NOT Upgrading to SegWit who's with me?!

[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.