transaction and sign and broadcast it.

Abort during step 1

If one party signs the transaction and then the other refuses, then the signer should send at least one of the inputs to another address.  This invalidates the transaction.

Abort after step 1

Alice can wait T1 and then reclaim output 0.  This automatically gives Bob HA1, which allows him claim output 2.

Likewise, Bob can wait T1 and then reclaim output 3.  This automatically gives Alice HB1, which allows her claim output 1.

This is a full refund all parties.

I stopped reading once malleability becomes a problem. (see the underlined portion).  

[Carlton Banks]

I stopped reading once malleability becomes a problem. (see the underlined portion). 

Neither of those steps depend on the transaction hash. I think you may be confused about the notation, but I don't have time to convince you.

[hv_]

Mm , can't find

Step 0:  Fixing scalability ( by simplifying code e.g. drop the line that has the 1MB ) that would be most recommended and the nobrainer all could agree on.


 

[jbreher]

even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake

Got a link to AA actually saying that? Thanks.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/792436751901921280

Perhaps twitter gives different views to different people? There is nothing in there where Andreas "is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake".

Maybe you meant to post a different link?

[xyzzy099]

even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake

Got a link to AA actually saying that? Thanks.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/792436751901921280

Perhaps twitter gives different views to different people? There is nothing in there where Andreas "is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake".

Maybe you meant to post a different link?

Nope.  I thought you were looking for a quote that showed Andreas' support for segwit, but it appears that you are looking for a quote from him that contains the exact words from the original poster's obvious paraphrase of Andreas' position.

I think the original posters point was simply that Andreas' supports swgwit, which is clearly true - and trying to nit-pick his paraphrasing of Andreas' position seems to me to be pretty silly - but don't let me deter you from your chosen path

[Carlton Banks]

Mm , can't find

Step 0:  Fixing scalability ( by simplifying code e.g. drop the line that has the 1MB ) that would be most recommended and the nobrainer all could agree on.


 

Then why do all the brains in the heads of the development community disagree fundamentally with that approach? Because of the sighashing scaling problem, the solution to which is a part of the Segwit fork.

Bigger blocks using the present sighashing code can increase the time it takes to compute signature hashes by an unsustainable factor, even 1MB blocks with complex chains of transactions can take a worryingly long amount of time to validate. This presents an unacceptable network coherence risk without increasing the base blocksize.


And that's not even considering the threat to decentralisation of Bitcoin nodes. The current price spike has buoyed the node count, but it's not much of an improvement. The base size should be increased, but not before the trend in the node count is improving consistently. Confidence in the Bitcoin network depends in part on how widely distributed the nodes are. With the trends the way they are now, there is too much of a risk that the node count would slump, and that would harm confidence in the currency itself, i.e. the market price that everyone gets so excited about

[jackg]

Mm , can't find

Step 0:  Fixing scalability ( by simplifying code e.g. drop the line that has the 1MB ) that would be most recommended and the nobrainer all could agree on.


 

Nope. It should be to do nothing but improve the security of Bitcoin. If you set high enough tx fees (and contribute to the network) then you will have no problem with your transactions being slow.

even Andreas Antonopoulos is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake

Got a link to AA actually saying that? Thanks.

https://twitter.com/aantonop/status/792436751901921280

Perhaps twitter gives different views to different people? There is nothing in there where Andreas "is advising people to adopt segwit before raising the blocksize because doing otherwise is a mistake".

Maybe you meant to post a different link?

Nope.  I thought you were looking for a quote that showed Andreas' support for segwit, but it appears that you are looking for a quote from him that contains the exact words from the original poster's obvious paraphrase of Andreas' position.

I think the original posters point was simply that Andreas' supports swgwit, which is clearly true - and trying to nit-pick his paraphrasing of Andreas' position seems to me to be pretty silly - but don't let me deter you from your chosen path

That link just saays that he isn't trying to block segwit. Maybe hisdoes support it but he didn't really make that seem obvious in his post (other than the fact he updated to it).

[xyzzy099]

That link just saays that he isn't trying to block segwit. Maybe hisdoes support it but he didn't really make that seem obvious in his post (other than the fact he updated to it).

I think it's clear from the tweet that he supports SW, but even if you disagree, there is plenty of stuff from Andreas that you can find on google where he discusses SW in terms that make it clear that he thinks it's a great idea.  If you don't want to google it yourself, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSq-58ElBzk&feature=youtu.be

[jackg]

That link just saays that he isn't trying to block segwit. Maybe hisdoes support it but he didn't really make that seem obvious in his post (other than the fact he updated to it).

I think it's clear from the tweet that he supports SW, but even if you disagree, there is plenty of stuff from Andreas that you can find on google where he discusses SW in terms that make it clear that he thinks it's a great idea.  If you don't want to google it yourself, watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSq-58ElBzk&feature=youtu.be

I just said that your link didn't seem to support it.
Something like this may have been better: https://decentralize.today/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.vd2s787t3

Segregated witness therefore has two main effects on the fees paid by bitcoin users. Firstly, segregated witness reduces the overall cost of transactions by discounting witness data and increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain. Secondly, segregated witness’ discount on witness data corrects a misalignment of incentives that may have inadvertently created more bloat in the UTXO set.

That looks better

[jbreher]

I just said that your link didn't seem to support it.
Something like this may have been better: https://decentralize.today/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.vd2s787t3

Segregated witness therefore has two main effects on the fees paid by bitcoin users. Firstly, segregated witness reduces the overall cost of transactions by discounting witness data and increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain. Secondly, segregated witness’ discount on witness data corrects a misalignment of incentives that may have inadvertently created more bloat in the UTXO set.

That looks better

Perhaps... but it still does not say that segwit should be adopted before a simple maxblocksize bump. Let alone that doing otherwise would be a mistake.

[jackg]

I just said that your link didn't seem to support it.
Something like this may have been better: https://decentralize.today/segregated-witness-and-aligning-economic-incentives-with-resource-costs-7d987b135c00#.vd2s787t3

Segregated witness therefore has two main effects on the fees paid by bitcoin users. Firstly, segregated witness reduces the overall cost of transactions by discounting witness data and increasing the capacity of the bitcoin blockchain. Secondly, segregated witness’ discount on witness data corrects a misalignment of incentives that may have inadvertently created more bloat in the UTXO set.

That looks better

Perhaps... but it still does not say that segwit should be adopted before a simple maxblocksize bump. Let alone that doing otherwise would be a mistake.

But the blocksize issue leaves a large problem though doesn't it? What does it increase to? when does it end?
If we double it to 2MB then we'll still have the same problem and people will continue to say "we need to double the block size limit because my transaction without any fees is taking a few hours to go through the network".

There is no saying that it should or shouldn't be added before increasing the block size and arguably increasing the block size would be a simpler task (I mean it requires less theory behind it). Segwit will though also decrease the blockchain size for full nodes that are currently running bitcoin core.

The hard disk drive technology is improving to increase the capacity of them but not as fast as the blockchain is growing. If we continue without finding ways to reduce the blockchain size, in a few years, full nodes will be on petabyte group-owned servers that will slow the network and lead to a less amount of centralisation (reducing the block size but uite a dramatic amount will be useful and can be done with segwit - read the article if in doubt).

[jbreher]

Segwit will though also decrease the blockchain size for full nodes that are currently running bitcoin core.

Not for fully-validating nodes (which to me seems synonymous with full nodes - perhaps you have a weird definition) it does not. SegWit actually increases the storage required for a full copy of the blockchain.

The hard disk drive technology is improving to increase the capacity of them but not as fast as the blockchain is growing.

Nonsense. Find me an HDD of recent manufacture that is not capacious enough to hold the blockchain.

[jackg]

Segwit will though also decrease the blockchain size for full nodes that are currently running bitcoin core.

Not for fully-validating nodes (which to me seems synonymous with full nodes - perhaps you have a weird definition) it does not. SegWit actually increases the storage required for a full copy of the blockchain.

The hard disk drive technology is improving to increase the capacity of them but not as fast as the blockchain is growing.

Nonsense. Find me an HDD of recent manufacture that is not capacious enough to hold the blockchain.

Not now in the future. If the blockchain has grown by 20GB this year and continues to increase yearly growth then larger hard drives are needed which may slow down the network due to more bandwidth required.
If segwit takes up more space then it shouldn't be used now. As that was what it was supposed to do, decrease transaction sizes!

[jbreher]

Segwit will though also decrease the blockchain size for full nodes that are currently running bitcoin core.

Not for fully-validating nodes (which to me seems synonymous with full nodes - perhaps you have a weird definition) it does not. SegWit actually increases the storage required for a full copy of the blockchain.

The hard disk drive technology is improving to increase the capacity of them but not as fast as the blockchain is growing.

Nonsense. Find me an HDD of recent manufacture that is not capacious enough to hold the blockchain.

Not now in the future. If the blockchain has grown by 20GB this year and continues to increase yearly growth then larger hard drives are needed which may slow down the network due to more bandwidth required.

Larger hard drives are not a problem. Today, the 'sweet spot' for HDDs, based on price, is 4TB drives costing about 0.125 BTC. 10TB HDDs are widely available. 12TB and 14TB drives will be coming online this year, and 20TB drives are in the planning stages.

If segwit takes up more space then it shouldn't be used now. As that was what it was supposed to do, decrease transaction sizes!

No, SegWit was not designed to decrease transaction sizes. Where did you get that idea?

[franky1]

im still laughing at people who "love" core/blockstream

saying how they are
ok with bloating a 2-in2-out tx upto a few kilobytes purely to make the transaction TEMPORARILY confidential. but PERMANENTLY bloated.
ok with having tx's locked into 3-5 day maturities (CLTV frozen funds)
ok with chargebacks (CSV revoke codes)
ok with permissioned 2 party authorised transactions (LN)
ok with third party management (LN outsourced management)
ok with fee penalties

and ill say it again ok with bloating each transaction that was ~400byte to become over 1kb.

but if anyone ever hints that core Devs should lose their grip of spoonfeeding the code... everyone goes insane

the funny thing is that the core sheeple think that segwit is a boost from ~2500tx to 4500tx.. yet thats if everyone, yes everyone uses segwit.
but by the time everyone made the switch. confidential payments would be bloating things up again causing the transaction count per block to decrease while the size per transaction increases.

[hv_]

Mm , can't find

Step 0:  Fixing scalability ( by simplifying code e.g. drop the line that has the 1MB ) that would be most recommended and the nobrainer all could agree on.


 

Then why do all the brains in the heads of the development community disagree fundamentally with that approach? Because of the sighashing scaling problem, the solution to which is a part of the Segwit fork.

Bigger blocks using the present sighashing code can increase the time it takes to compute signature hashes by an unsustainable factor, even 1MB blocks with complex chains of transactions can take a worryingly long amount of time to validate. This presents an unacceptable network coherence risk without increasing the base blocksize.


And that's not even considering the threat to decentralisation of Bitcoin nodes. The current price spike has buoyed the node count, but it's not much of an improvement. The base size should be increased, but not before the trend in the node count is improving consistently. Confidence in the Bitcoin network depends in part on how widely distributed the nodes are. With the trends the way they are now, there is too much of a risk that the node count would slump, and that would harm confidence in the currency itself, i.e. the market price that everyone gets so excited about

Can you put a number to your brains? And BS payed brains will condense down to 1 here!
Why do you think so much Keynsian and try to regulate things ?

Better and Bitcoiner is to think Austrian: Remove rules as much as possible, project the bitcoin protocol to its absolute minimum and let the market participants decide what they could provide. Now you ll get an infinite number of brains connected and the thing gets anti-fragile!

Stupid rules are for brainless ones.

[franky1]

lol solution to sighash scaling is simple.

limit how many sigops a tx can do. no single person needs to ever produce a tx with 80,000 sigops or 20,000 or even 1000..

afterall a LN tx is just a 2in 2out transaction, so thinking that the quadratic/linear doomsday impacts LN is false

also LN requires 2 signatures so one party would refuse to sign if they see another party is doing something funky to a tx. so a tx wont even be accepted with only one signature. so that keeps both parties in a 'mutually assured destruction/mutual agreement to benefit' paradigm to not have issues with malleability.

but core devs have forgot how to make code rules. and have put their banker hats on and decided 'market' rules are better.
such as
not making DDoS protection code for LN, but instead give penalty fee's to hub 'customers' if they dont do things a certain way.
not have the onchain tx fee reactive to actual demand of blockspace, but averaged biasedly in an ever increasing amount over x blocks.

[hv_]

lol solution to sighash scaling is simple.

limit how many sigops a tx can do. no single person needs to ever produce a tx with 80,000 sigops or 20,000 or even 1000..

afterall a LN tx is just a 2in 2out transaction, so thinking that the quadratic/linear doomsday impacts LN is false

also LN requires 2 signatures so one party would refuse to sign if they see another party is doing something funky to a tx. so a tx wont even be accepted with only one signature. so that keeps both parties in a 'mutually assured destruction/mutual agreement to benefit' paradigm to not have issues with malleability.

but core devs have forgot how to make code rules. and have put their banker hats on and decided 'market' rules are better.
such as
not making DDoS protection code for LN, but instead give penalty fee's to hub 'customers' if they dont do things a certain way.
not have the onchain tx fee reactive to actual demand of blockspace, but averaged biasedly in an ever increasing amount over x blocks.

And now think of the case LN or similar side chain channels might attract high volumes and people in some years, onchain tx fees are getting extreme high for individuals, so miners are given great attack vector DDoSing LN. Where should all these needed tx go through? Into the 1MB ?

Never ever concentrate such scalings into to big too fail solutions!

[franky1]

Never ever concentrate such scalings into to big too fail solutions!

LN has a niche market for gamblers, day traders, adsense and faucets.
but if you look at the stats. most NORMAL people only transact using fiat 42 times a month.
so if normal people swapped using fiat to use bitcoin. they would use bitcoin far less than 42 times a month due to bitcoin not being available for all retail, public services.

LN should be a side solution for the high use people. but NOT forcing everyone to use LN permissioned transactions

the funny thing is core KNOW that 4mb is no issue for the network.
the problem is they want to bloat that 4mb allowance with features like confidential transactions, rather than allowing 2mb-4mb of lean transactions.

plus this fake gesture core want to offer, is a one time boost that depreciates faster than it will boost.
causing effectively no long term benefit. and still requiring us to be spoonfed.

however a dynamic block allows the community to decide when to grow. obviously if nodes cant cope with certain growth, they wont change the setting to flag desire for growth. and consensus wont allow growth unless majority can cope.

we dont need devs to decide what is possible or not. especially when they are biased saying 2mb is too much one day, but suddenly 4mb is ok the next day they suddenly need it for their features.

let me guess though blockstream sheeple will jump in to reply "one billion terrabyte blocks tomorrow" without explaining the rational concept of CONSENSUS and slow NATURAL and PROGRESSIVE growth of time

but core are not devs, they are economists now.
their mindset is less about using code to expand bitcoin, but instead
limit supply of space, increase the price of space and force people into commercial services(charging fe's/penalties to repay blockstream investors)

if anyone thinks the network cant cope with 2mb thus 1mb should remain then why the F**k are core now ok with 4mb to allow extra space to fit their bloated features.

bitcoin should remain as the lean transaction network. let the bloated features go offchain.

[Carlton Banks]

Can you put a number to your brains? And BS payed brains will condense down to 1 here!
Why do you think so much Keynsian and try to regulate things ?

If you don't want rules and regulations, you've been using the wrong system. Bitcoin cannot operate without rules, enforcing scarcity or the property rights of the holders would be impossible without rules.

And while Bitcoin is peer 2 peer when sending transactions, it is the underlying rules that make that possible. Having multiple sets of rules would not create any kind of a stable system, and hence a currency with multiple sets of rules cannot have a stable market price.

And you clearly don't understand Austrian Economics either. You have a lot of reading to do.

[franky1]

just to clarify some trolls points

bitcoin blocksize has 3 rules

core for instance has:
protocol size 32mb(bet most dont know that)
node preference 1mb base 4mb weight
pool preference 0.7mb base (but the pools have upped this themselves to 0.999mb after release)

while pools are at 0.7-0.999mb,  nodes can actually move their goal posts to anything they please. while still receiving any blocksize below their preference without issue.
we ALREADY have a few hundred nodes with block base sizes above 1mb with the main ones set at 2mb. and they are ALL happily accepting blocks

taking the control away from devs and letting the users control their own settings to show real community desire WONT break bitcoin.
pools wont up their preferential settings unless they see majority acceptance from the community, otherwise their blocks would get orphaned.
the community wont up their preferential settings unless they can handle it.

it does not require dev's to control when and how.. it should be a community consensus that does it.

anyone saying otherwise is just trolling for the banker backed dev's who want to limit bitcoin purely to commercialise it.

[hv_]

Can you put a number to your brains? And BS payed brains will condense down to 1 here!
Why do you think so much Keynsian and try to regulate things ?

If you don't want rules and regulations, you've been using the wrong system. Bitcoin cannot operate without rules, enforcing scarcity or the property rights of the holders would be impossible without rules.

And while Bitcoin is peer 2 peer when sending transactions, it is the underlying rules that make that possible. Having multiple sets of rules would not create any kind of a stable system, and hence a currency with multiple sets of rules cannot have a stable market price.

And you clearly don't understand Austrian Economics either. You have a lot of reading to do.

Good stuff - reading, yes it is. And thank you you are doing it and even writing back. Not from all we can say this!  I m sure we can agree on the minimal rule set needed.

Next level is implementing and understanding and recursive learnig and fixing things. Since this is mostly complex and nobody really can get all things right, we must have to agree on simplicity first -> minimal rule set.

1MB limit drops out here.... Try it out (maybe recursively ) and we will ALL learn and shake hands later.

[cryptoanarchist]

I'm with you, OP. This forum was hijacked a long time ago and now Core dev has been completely taken over by the crazies. The Segwit code is the kind of mess I'd expect from the lunatic trolls of the establishment.

When the fork happens, I'll be trading out my btc for btu.

[TKeenan]

When the fork happens, I'll be trading out my btc for btu.

Yep - everyone will also