NOT Upgrading to SegWit who's with me?!

[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They use outdated date to make it seem like Segwit brings only a little improvement for a 'lot of complexity'.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?"