Will segwit be activated?

[franky1]

But if people dont fix this fucking fee problem .. then it's toast.
..
Nobody will use BTC.

fee's can be sorted. not just by having a maturity element to stop malicious people.

an intentional spam attack is when one entity is respending funds as soon as it confirms..
there is no logical reason to respend so fast.

this kind of thing could be mitigated by having transactions have a 1-6 block maturity after confirm(CLTV). instead of using 'economics'(fee war) to cost people out of utility.

that way the code protection of spamming harms less innocent people while actually reducing the malicious parties.
but hey the devs decided to do what banks do best. charge people more rather then have proper safeguards for protection. (they are doing the same stupid economic mindset in their LN project too.. avoiding using real code protections and instead letting economic penalties dissuade malice)

but also changing the "priority" calculation

instead of
(value * age) /size

which just allows some rich guy to spend every 10 minutes with no fee.. but causes a poor person to only reach priority once a week/month.

we could try thinking of something that actually deals with the bloat/age/size issue. and not so much care about rich vs poor

EG
(blocksize/tx size)*age

txsize      blocksize   age         result   
226         1000000   1            4425      10min
226         1000000   6            26549     1 hour
226         1000000   46          203540    7h 40min
450         1000000   1            2222      10min
450         1000000   6            13333     1 hour
450         1000000   90          200000    15h
100,000   1000000   1            10          10min
100,000   1000000   6            60          1 hour
100,000   1000000   144         1440      16h 40min
100,000   1000000   20160      201600   5months

imagining where the priority target was 200,000
where lean tx's can transmit every 7 hours. fat 100kb tx's can transmit every 5 months. then the fee only becomes about the fatter you are the more you pay and the sooner you want it the more you pay.

rather than a richman poor man game where the main variable is about how much you own counting

[Paxful_Marketing]

I would not trust an investors opinion on this (barry silbert, ownership stake in blockstream, BTCC and coindesk, while being involved in hyperledger(bankers ledger) too) as they obviously have their own agenda. What ever happens, i really hope this does not follow the same theme as ETH.

This might sounds a bit silly to ask, but why was this not thought about a while back before we had the whole world watching?

i edited your post to show another thought you should also be thinking about.. why btcc was instantly waving happy flags for segwit.. even before actually peer reviewing and making their own node that had the rules set in october

Cheers for that. Very interesting actually. I have no idea what to make of it and i will do some research about what you mentioned. If that was the case, then what do you make of it? Do you have any links i could read up on in relation to what you mentioned?

google: barry silbert blockstream - top answer
Thrilled to invest in @Blockstream alongside a fantastic group of forward thinking global investors

google: barry silbert BTCC

to put it short. the whole list of his 'stakes'/investment
http://dcg.co/network/

barry silbert owns DCG (digital currency group) which then has investment/advisory/chairman board seat demands of many groups
you will see he is the guy behind "consensus 2016"

Consensus 2016 Hackathon will be held during Consensus 2016, a 2nd annual blockchain technology summit, in collaboration with Digital Currency Group (DCG), the blockchain industry’s most active investor.

this is why coindesk is very biased and in favour of companies owned by barry silbert(DCG) because coindesk is ownd by him

then check out DCG hyperledger

barry silbert to bitcoin/blockchain world.. is like rupert murdock to the fiat world

Firstly, my apologies for asking something that was in the top search of google. I usually get frustrated when the answer is a google search away and people ask for links, so in short, sorry for getting you to do that.

I am really shocked by this collective group. So many company names in the network that i individually would stay away from but to see they are all under the same umbrella is quite concerning! The R3 initiative and Hyperledger seem to follow the same path - correct me if i am wrong. They could easily turn into the next google or facebook, fishing for information and passing them onto government organisations to monitor and analyse.

How can we overcome this monopoly? How does this effect the whole concept of "decentralization"?

[DeLion]

Decentralize the decentralization

[RealBitcoin]

How can we overcome this monopoly? How does this effect the whole concept of "decentralization"?

It's because humans are idiots and think that the new boss will be different than the old boss.

Bitcoin doesnt change anything fundamental about humans, it's just an instrument that can be used for good or bad.

Just like a nuke, it can be used to stop asteroids from hitting earth, or it can be used to destroy Hiroshima. It's humans choice.

So Bitcoin will probably be used for evil too, it is already being used by scammers, and who knows who. So people who think that BTC will solve everything are stupid.

It's humans that are the problem not Bitcoin.

[Paxful_Marketing]

How can we overcome this monopoly? How does this effect the whole concept of "decentralization"?

It's because humans are idiots and think that the new boss will be different than the old boss.

Bitcoin doesnt change anything fundamental about humans, it's just an instrument that can be used for good or bad.

Just like a nuke, it can be used to stop asteroids from hitting earth, or it can be used to destroy Hiroshima. It's humans choice.

So Bitcoin will probably be used for evil too, it is already being used by scammers, and who knows who. So people who think that BTC will solve everything are stupid.

It's humans that are the problem not Bitcoin.

What you said reminded me of this quote:

"If the wrong man uses the right means, the right means work in the wrong way." This Chinese saying stands in sharp contrast to our belief in the "right" method irrespective of the one who applies it. In reality, everything depends on the person & little or nothing on method. The method is merely the path, the direction taken by a man; the way he acts is the true expression of his nature ~CG Jung Alchemical Studies

[franky1]

The R3 initiative and Hyperledger seem to follow the same path - correct me if i am wrong. They could easily turn into the next google or facebook, fishing for information and passing them onto government organisations to monitor and analyse.

How can we overcome this monopoly? How does this effect the whole concept of "decentralization"?

you do know hyperledger already is the IMF/government/bank plan for their fiat2.0
many countries are already involved.
bank of America, Canada, Scotland, England, Russia, Switzerland, china, tokyo, australia, to name just a few already involved and doing alpha tests on some ledgers they have tethered together.


how to overcome it......... by not letting bitcoin become part of it. let bitcoin be the open permissionless zero barrier of entry option. dont let devs push things into permissioned services as an end goal and then sidechain(hyperledgers) as the exit route

[d5000]

franky1, I understand your fears. But let's take the case Bitcoin gets LN/sidechain-dependant - another cryptocurrency inmediately could jump in and offer on-blockchain operations also for smaller payments. It could even be a Bitcoin fork (e.g. BU forking from Core intentionally). The "old" Bitcoin chain could then lose market share and the price would probably crash.

I think many stakeholders in the Bitcoin ecosystem won't allow this and will pressure eventually that a higher block size is allowed. As I've said in the other discussion we had, I would favor a relatively conservative approach, but even then we now as fast as possible need at least 1.5, if not 2 MB (in 2017).

[franky1]

franky1, I understand your fears. But let's take the case Bitcoin gets LN/sidechain-dependant - another cryptocurrency immediately could jump in and offer on-blockchain operations also for smaller payments.

but the thing is if an alt can handle XXmb and superlow fee's onchain.. then obviously cores doomsdays of not coping are foolish. so lets just make bitcoin great and not think altcoins and alternative networks are the solution

It could even be a Bitcoin fork (e.g. BU forking from Core intentionally). The "old" Bitcoin chain could then lose market share and the price would probably crash.

more like core will perform the intentional split.. only core devs have advocated they would do such.. no one else.

I think many stakeholders in the Bitcoin ecosystem won't allow this and will pressure eventually that a higher block size is allowed. As I've said in the other discussion we had, I would favor a relatively conservative approach, but even then we now as fast as possible need at least 1.5, if not 2 MB (in 2017).

'stake-holders' lol
they have no power.

NODES and pools .. you know the actual CODE maintainers, have an affect on what direction the code takes.

accepting devs empty promises and sitting on your hand hoping some rich guy (stakeholder) pulls out his blockstream investment in the hope it stops blockstream from commercialising peoples transactions into permissioned and locked multisigs. just wont work

infact it does the oposite.. if blockstream has to spend its reserves to let an investor exit.. then blockstream has to get deeper into its commercial services to get some more funds to refill the reserves to pay the other investors.

we should not be sheep and pretend/trust other people have morals. thats the whole point of bitcoin. we should not turn it into a system requiring trust.

consensus dynamic blocks can grow when the community is ready. we dont need to 'trust' that a dev will release X or Y in Z months. because having dynamic settings, the users can be in control and consensus of the majority move things.. not devs.

accepting devs empty one time gesture(segwit) that only works if we move our funds to their new p2wpkh or their permissioned p2wsh keys. and then be left waiting a long while for the hopes they at some point offer real decentralised scalability onchain(user defined dynamic settings). instead of their rush into commercialised p2wsh managed hubs. is not the route to go.

pretending that we should stand back and do nothing for the hopes some richguy pulls out their invests is not the route either.

[Soul Reaper]

Segwit will likely get activated eventually. It has a one year period to reach 95% of blocks. At seven weeks in, it has about 25% of blocks. There are ten months to go in the signaling period, so it is not over by a long shot. Anyone claiming that Segwit will 'never' activate is trying to call the game in the first inning in an attempt to make their own, less popular proposal appetive.

The alternative to Segwit, Bitcoin Unlimited, is mining even fewer blocks than Segwit. So if the Segwit solution cannot reach mining consensus, it is even less likely that the BU proposal will reach consensus.

On the non-mining front, over 45% of connectable Bitcoin nodes are already running software that supports Segwit. Less than 10% of connectable nodes are running BU.

By every measure, Segwit has a better chance of reaching consensus in the short to medium term than any alternative proposal.

If Segwit does not reach consensus, the default is still 1MB blocks and the Bitcoin network continues working as it is today for the foreseeable future. So anyone who truly wants more transactions on chain should seriously consider supporting Segwit.

[Ironsides]

Segwit will likely get activated eventually. It has a one year period to reach 95% of blocks. At seven weeks in, it has about 25% of blocks. There are ten months to go in the signaling period, so it is not over by a long shot. Anyone claiming that Segwit will 'never' activate is trying to call the game in the first inning in an attempt to make their own, less popular proposal appetive.

The alternative to Segwit, Bitcoin Unlimited, is mining even fewer blocks than Segwit. So if the Segwit solution cannot reach mining consensus, it is even less likely that the BU proposal will reach consensus.

On the non-mining front, over 45% of connectable Bitcoin nodes are already running software that supports Segwit. Less than 10% of connectable nodes are running BU.

By every measure, Segwit has a better chance of reaching consensus in the short to medium term than any alternative proposal.

If Segwit does not reach consensus, the default is still 1MB blocks and the Bitcoin network continues working as it is today for the foreseeable future. So anyone who truly wants more transactions on chain should seriously consider supporting Segwit.

?
A few trolls on this forum continuing agitating against segwit despite of any sensible reasoning. Seems, Roger Ver pays well his sheeps

[kiklo]

Segwit will likely get activated eventually. It has a one year period to reach 95% of blocks. At seven weeks in, it has about 25% of blocks. There are ten months to go in the signaling period, so it is not over by a long shot. Anyone claiming that Segwit will 'never' activate is trying to call the game in the first inning in an attempt to make their own, less popular proposal appetive.

The alternative to Segwit, Bitcoin Unlimited, is mining even fewer blocks than Segwit. So if the Segwit solution cannot reach mining consensus, it is even less likely that the BU proposal will reach consensus.

On the non-mining front, over 45% of connectable Bitcoin nodes are already running software that supports Segwit. Less than 10% of connectable nodes are running BU.

By every measure, Segwit has a better chance of reaching consensus in the short to medium term than any alternative proposal.

If Segwit does not reach consensus, the default is still 1MB blocks and the Bitcoin network continues working as it is today for the foreseeable future. So anyone who truly wants more transactions on chain should seriously consider supporting Segwit.

Segwit activate, LOL  

Don't count on it.  
Voting for it max out to ~30% in the 1st week it was released. (It has not Moved!)
Chinese Mining Pools have ~68% and they are refusing it.

Segwit was dead on arrival before they even released it.
All Core has done is waste everyone's time for a year.

 

FYI:  https://coin.dance/blocks
Current Score
SegWit                  22.70%
Bitcoin Unlimited    17.20%
8 MB Blocks             8.80%

[CraigWrightBTC]

Decentralize the decentralization

If segwit be activated bitcoin will become dangerouse for bitcoin, at least it is what I am worrying
 because segwit and lightening network would freeze onchain scaling,
 Lighting Network will cause centralization in offchain payment nodes, then the government could easily apply .

[kiklo]

Gavin has called the Correct Answer. 

Segwit is Dead,  Long Live BTC Unlimited.

BOOM BABY !!!

And there it is !! 


Gavin Andresen: “Run Bitcoin Unlimited” To Solve “Destructive Congestion”

https://cointelegraph.com/news/gavin-andresen-run-bitcoin-unlimited-to-solve-destructive-congestion

Run Bitcoin Unlimited. It is a viable, practical solution to destructive transaction congestion.

and what does he think of Segwit.

He added that Segregated Witness technology was “too little,” offering a block size increase of only two megabytes, which “would get hit before wallets and users adopt.”

 

[pedrog]

Even with Litecoin Segregated Witness is failing to gain support and only 75% hash power needed to activate it, it's better to look for alternative methods that don't take fees away from miners, they will never support such implementations.

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

[Xester]

Segwit will likely get activated eventually. It has a one year period to reach 95% of blocks. At seven weeks in, it has about 25% of blocks. There are ten months to go in the signaling period, so it is not over by a long shot. Anyone claiming that Segwit will 'never' activate is trying to call the game in the first inning in an attempt to make their own, less popular proposal appetive.

The alternative to Segwit, Bitcoin Unlimited, is mining even fewer blocks than Segwit. So if the Segwit solution cannot reach mining consensus, it is even less likely that the BU proposal will reach consensus.

On the non-mining front, over 45% of connectable Bitcoin nodes are already running software that supports Segwit. Less than 10% of connectable nodes are running BU.

By every measure, Segwit has a better chance of reaching consensus in the short to medium term than any alternative proposal.

If Segwit does not reach consensus, the default is still 1MB blocks and the Bitcoin network continues working as it is today for the foreseeable future. So anyone who truly wants more transactions on chain should seriously consider supporting Segwit.

?
A few trolls on this forum continuing agitating against segwit despite of any sensible reasoning. Seems, Roger Ver pays well his sheeps

Yes he is a supporter of Segwit. If the miners will just propose a good solution to the problems that are happening today with regards to small blocksize and slow confirmation of transactions then everything will be fine. If there are solutions that can be used without resorting to block unlimited and Segwit then it is much better. We all just need a person with an initiative and the consensus of the miners.

[densuj]

Bitcoin Unlimited is losing support rather quickly, albeit no one is entirely sure why this is the case. A few weeks ago, Bitcoin Unlimited support was on par to surpass SegWit numbers, yet that trend did not materialize in the end. In fact, the support has dropped from nearly 23% to 16.7%, indicating miners are slowly backing off from pools supporting Unlimited.

[kiklo]

Bitcoin Unlimited is losing support rather quickly, albeit no one is entirely sure why this is the case. A few weeks ago, Bitcoin Unlimited support was on par to surpass SegWit numbers, yet that trend did not materialize in the end. In fact, the support has dropped from nearly 23% to 16.7%, indicating miners are slowly backing off from pools supporting Unlimited.

Hmm,  https://coin.dance/blocks

24.3% of the mined blocks today (144 Blocks) support BTC unlimited.
19.5% supported it for this Last week. (1000 Blocks)

You might want to brush up on your chart reading skillz, because your analysis is wrong.  


 

FYI:
Where I come from 24.3% is higher than 23%, from what reality do you come from that this is not the same.  

[ASHLIUSZ]

Bitcoin Unlimited is losing support rather quickly, albeit no one is entirely sure why this is the case. A few weeks ago, Bitcoin Unlimited support was on par to surpass SegWit numbers, yet that trend did not materialize in the end. In fact, the support has dropped from nearly 23% to 16.7%, indicating miners are slowly backing off from pools supporting Unlimited.

Yeah bitcoin unlimited support has decreased drastically compared to the days when segwit was under consideration. Now once again the current scenario describes that segwit is gaining power. Personally if segwit gets in right now we may get a chance of increase in price even before the ETF.

[numismatist]

Quite frankly I would personally trust Roger Ver more than the bad boys from ETH with all the failures like the DAO and such.

Bitcoin hasn't failed, yet. But if people dont fix this fucking fee problem in the next 1 year or maximum 1.5 years, then it's toast.

I will have to consider abandoning BTC then, although I have been here for more than 3 years, it will be a very sad day for me when I will have to leave BTC.

So 1.5 years is the maximum you have until this issue doesnt become critical, because the fees are already increasing, and with this pace it will be like the banking fees.

Nobody will use BTC.

The DAO has been a blunder on epic scale, but that isn't even uncommon from BTC's history. Program code does fuckup and did on most of these crypto projects. But did that killed BTC or ETH? No, they do recover and the brave survive along with them.

"Bitcoin hasn't failed, yet" just ain't not true. Nor does anything alike some "deadline" exists. This is a new frontier, a rush of sorts, stop thinking along corporational Milestones or similar crap.

[kiklo]

Bitcoin Unlimited is losing support rather quickly, albeit no one is entirely sure why this is the case. A few weeks ago, Bitcoin Unlimited support was on par to surpass SegWit numbers, yet that trend did not materialize in the end. In fact, the support has dropped from nearly 23% to 16.7%, indicating miners are slowly backing off from pools supporting Unlimited.

Yeah bitcoin unlimited support has decreased drastically compared to the days when segwit was under consideration. Now once again the current scenario describes that segwit is gaining power. Personally if segwit gets in right now we may get a chance of increase in price even before the ETF.

Hmm, you must have went to the same school as densuj.
Neither of you seem to able to read a chart.  

Bitcoin Unlimited is losing support rather quickly, albeit no one is entirely sure why this is the case. A few weeks ago, Bitcoin Unlimited support was on par to surpass SegWit numbers, yet that trend did not materialize in the end. In fact, the support has dropped from nearly 23% to 16.7%, indicating miners are slowly backing off from pools supporting Unlimited.

Hmm,  https://coin.dance/blocks

24.3% of the mined blocks today (144 Blocks) support BTC unlimited.
19.5% supported it for this Last week. (1000 Blocks)

You might want to brush up on your chart reading skillz, because your analysis is wrong.  


 

FYI:
Where I come from 24.3% is higher than 23%, from what reality do you come from that this is not the same.

FYI:
For the Mathematically Challenged like  densuj & ASHLIUSZ .
These were the old Number, BU has increased since it was created.  

8 MB Blocks                   7.5% =>   100%- 7.5% =  92.5%   SEGWIT FAIL
or
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3% =>   100%-18.3% =  81.7%   SEGWIT FAIL

Combined                    25.8%  =>   100%-25.8% = 74.2%   SEGWIT FAIL


Segwit has failed, Game Over it will never reach 95%.

FYI2:
You wold think segwit supporters would have enough math skills to comprehend that even if Segwit receive all of the non-voting miners support,
that they would still NEVER have enough to reach 95%, it is like the segwit supporters are Stupid beyond reasoning.
Maybe if they ask a 1st grader to explain it to them , they might understand segwit is dead.