Segwit on Bitcoin has Failed , BTC Core has Lost , The Miners have Won

[kiklo]

Segwit needs 95% to activate.

Current Numbers
https://coin.dance/blocks

Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit                        24.6%
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3%
8 MB Blocks                   7.5%

If the current Voters for Bitcoin Unlimited and 8 MB Blocks do not change their votes, (either alone is enough to block segwit)
Segwit will NEVER ATTAIN the 95% needed.

Segwit is DEAD!

Suggest BTC core start working on a blocksize increase solution ASAP, because no matter what else happens Segwit is Dead on Arrival. 


 

[calkob]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.   

[kiklo]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.   

And I think many of you can't do math.

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%.


 

[Searing]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.   

And I think many of you can't do math.

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%.


 

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't care
if the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners. The bitcoin core people could care less as long as it acts as a store of value
and they keep control and the more the value of BTC goes up, the more entrenched they are that they are correct. Thus bitcoin core wins.
They have no real reason to do anything to increase block size, if they don't seem to care about mining
nor bitcoin being used as a currency. They are fine imho, just keeping it as a digital gold store of value and as such, keep the power to themselves.

Set/Win

[kiklo]

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't care
if the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners. The bitcoin core people could care less as long as it acts as a store of value
and they keep control and the more the value of BTC goes up, the more entrenched they are that they are correct. Thus bitcoin core wins.
They have no real reason to do anything to increase block size, if they don't seem to care about mining
nor bitcoin being used as a currency. They are fine imho, just keeping it as a digital gold store of value and as such, keep the power to themselves.

Set/Win

Segwit & LN are the Power Grap, if that fails then BTC Core fails.
Core refuses to update, there is nothing stopping the miners from updating BTC code and releasing it and taking future development away from the core team completely. 


 

[Searing]

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't care
if the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners. The bitcoin core people could care less as long as it acts as a store of value
and they keep control and the more the value of BTC goes up, the more entrenched they are that they are correct. Thus bitcoin core wins.
They have no real reason to do anything to increase block size, if they don't seem to care about mining
nor bitcoin being used as a currency. They are fine imho, just keeping it as a digital gold store of value and as such, keep the power to themselves.

Set/Win

Segwit & LN are the Power Grap, if that fails then BTC Core fails.
Core refuses to update, there is nothing stopping the miners from updating BTC code and releasing it and taking future development away from the core team completely. 


 

Yeah but I just see stalemate in the other direction with bitcoin core digging their heels in. So no way forward for either camp without comprise. Thus again imho bitcoin core
wins because they are perfectly happy with BTC price going up and current block size without the possibility of a hard fork.

Again if BTC continues to go up in a speculative manner and act as a store of value. From bitcoin core's point of view, anything that takes power away from China miners
is a good thing. They plan to just outlast mining imho. In 2018 80% of all coin will have been mined. Thus, if adoption happens and price is 2k plus....no one will be doing
NEW mining farms imho......thus miners will be cut off at the knees. AT that point, imho. if a combo of adoption and price pumps....better off just buying coin. Those in
mining can stick it out, but at that point more power will shift to bitcoin core. Again, may not work. But what I see, if I was bitcoin core. Set/Game/Match.

Seems WAY TO DELIBERATE NOT to compromise on bitcoin cores part. They have to have some angle they are working. (or think they do) Thus my guess from watching
this cluster from the bleachers.


 

[btcash]

Roger Ver and ViaBTC have signalled that they will support segwit if the majority does. They don't want to be the hold up. So all it takes are F2Pool and Antpool. F2Pool already said that they will support it but not any time soon.

BTW: No one wins if segwit fails.

Core refuses to update, there is nothing stopping the miners from updating BTC code and releasing it and taking future development away from the core team completely.

That is an illusion. Chinese miners (besides BTCC) haven't invested any resources in the general development of bitcoin. I highly doubt that this will change. Who is going to take over? BU only has a handful of programmers that support it. Most supporters are reddit users, Chinese miners and investors.

[kiklo]

Yeah but I just see stalemate in the other direction with bitcoin core digging their heels in. So no way forward for either camp without comprise. Thus again imho bitcoin core
wins because they are perfectly happy with BTC price going up and current block size without the possibility of a hard fork.

Again if BTC continues to go up in a speculative manner and act as a store of value. From bitcoin core's point of view, anything that takes power away from China miners
is a good thing. They plan to just outlast mining imho. In 2018 80% of all coin will have been mined. Thus, if adoption happens and price is 2k plus....no one will be doing
NEW mining farms imho......thus miners will be cut off at the knees. AT that point, imho. if a combo of adoption and price pumps....better off just buying coin. Those in
mining can stick it out, but at that point more power will shift to bitcoin core. Again, may not work. But what I see, if I was bitcoin core. Set/Game/Match.

Seems WAY TO DELIBERATE NOT to compromise on bitcoin cores part. They have to have some angle they are working. (or think they do) Thus my guess from watching
this cluster from the bleachers.

Hardly a Stalemate,
Core is not doing their jobs, all the miners have to do is fund a New Dev Team that actually want to see BTC improve.
Problem Solved.  


 

[kiklo]

Roger Ver and ViaBTC have signalled that they will support segwit if the majority does. They don't want to be the hold up. So all it takes are F2Pool and Antpool. F2Pool already said that they will support it but not any time soon.

BTW: No one wins if segwit fails.

See your BTW is just bullshit, the miners win if segwit fails.

Segwit & LN will directly eat into their profits from transaction fees.
LN is a competing service to the miners.

1 Pool with 6% alone could block segwit, it will never reach 95%.

 

FYI:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1788448.msg17834376#msg17834376

[Searing]

Yeah but I just see stalemate in the other direction with bitcoin core digging their heels in. So no way forward for either camp without comprise. Thus again imho bitcoin core
wins because they are perfectly happy with BTC price going up and current block size without the possibility of a hard fork.

Again if BTC continues to go up in a speculative manner and act as a store of value. From bitcoin core's point of view, anything that takes power away from China miners
is a good thing. They plan to just outlast mining imho. In 2018 80% of all coin will have been mined. Thus, if adoption happens and price is 2k plus....no one will be doing
NEW mining farms imho......thus miners will be cut off at the knees. AT that point, imho. if a combo of adoption and price pumps....better off just buying coin. Those in
mining can stick it out, but at that point more power will shift to bitcoin core. Again, may not work. But what I see, if I was bitcoin core. Set/Game/Match.

Seems WAY TO DELIBERATE NOT to compromise on bitcoin cores part. They have to have some angle they are working. (or think they do) Thus my guess from watching
this cluster from the bleachers.

Hardly a Stalemate,
Core is not doing their jobs, all the miners have to do is fund a New Dev Team that actually want to see BTC improve.
Problem Solved.  


 

I don't see it happening....bitcoin core would just be in the same position as miners are now....have enough of a % to stop adoption in the other direction.

My fear is a 'perfect stalemate' as an open source project theme. HOPE I am wrong. But seems like a trend.

Again, such a stalemate the other way around would be just fine with bitcoin core imho. IF as I suspect that is their 'long game' to stay in control.

Not saying I like it. Just saying, from bitcoin cores actions seems to be true. Remember all they had to do was PROMISE looking into a hard fork AFTER

segregated witness was approved. They even backed out of that somewhat cloudy promise.

Again, I hope you are completely correct. But damn, this has been dragging on for 2 frigging years now. Starting to get the mind set of a WWI Trench soldier. ie no hope

[NeuroticFish]

Segwit is DEAD!

You are right, with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this (with the risk of ETH fiasco, I know).

You talk about blocksize increase and you are right. Maybe they do. There are quite a couple of options they have and I hope that they will implement the best one, even if it may take some time.
Yesterday I had to make a payment where the time factor was important and.. uh oh, the tx fee was nearly 3$ (!). I didn't like that and I understand now much better why people want something to be done fast.

I still have the feeling that somebody spams the network deliberately... 

[Wendigo]

I can feel your pain mate. That's the reason I am forced to move some of my coins to other payment processors where I can eat the initial depositing fees but I don't have to pay any fees for purchasing things onward. I have even resorted to using gambling wallets for sending smaller frequent tx because they are covering the fees. Yesterday I had to pay $1 for 90$ moved out of my normal Bitcoin wallet. And this is the suggested median fee. Wtf?

[jbreher]

with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this

Perhaps Blockstream never wanted SegWit adoption. That 95% activation level seems to have been designed to fail from the get-go.

[franky1]

with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this

Perhaps Blockstream never wanted SegWit adoption. That 95% activation level seems to have been designed to fail from the get-go.

blockstream want it. they even let bip9 actively ignore opposing pools to reach 95% if they choose.

read between the lines of what the code is actually doing

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% under the old approach.  But we saw no reason to lower the criteria:  basically when it activates the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain if they happen to mine invalid blocks.   If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  (e.g. lets just imagine some altcoin publicly raised money to block an important improvement to Bitcoin) then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.

and when active. segwit pools will still actively ignore non-segwit pools
https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/28/segwit-costs/

Miners could simply use software that does not recognise segwit rules (such as earlier versions of Bitcoin Core) to mine blocks on top of a chain that has activated segwit. This would be a hard-fork as far as segwit-aware software is concerned, and those blocks would consequently be ignored by Bitcoin users using segwit-aware validating nodes. If there are sufficiently many users using segwit nodes, such a hard-fork would be no more effective than introducing a new alt coin.

these are straight from the horses mouth about defending and enforcing segwit.. not native nodes, not bitcoin consensus.

where blockstream failed is by not letting nodes have consensus first, to give pools confidence that the nodes can work with the pools.
instead blockstream dont care about native nodes as they have already set up the gatekeeper nodes (fibre ring network) to accept segwit pools and filter data down.

[franky1]

95% is impossible in Bitcoin, the community is far too combative, something is definitely up. Any future changes with a 95% goal will never make it either.

it can work. if what is offered to nodes is what node users really want.. rather than just a temporary gesture.

smart node users know the only way to see segwit benefits is to wait for activation and then download yet another implementation weeks after activation. and then move funds over to segwit keys (EG exchanges need to change all their customers deposit addresses and re-audit the holdings(headache))

smart node users know that malicious users wont use segwit keys, so the malicious users can still quadratic spam and malleate transactions after activation simply by not moving to segwit key types

smart pools wont vote unless there was node consensus to validate FULLY, so even if nodes dont get official vote privelidge, they should have got official vote privileges.
but again what the nodes would be given should be more than just a temporary/empty gesture.

thats where blockstream failed.. not realising the importance of nodes task in the network.
not realising that spammers will just use native keytypes and keep spamming

[Viscount]

Another one pool updated it's software to support Segwit. Others are coming soon... 

[shinratensei_]

Another one pool updated it's software to support Segwit. Others are coming soon... 

Slush pool has divided his poll into the both of SegWit and BU. With 95% of the target and that's really impossible. Although the other will be coming soon to supporting SegWit.

[ImHash]

What miners need to do is to take a leap of faith towards one solution be it segwit or BU and I hope they all realize that whether BU or Core it will still be open source and they can update to whatever software majority is using, bitcoin will be still bitcoin and nothing changes for end users other than either paying higher fees or lower fees, think about it would you like to pay more fees? if yes then don't support BU.

[Risackwpsp]

That be great see SW is dead.

[Kakmakr]

with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this

Perhaps Blockstream never wanted SegWit adoption. That 95% activation level seems to have been designed to fail from the get-go.

Why would they spend all that money and time on this, if they intended this to fail? Nobody willingly enter into a work contract to work on a project that are aimed at failure. I think they underestimated the support they had, just like Gavin & Hearn did with Bitcoin XT.

The backdoor is always there for them to implement it with other technologies on other coins or Blockchain based technologies.

[Quickseller]

Roger Ver and ViaBTC have signalled that they will support segwit if the majority does. They don't want to be the hold up. So all it takes are F2Pool and Antpool. F2Pool already said that they will support it but not any time soon.

You are essentially saying that it will only take 'everyone' to support SegWit. Also F2Pool and AntPool collectively have about a third of the network hashrate, and if you add that to the roughly 23% support rate for SegWit currently, you will only get ~50%.

Pool.bitcoin.com and ViaBTC will likely be the last to signal SegWit, they are not actively supporting SegWit.

BTW: No one wins if segwit fails.

That is debatable.

1 - If the decision to implement SegWit was that clear cut, then it would be implemented already.

2 - SegWit will pave the way for LN, which will radically change how Bitcoin is used (if this is a good thing or not is an entirely different topic of conversation), and LN as currently developed is not possible without SegWit (although it is claimed to be possible without SegWit).

3 - A very simple solution to scaling is to do a "clean" max block size increase to at least kick the can down the road a little bit so to speak. Another option would be to implement a BIP101-style max blocksize increase (although not necessarily on the same schedule).

[mezzomix]

Segwit is DEAD!

You are right, with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.

The system will continue to work with the current rules fine. There is currently no show stopper bug that makes changes mandatory.

I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this (with the risk of ETH fiasco, I know).

No. If you don't like what some miners are doing, don't relay their new blocks. It's up to you, not the developers!

[Amph]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.  

And I think many of you can't do math.

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%.


 

still segwit is holding the biggest %, the other options will not see the light ever, the only thing that miners might want to do if they abandon segwit is 2MB hardofrk i can't see anythign else, unless a new way to fix the scalability appear

i still think that the current 1MB can keep it up until $10k per coin, without having much trouble with slow transaction besides spam to try to force it...

[digaran]

Well last time I checked miners are the only winners, afaik every one is trying to take over the network with a hostile approach since mining is a tight competition. but the failure of any proposal good or bad just shows how decentralized the network is. to be honest I have no idea what exactly is segwit? all I see is full blocks and higher fees every day but I don't know why wouldn't they increase the 1MB limit like 50% because I'm sure all we need(as users and not miners and not agents of money masters) is 500KB more block size.
For those thinking there are actually spam attacks I should say you are just uninformed, they are not spam but since mining bitcoin is processing transactions miners create those transactions themselves .

[Jet Cash]

SegWit seems to have so many advantages, that I don't see why so many people object to it. Why don't you adopt it, and lets get on with getting Bitcoin accepted for the payment for virtual assets .

[kiklo]

SegWit seems to have so many advantages, that I don't see why so many people object to it. Why don't you adopt it, and lets get on with getting Bitcoin accepted for the payment for virtual assets .

Advantage
 #1 : Allowing the LN devs to steal transactions fees directly from the miners.
(And expecting the miners to agree to it.)  

Say if your really feel that way, PM me your BTC private keys & address, so I can take your money away from you.  
(That is what you are asking the miners to do.)


 


FYI:
When you don't give me your money , why do you expect the miners to give away theirs? 

[mezzomix]

SegWit seems to have so many advantages, that I don't see why so many people object to it. Why don't you adopt it, and lets get on with getting Bitcoin accepted for the payment for virtual assets .

Advantage
 #1 : Allowing the LN devs to steal transactions fees directly from the miners.
(And expecting the miners to agree to it.)  

Say if your really feel that way, PM me your BTC private keys & address, so I can take your money away from you.  
(That is what you are asking the miners to do.)

You say the miners have the right to receive a fee for every transaction, even if it is not included in a block found by them?! Never! The day the miners act as a central bank / owner of the Bitcoin system is the day we need to get rid of those miners!

This means the number 1 priority for the next hard-fork is changing the mining algorithm!

[kiklo]

SegWit seems to have so many advantages, that I don't see why so many people object to it. Why don't you adopt it, and lets get on with getting Bitcoin accepted for the payment for virtual assets .

Advantage
 #1 : Allowing the LN devs to steal transactions fees directly from the miners.
(And expecting the miners to agree to it.)  

Say if your really feel that way, PM me your BTC private keys & address, so I can take your money away from you.  
(That is what you are asking the miners to do.)

You say the miners have the right to receive a fee for every transaction, even if it is not included in a block found by them?! Never! The day the miners act as a central bank / owner of the Bitcoin system is the day we need to get rid of those miners!

This means the number 1 priority for the next hard-fork is changing the mining algorithm!

OK, you are confused. 
Miners only receive transaction fees for the individual blocks they include transactions in.


 

[NeuroticFish]

Segwit is DEAD!

You are right, with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.

The system will continue to work with the current rules fine. There is currently no show stopper bug that makes changes mandatory.

I don't agree. When 40MB mempool is usual, when people come here each other day asking why their transaction (made with perfectly valid wallets) are not processed, then it's not normal.

I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this (with the risk of ETH fiasco, I know).

No. If you don't like what some miners are doing, don't relay their new blocks. It's up to you, not the developers!

So only the miners and the nodes have the power to do anything.
And the rest, the ones paying for the service, (me included) can just go to h***, right?
No. There has to be another way.

[mezzomix]

Miners only receive transaction fees for the individual blocks they include transactions in.

Right. So Off-Chain Transaktions, selling Casascius Coins and other transactions outside of the blocks will not steal transaction fees from miners!

So only the miners and the nodes have the power to do anything.
And the rest, the ones paying for the service, (me included) can just go to h***, right?

Wrong. The others have to carefully select their (paid) payment provider. Bitcoin is your money. This means YOU are responsible - so act accordingly!

[Xester]

Segwit needs 95% to activate.

Current Numbers
https://coin.dance/blocks

Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit                        24.6%
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3%
8 MB Blocks                   7.5%

If the current Voters for Bitcoin Unlimited and 8 MB Blocks do not change their votes, (either alone is enough to block segwit)
Segwit will NEVER ATTAIN the 95% needed.

Segwit is DEAD!

Suggest BTC core start working on a blocksize increase solution ASAP, because no matter what else happens Segwit is Dead on Arrival. 


 

In my opinion this is a great news,being segwit out of the way btc core has no choice but to adopt 8 mb blocks as an alternative solution. If segwit is out of the picture and bitcoin unlimited is not a good choice then the last choice for bitcoin core was to bid on 8mb blocksize. Finally the end of slow transactions will come to be realized but let us observe what will be the next move of btc core as it will affect the future mining situation.

[Slark]

Segwit needs 95% to activate.

Current Numbers
https://coin.dance/blocks

Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit                        24.6%
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3%
8 MB Blocks                   7.5%

If the current Voters for Bitcoin Unlimited and 8 MB Blocks do not change their votes, (either alone is enough to block segwit)
Segwit will NEVER ATTAIN the 95% needed.

Segwit is DEAD!

Suggest BTC core start working on a blocksize increase solution ASAP, because no matter what else happens Segwit is Dead on Arrival.  


 

In my opinion this is a great news,being segwit out of the way btc core has no choice but to adopt 8 mb blocks as an alternative solution. If segwit is out of the picture and bitcoin unlimited is not a good choice then the last choice for bitcoin core was to bid on 8mb blocksize. Finally the end of slow transactions will come to be realized but let us observe what will be the next move of btc core as it will affect the future mining situation.

Have you seen the stats? You said that SegWit is dead, so lets embrace 8MB blocksize increase instead. But as you can see 8MB Blocks are supported only by 7.5% hash power.
It is far worse that SegWit's or BU support, do you think that miners who supported BU and SegWIt will now happy chose the least popular solution?

At this moment I think that every kind of super consensus requiring more than 80% majority to be accepted is impossible. Bitcoin community is too divided.

[smoothie]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.   

And I think many of you can't do math.

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%.


 

Math today != Math tomorrow

Be patient grasshoppah

[franky1]

At this moment I think that every kind of super consensus requiring more than 80% majority to be accepted is impossible. Bitcoin community is too divided.

the failure is that atleast 60% are UNDECIDED
the failure is that its been done as an A OR B. not an A AND B
the failure is that NODES have NOT formed a secure consensus so pools wont risk orphans pushing something that nodes wont validate to high %.

segwit fails because people can continue to use native keytypes AFTER activation. so malleation/quadratic sigop spamming still can happen. thus no fix.

the solution
NODES have BOTH (meaning core has dynamic block solution (but without cores stupid reward/fee penalty drawback(facepalm))
get node user acceptance, to give the undecided pools confidence that the network can handle what pools create.

again pools wont create a block that NODES cant handle so the solution is to involve the nodes

[hv_]

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.  

And I think many of you can't do math.

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%.


 

Math today != Math tomorrow

Be patient grasshoppah

Yeah - be patient and smoothly hoppa over to Monethereum ....

[franky1]

guys your still arguing about just "activating" segwit..
but not accepting the hard truth

people wanting to malleate/quadratic sigop spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit solves nothing
people wanting to bloat spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit doesnt get its magical 2.1x predicted tx count boost

segwit has failed on its promised before even getting to be used. because its an empty promise/temporary gesture.. not a solution

[BillyBobZorton]

Segwit needs 95% to activate.

Current Numbers
https://coin.dance/blocks

Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit                        24.6%
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3%
8 MB Blocks                   7.5%

If the current Voters for Bitcoin Unlimited and 8 MB Blocks do not change their votes, (either alone is enough to block segwit)
Segwit will NEVER ATTAIN the 95% needed.

Segwit is DEAD!

Suggest BTC core start working on a blocksize increase solution ASAP, because no matter what else happens Segwit is Dead on Arrival. 


 

The solution is already worked: segwit. It's not core's fault that miners are too stupid to adopt it. Also miners will never adopt any blocksize increase because the fuckers want fees as high as possible to make more money so stop thinking it's segwit what the don't want, they dont want any increase of blocksize.

Looks like we are stuck with 1mb for life, so lets hope for LN.

[DooMAD]

guys your still arguing about just "activating" segwit..
but not accepting the hard truth

people wanting to malleate/quadratic sigop spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit solves nothing
people wanting to bloat spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit doesnt get its magical 2.1x predicted tx count boost

segwit has failed on its promised before even getting to be used. because its an empty promise/temporary gesture.. not a solution

Okay, but even if you're skeptical about the benefits, surely it would still be better to see it in action first.  Then, if it doesn't deliver on its promises, at least it's an undeniable fact and not just speculation.  

Think about it.  If it does fall flat on its face, you get to say "I told you so" to a few dozen people who just lost a whole bunch of credibility and you're in a much stronger position to push for a blocksize increase.  All the people who are still queuing for blocks will be pissed and feel betrayed by everyone who argued for it and the majority will be screaming in unison for an increase.

And if it works as claimed, at least it will ease the congestion for a little while before we start the whole sordid song and dance again.  So the question is, how confident are you that you're right?

[hv_]

guys your still arguing about just "activating" segwit..
but not accepting the hard truth

people wanting to malleate/quadratic sigop spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit solves nothing
people wanting to bloat spam. will continue using native keys after segwit activation.. meaning segwit doesnt get its magical 2.1x predicted tx count boost

segwit has failed on its promised before even getting to be used. because its an empty promise/temporary gesture.. not a solution

Okay, but even if you're skeptical about the benefits, surely it would still be better to see it in action first.  Then, if it doesn't deliver on its promises, at least it's an undeniable fact and not just speculation.  

Think about it.  If it does fall flat on its face, you get to say "I told you so" to a few dozen people who just lost a whole bunch of credibility and you're in a much stronger position to push for a blocksize increase.  All the people who are still queuing for blocks will be pissed and feel betrayed by everyone who argued for it and the majority will be screaming in unison for an increase.

And if it works as claimed, at least it will ease the congestion for a little while before we start the whole sordid song and dance again.  So the question is, how confident are you that you're right?

-> Lightcoin ....

[franky1]

Okay, but even if you're skeptical about the benefits, surely it would still be better to see it in action first.  Then, if it doesn't deliver on its promises, at least it's an undeniable fact and not just speculation.  

Think about it.  If it does fall flat on its face, you get to say "I told you so" to a few dozen people who just lost a whole bunch of credibility and you're in a much stronger position to push for a blocksize increase.  All the people who are still queuing for blocks will be pissed and feel betrayed by everyone who argued for it and the majority will be screaming in unison for an increase.

And if it works as claimed, at least it will ease the congestion for a little while before we start the whole sordid song and dance again.  So the question is, how confident are you that you're right?

have you read the whole network topology changes.
have you read the whitelisting/node filtering.

segwit is not about the temporary gesture. its about putting segwit nodes at the top of the network so they can control the network participants.

the 'benefits' to users are empty. its al about putting segwit-core nodes at the top of the control pyramid and ignore non segwit pools simply because they are not blockstream friendly. (even if the data is moral, ethical and containing valid native bitcoin accepting tx's)


if segwit is so 'backward compatible' then blockstream should just get BTCC to add a segwit tx to a block. and show that native nodes have no issues when its filtered around.

show that pools/nodes dont miscommunicate with each other.

worse case. they use $13k of their $90m. as a thank you to btcc for the test

[Paashaas]

That is an illusion. Chinese miners (besides BTCC) haven't invested any resources in the general development of bitcoin. I highly doubt that this will change. Who is going to take over? BU only has a handful of programmers that support it. Most supporters are reddit users, Chinese miners and investors.

The majority of the whole Bitcoin ecosystem inc. dev and programmers wants Segwit, for obvious reasons. They all dont give a shit about Core's behaviour. Those BU programmers + supporters are not going to make it with only more nodes and bigger blocks  . Segwit is technical better that outweight BU by far.

[jbreher]

with current settings about consensus, SegWit has (unfortunately?) no chance to come to life.
I feel like the devs should have somehow enforced this

Perhaps Blockstream never wanted SegWit adoption. That 95% activation level seems to have been designed to fail from the get-go.

Why would they spend all that money and time on this, if they intended this to fail?  

I dunno. If I had my tinfoil hat on, I might speculate 'fiat bux from AXA' - but I have no idea.

The funny thing is that the people that brought us (entirely predictable) state of affairs are the very ones who present themselves as the masters of not only sw implementation, but also of economics and of game theory.   I guess that's both funny(sick) and funny(haha).

No. If you don't like what some miners are doing, don't relay their new blocks. It's up to you, not the developers!

Indeed. The only proper response is to implement, signal, and argue for your optimal solution.

i still think that the current 1MB can keep it up until $10k per coin

If your only driving concern is the dollar price, then your position (seemingly 1MB4EVA) might be reasonable. Personally, I rather value the antifragility enabled by the next wave adoption (and the next, and the next, and ...). And we can't make any progress on that front when we are hard-limited to ~250,000 transactions per day.

So only the miners and the nodes have the power to do anything.
And the rest, the ones paying for the service, (me included) can just go to h***, right?
No. There has to be another way.

I sympathize a little with your outrage. However, I don't believe that there is another way. Your options -- from the sidelines -- are few.

- Sell all your BTC and leave it all behind, thereby unnoticeably reducing the price (such would be a lever for large groups, but inconsequential for individuals)

- Buck up buttercup and fire up a node. Joining the network makes your voice heard. Any given node still has essentially zero real power, but at least you can signal your preferences.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think that's about all your options.

Also miners will never adopt any blocksize increase because the fuckers want fees as high as possible to make more money so stop thinking it's segwit what the don't want, they dont want any increase of blocksize.

Looks like we are stuck with 1mb for life, so lets hope for LN.

Let us conveniently ignore the fact that a year ago, the preponderance of miners indicated that they would implement a simple maxblocksize increase to 8MB. Of course Core Knew Better, and gave them 'what they needed' (::ahem::!), not what they wanted.

[kiklo]

Miners only receive transaction fees for the individual blocks they include transactions in.

Right. So Off-Chain Transaktions, selling Casascius Coins and other transactions outside of the blocks will not steal transaction fees from miners!

OK, you're just stupid.

Unlimited transactions could occur OFFCHAIN,
that amount of transactions will be stolen from the miners as a whole, decreasing the total amount of transactions from them to choose from ONCHAIN,  Dufus.

 


FYI:
The Goal of LN is that all transactions be performed offchain (like Banks), where they can control the money supply , Dufus.

[mezzomix]

Miners only receive transaction fees for the individual blocks they include transactions in.

Right. So Off-Chain Transaktions, selling Casascius Coins and other transactions outside of the blocks will not steal transaction fees from miners!

OK, you're just stupid.

Unlimited transactions could occur OFFCHAIN,
that amount of transactions will be stolen from the miners as a whole, decreasing the total amount of transactions from them to choose from ONCHAIN,  Dufus.

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

[hv_]

Miners only receive transaction fees for the individual blocks they include transactions in.

Right. So Off-Chain Transaktions, selling Casascius Coins and other transactions outside of the blocks will not steal transaction fees from miners!

OK, you're just stupid.

Unlimited transactions could occur OFFCHAIN,
that amount of transactions will be stolen from the miners as a whole, decreasing the total amount of transactions from them to choose from ONCHAIN,  Dufus.

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

I'm fully with you - the only issue is:

How to get the miners to allow competition against themselves. Most of them might see this behind SW. The bounty = 'keep 1MB limit' they don't want to swallow....

And this bounty now have led that even critical voices in bitcoin (Tone Vays,..) have swallowed the fee pill, and preach 'we need fees' , but if you do the math correctly - we do not need (those high) fees for many years!

-> SW an BS roadmap is flawed and unveiled by many critical brains. Rest of (no BS-) core might see this already ?

[kiklo]

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

When you compete with someone else , you are not locking that other person in place where they can not compete with you.

LN Locks BTC in Place ONCHAIN, once locked there can be no future transactions fees for the miners on that amount of BTC until LN releases the lock.
However LN can makes an infinite amount of transaction fees OFFCHAIN on that locked amount, while for the miners it is frozen.

Stealing is an accurate description of what LN will do to the miners.
They are stealing the ability of the miners to make transaction fees from the Locked BTC.

To get a Competition you need Litecoin or another Altcoins, because at no time , does one directly block the other from receiving transaction fees.
(They are competing against each other.)

 

[mezzomix]

Miners only receive transaction fees for the individual blocks they include transactions in.

Right. So Off-Chain Transaktions, selling Casascius Coins and other transactions outside of the blocks will not steal transaction fees from miners!

OK, you're just stupid.

Unlimited transactions could occur OFFCHAIN,
that amount of transactions will be stolen from the miners as a whole, decreasing the total amount of transactions from them to choose from ONCHAIN,  Dufus.

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

I'm fully with you - the only issue is:

How to get the miners to allow competition against themselves. Most of them might see this behind SW. The bounty = 'keep 1MB limit' they don't want to swallow....

Not all of the miners are blocking changes. If most of the nodes accept a change these nodes can ignore new blocks that do not flag support for the change. This way the nodes can create economic pressure to miners blocking changes.

[kiklo]

Not all of the miners are blocking changes. If most of the nodes accept a change these nodes can ignore new blocks that do not flag support for the change. This way the nodes can create economic pressure to miners blocking changes.

LOL,

The miners that are refusing to let LN steal from them are ~70% of all of the miners.
All the 30% can do , is what you are doing , whining about it.

You really want BTC changed and LN activated, spend a few Billion Dollars on Warehouses loaded with ASICS, until you get over 51%,
then BTC Corrupt Core can hardfork anytime they like, until that day however you are a passenger, not a driver.


 

[hv_]

Miners only receive transaction fees for the individual blocks they include transactions in.

Right. So Off-Chain Transaktions, selling Casascius Coins and other transactions outside of the blocks will not steal transaction fees from miners!

OK, you're just stupid.

Unlimited transactions could occur OFFCHAIN,
that amount of transactions will be stolen from the miners as a whole, decreasing the total amount of transactions from them to choose from ONCHAIN,  Dufus.

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

I'm fully with you - the only issue is:

How to get the miners to allow competition against themselves. Most of them might see this behind SW. The bounty = 'keep 1MB limit' they don't want to swallow....

Not all of the miners are blocking changes. If most of the nodes accept a change these nodes can ignore new blocks that do not flag support for the change. This way the nodes can create economic pressure to miners blocking changes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for big mining companies running enough nodes to ensure their interests is a fraction of their entire investment. So I expect miners overrule existing node count if sth is against their interests.

[mezzomix]

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

When you compete with someone else , you are not locking that other person in place where they can not compete with you.

LN Locks BTC in Place ONCHAIN, once locked there can be no future transactions fees for the miners on that amount of BTC until LN releases the lock.
However LN can makes an infinite amount of transaction fees OFFCHAIN on that locked amount, while for the miners it is frozen.

Why do you always talk about LN?! I wrote Off-Chain and Sub-Chain in general!

Off-Chain and Sub-Chain transactions need the blockchain anyway. There is no law that a crypto transaction might not be made without a miner taxing this transaction!

You seem to think that the Bitcoin communitys only purpose is to support the miners. That is wrong - the miners job is to support Bitcoin!

[mezzomix]

Not all of the miners are blocking changes. If most of the nodes accept a change these nodes can ignore new blocks that do not flag support for the change. This way the nodes can create economic pressure to miners blocking changes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but for big mining companies running enough nodes to ensure their interests is a fraction of their entire investment. So I expect miners overrule existing node count if sth is against their interests.

The node count doesn't matter in this case. If a miner runs thousands of nodes he can relay his own block within his node pool but he cannot force any other node to relay/accept this block.

[kiklo]

I would like to see Off-Chain and Sub-Chain solutions. This is much better than the current centralization with 5-10 miners. Competition is a good thing.

BTW competition is not stealing!

When you compete with someone else , you are not locking that other person in place where they can not compete with you.

LN Locks BTC in Place ONCHAIN, once locked there can be no future transactions fees for the miners on that amount of BTC until LN releases the lock.
However LN can makes an infinite amount of transaction fees OFFCHAIN on that locked amount, while for the miners it is frozen.

Why do you always talk about LN?! I wrote Off-Chain and Sub-Chain in general!

Off-Chain and Sub-Chain transactions need the blockchain anyway. There is no law that a crypto transaction might not be made without a miner taxing this transaction!

You seem to think that the Bitcoin communitys only purpose is to support the miners. That is wrong - the miners job is to support Bitcoin!

This again is where you are confused who your daddy is?

BTC is a worthless piece of nothingness , unless their are Miners to move the BTC around and include transactions.

So hate to break it to you , In a PoW coin the Miners are your Daddy.
You want freedom, you either have to be a PoW miner or a PoS Staker, just buying a coin gives you ZERO control over it, you are completely dependent on the miners or stakers.  

 

[mezzomix]

You are wrong. The miners are not overlords, they are partners. If they foul, the community can ignore the blocks of the bad guys.

[kiklo]

You are wrong. The miners are not overlords, they are partners. If they foul, the community can ignore the blocks of the bad guys.

Confusion is really your state of being.

Really last time, I checked Partners shared the profit,
I don't know about you but no miner has send me my share of BTC profit.

Example you want segwit & LN and all of the Fractional reserve banking it will bring,
But the miners are refusing to implement it , and what can you do about it, not anything at all. 

 

[Viscount]

So hate to break it to you , In a PoW coin the Miners are your Daddy.

funny thing is In POS big coin holders are your Daddy.  

[steelhouse]

"The miners have Won".  Since anyone in the public can be a miner, the phase changes to "The public has won".

Gavin Andressen once compared bitcoin to stone money of Yap.   In New York City using construction union wages, what would be the cost of transporting one stone of yap currency to Japan?  $100 $5000?   Say it is $5000, then how much is a stone worth $500,000.  That is what is going to happen to bitcoin.

USD = medium of exchange
capital = and object made of matter used to make more wealth
wealth = objects of value

In a couple years when ssd's become supercheap block size will increase, however 100-1000 years of low cost storage must be assured before this happens.

[kiklo]

So hate to break it to you , In a PoW coin the Miners are your Daddy.

funny thing is In POS big coin holders are your Daddy.  

If you don't have enough to stake, then they would be your daddy.
But if you have enough coins to stake even once when you need it, You are one of the Elite. Because you can guarantee your transaction is entered.  
And it is a alot easier to stake than become a BTC PoW miner.

 

FYI:
Little side note for you ,
PoS stakers add transactions in the order they were created, they don't charge fees to let someone else jump in front of them.  
They may still be your Daddy if you don't Stake, but unlike BTC, they don't play favorites, they love all of you rugrats exactly the same.  

FYI2:
Add fairness to BTC with PoS , is one thing Theymos was trying to do in the following topic.
Idea for an altcoin: 3-way hybrid PoW
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1654457

[kiklo]

"The miners have Won".  Since anyone in the public can be a miner, the phase changes to "The public has won".

Hmm, Nope

Can you be a cloud miner, sure but Cloud miners always lose more than they make, they would have been better off just to buy BTC than trying to mine it.

The real question, is can Anyone be a Profitable Miner, for that you need a few million dollars of capital to invest.
Most people can not afford the start up cost, so sorry anyone can't be a BTC miner (it is a myth that has been dead for years.) 

 

[hv_]

"The miners have Won".  Since anyone in the public can be a miner, the phase changes to "The public has won".

Hmm, Nope

Can you be a cloud miner, sure but Cloud miners always lose more than they make, they would have been better off just to buy BTC than trying to mine it.

The real question, is can Anyone be a Profitable Miner, for that you need a few million dollars of capital to invest.
Most people can not afford the start up cost, so sorry anyone can't be a BTC miner (it is a myth that has been dead for years.) 

 

And that's what I try to say: If you have done this kind of investment, you might have just enough capital to set up a vast majority of nodes i.o. to over-rule non-miner interests entirely.

[GameunitsSEO]

I think bitcoin need a update because the transaction per second maybe more people care about it.

[NeuroticFish]

I sympathize a little with your outrage. However, I don't believe that there is another way. Your options -- from the sidelines -- are few.
- Sell all your BTC and leave it all behind, thereby unnoticeably reducing the price (such would be a lever for large groups, but inconsequential for individuals)
- Buck up buttercup and fire up a node. Joining the network makes your voice heard. Any given node still has essentially zero real power, but at least you can signal your preferences.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I think that's about all your options.

No, you did good. You are perfectly correct.
Informed answers are always helpful, even if they are bad news.

I will start doing some homework. Maybe I will actually make a node.
I just don't have enough time right now to read all the info I need. But maybe....


Edit: *sigh* "It’s common for full nodes on high-speed connections to use 200 gigabytes upload or more a month. Download usage is around 20 gigabytes a month, plus around an additional 100 gigabytes the first time you start your node." I guess that I will not have a full node after all

[franky1]

Edit: *sigh* "It’s common for full nodes on high-speed connections to use 200 gigabytes upload or more a month. Download usage is around 20 gigabytes a month, plus around an additional 100 gigabytes the first time you start your node." I guess that I will not have a full node after all

all dependant on how many connections to other nodes you have.

less connections = less bandwidth usage

[hv_]

Edit: *sigh* "It’s common for full nodes on high-speed connections to use 200 gigabytes upload or more a month. Download usage is around 20 gigabytes a month, plus around an additional 100 gigabytes the first time you start your node." I guess that I will not have a full node after all

all dependant on how many connections to other nodes you have.

less connections = less bandwidth usage

And as far I understand Jonas Schnelli had done sth for limiting this upload traffic a bit, by some parameter - not sure if this is part of BU?

[SvenBomvolen]

Segwit needs 95% to activate.

Current Numbers
https://coin.dance/blocks

Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit                        24.6%
Bitcoin Unlimited          18.3%
8 MB Blocks                   7.5%

If the current Voters for Bitcoin Unlimited and 8 MB Blocks do not change their votes, (either alone is enough to block segwit)
Segwit will NEVER ATTAIN the 95% needed.

Segwit is DEAD!

Suggest BTC core start working on a blocksize increase solution ASAP, because no matter what else happens Segwit is Dead on Arrival. 


 

I would suggest solution to the impasse with SegWit: to change the name to something more respectful of the Chinese miners, to carry out faithfully executed the diplomatic mission to China, and to propose new solutions for scaling taking into account the cultural peculiarities of China.

[aarturka]

I would suggest solution to the impasse with SegWit: to change the name to something more respectful of the Chinese miners, to carry out faithfully executed the diplomatic mission to China, and to propose new solutions for scaling taking into account the cultural peculiarities of China.

what is wrong with SegWit name? Why do you think it's not respectful to the Chinese miners? Actually there's no problem with chinese miners, they don't have anything against Segwit, it's only in the heads of several BU shills. Eventually all miners accept segwit, they just need more time.

[Rikim4ru]

This is where LTC become relevant.

BTC for holding and LTC for transfactions.

LTC will get segwit and the tons of features it offer... BTC will remain fat and clumsy.

[jbreher]

You seem to think that the Bitcoin communitys only purpose is to support the miners. That is wrong - the miners job is to support Bitcoin!

The miners are an essential part of the community. Your entire 'us vs. them' premise is flawed. Without miners, Bitcoin dies.

[classicsucks]

This is where LTC become relevant.

BTC for holding and LTC for transfactions.

LTC will get segwit and the tons of features it offer... BTC will remain fat and clumsy.

Looks like you missed the memo: http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

Segwit is also failing in LTC. People just don't want it. This  is after they lowered the activation threshold to 75%, and furthermore decided that  "not signalling will be consent by default"!

[mezzomix]

You seem to think that the Bitcoin communitys only purpose is to support the miners. That is wrong - the miners job is to support Bitcoin!

The miners are an essential part of the community. Your entire 'us vs. them' premise is flawed. Without miners, Bitcoin dies.

I fully agree. As long as the miners fill their role in the system there is no problem. If some of them start to push their own agenda, things change radically.

[Searing]

This is where LTC become relevant.

BTC for holding and LTC for transfactions.

LTC will get segwit and the tons of features it offer... BTC will remain fat and clumsy.

Looks like you missed the memo: http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

Segwit is also failing in LTC. People just don't want it. This  is after they lowered the activation threshold to 75%, and furthermore decided that  "not signalling will be consent by default"!

the "not signalling will be consent by default" will likely imho mean it WILL get approved...just saying (then again the ways of seg witness are mysterious to me)

[paul gatt]

why people do not accept segwit for Bitcoin? I find it very beneficial to the transaction, we will be done quickly, all transactions will be processed in minutes. No waiting and no congestion. someone please explain to me why. I need to understand a little about this, and why the miners did not agree segwit for Bitcoin

[vnvizow]

why people do not accept segwit for Bitcoin? I find it very beneficial to the transaction, we will be done quickly, all transactions will be processed in minutes. No waiting and no congestion. someone please explain to me why. I need to understand a little about this, and why the miners did not agree segwit for Bitcoin

Users want a more permanent solution and miners of course would love to keep fees high. But that's just IMO

[poloniexwhale]

It is dead? You don't see Segwit is higher than BU and 8MB? It means that in the future, miners will vote for it, and the proportions tell us that SW will be most possibly implemented.

[kiklo]

It is dead? You don't see Segwit is higher than BU and 8MB? It means that in the future, miners will vote for it, and the proportions tell us that SW will be most possibly implemented.

Segwit has to have 95% to be activated my mathematically challenged friend  

Observe the below quote, segwit will never attain 95%

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.  

And I think many of you can't do math.

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%.

 

[Searing]

It is dead? You don't see Segwit is higher than BU and 8MB? It means that in the future, miners will vote for it, and the proportions tell us that SW will be most possibly implemented.

Segwit has to have 95% to be activated my mathematically challenged friend  

Observe the below quote, segwit will never attain 95%

Do you realise that segwit has until Nov to activate ?  i think you are a little premature.  

And I think many of you can't do math.

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%.

 

Again a side point. Imho bitcoin core does not care if seg witness fails. They at fine
with 1mb block size and btc less as a currency and more as a store of value. They will
then call it a win. They and blockstream keep control of code. Sad, but seems the trend.

[jbreher]

No waiting and no congestion. someone please explain to me why.

I'm guessing the fact that it does not bring about "no waiting and no congestion" might have something to do with it.

[kiklo]

why people do not accept segwit for Bitcoin? I find it very beneficial to the transaction, we will be done quickly, all transactions will be processed in minutes. No waiting and no congestion. someone please explain to me why. I need to understand a little about this, and why the miners did not agree segwit for Bitcoin

If segwit is activated, then Lightening Network will be usable ,
If LN is usable, then they can LOCK BTC up ,and start receiving transactions fees offchain

BTC miners will receive none of these transaction fees that happen offchain,
(it is ~$1000 per block at the moment.)

LN will get rich and BTC miners will go broke (as the block rewards cut in ½ ever 4 years)

LN is staging a complete & utter takeover of BTC away from the miners. 
Which is why the miners are refusing to activate segwit, they want to keep their jobs.

 

[CraigWrightBTC]

So what is next solution for block size of bitcoin, that is question must be answered right now as comunity of bitcoin
than debates ego without any solution. I don't know the best solution for every one but it is not about competition,
it is about the problem of block size bitcoin must be finished by us as comunity of bitcoin.

[someone111]

Segwit is DEAD!

Do you still believe so?

[sieemma]

why people do not accept segwit for Bitcoin? I find it very beneficial to the transaction, we will be done quickly, all transactions will be processed in minutes. No waiting and no congestion. someone please explain to me why. I need to understand a little about this, and why the miners did not agree segwit for Bitcoin

If segwit is activated, then Lightening Network will be usable ,
If LN is usable, then they can LOCK BTC up ,and start receiving transactions fees offchain

BTC miners will receive none of these transaction fees that happen offchain,
(it is ~$1000 per block at the moment.)

LN will get rich and BTC miners will go broke (as the block rewards cut in ½ ever 4 years)

LN is staging a complete & utter takeover of BTC away from the miners. 
Which is why the miners are refusing to activate segwit, they want to keep their jobs.

 

I supported segwit from the first time I heard about it just to read this info here. I am not going like it anymore. I totally agree with miners then if the whole brain behind segwit is about some greedy people somewhere... MINERS WILL WIN ALWAYS, MY WISH

[whitemacna]

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't careif the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners.Segwit & LN are the Power Grap, if that fails then BTC Core fails.

[Searing]

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't care if the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners.Segwit & LN are the Power Grab, if that fails then BTC Core fails.

But if the seg witness and lighting 'do work' even modestly as bitcoin core hopes...I can see this drag'ing out for another 4-5 years...with the end being you use BCH or LTC for

transactions and BTC as a store of value...both camps would then make enough on each horse to flog.....stalemate...it has already gone on far longer than I thought it could

so pretty much figure that this is the new normal

[hv_]

But Bitcoin Core does not care. They will run this out till November, no issue. They see BTC as a 'store of value' not a currency. So they really don't care if the block size increases or not. Thus it is more of an issue to the miners.Segwit & LN are the Power Grab, if that fails then BTC Core fails.

But if the seg witness and lighting 'do work' even modestly as bitcoin core hopes...I can see this drag'ing out for another 4-5 years...with the end being you use BCH or LTC for

transactions and BTC as a store of value...both camps would then make enough on each horse to flog.....stalemate...it has already gone on far longer than I thought it could

so pretty much figure that this is the new normal

They have worked very well in terms of losing mostly all transactional / business clients, supporters and such reputation and market share as well.
If this down trend for BTC and the uptrend for BCH holds for the next few years....

See what cobra and lukejnr are trying to do, next split of community.

[Tanu10]

They have to have some angle are working. And it can work.

[RebeccaCole]

Unlimited transactions could occur OFFCHAIN,
that amount of transactions will be stolen from the miners as a whole, decreasing the total amount of transactions from them to choose from chain