"Initially I liked segwit but then..."

[jonald_fyookball]

i am finding this reddit article quite interesting.
I think it lays out some of the considerations
of segwit vs bitcoin unlimited.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/

[1715266487]

1715266487

[1715266487]

1715266487

[1715266487]

1715266487

[1715266487]

1715266487

[vnvizow]

i am finding this reddit article quite interesting.
I think it lays out some of the considerations
of segwit vs bitcoin unlimited.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/

Yup, never Segwit. The lightning network will kill the backbone of bitcoin, mining. Which is why miners are against it and the current network spamming is not helping at all

[xskl0]

i am finding this reddit article quite interesting.
I think it lays out some of the considerations
of segwit vs bitcoin unlimited.

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/

If BU unlimited is applied, then will be 2 differents bitcoins like happened with ethereum?

[BillyBobZorton]

Bitcoin Unlimited is a scam, Segwit and Lightning are supported by the real experts such as Nick Szabo and Andreas Antonopoulos.

https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html

These necessary tradeoffs, sacrificing performance in order to achieve the security necessary for independent, seamlessly global, and automated integrity, mean that the Bitcoin blockchain itself cannot possibly come anywhere near Visa transaction-per-second numbers and maintain the automated integrity that creates its distinctive advantages versus these traditional financial systems. Instead, a less trust-minimized peripheral payment network (possibly Lightning ) will be needed to bear a larger number of lower-value bitcoin-denominated transactions than Bitcoin blockchain is capable of, using the Bitcoin blockchain to periodically settle with one high-value transaction batches of peripheral network transactions.

Every day that passes without segwit sectivated = another wasted day to keep innovating and moving forward.

[jonald_fyookball]

Bitcoin Unlimited is a scam, Segwit and Lightning are supported by the real experts such as Nick Szabo and Andreas Antonopoulos.

https://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html

These necessary tradeoffs, sacrificing performance in order to achieve the security necessary for independent, seamlessly global, and automated integrity, mean that the Bitcoin blockchain itself cannot possibly come anywhere near Visa transaction-per-second numbers and maintain the automated integrity that creates its distinctive advantages versus these traditional financial systems. Instead, a less trust-minimized peripheral payment network (possibly Lightning ) will be needed to bear a larger number of lower-value bitcoin-denominated transactions than Bitcoin blockchain is capable of, using the Bitcoin blockchain to periodically settle with one high-value transaction batches of peripheral network transactions.

Every day that passes without segwit sectivated = another wasted day to keep innovating and moving forward.

Szabo says absolutely nothing about segwit in the link you posted. 

[franky1]

(ill try to be unbiased as possible.. do not take my speaking about the issues as being biased. take it as being honest about the issues.)
i mentioned segwits faults as far back as last april.

the response about the anyonecanspend threat. was to NOT have segwit keys activated in the wallet section in any of the 0.13.x versions. and wont release a segwit wallet version until AFTER segwit activates as a further measure to prevent the anyonecanspend risks.

they also invented FIBRE as the 'upstream filters' of the network. basically making core the gatekeepers of the network.
this alone is centralizing the network to treat anything not segwit as second class that doesnt need to truly validate the network

these 2 things combined may prevent an attack now. but does not mitigate risks of attack in the future once segwit keys are publicly usable onchain. because malicious users will just grab a unconfirmed tx from a segwit node and then push it through a native node and native pool to mess with it.

yep a simple copy and paste from a new node to an old node makes it possible to mess with the transaction. even if segwit nodes have been designed to prevent relaying unconfirmed segwit tx's to old nodes. it doesnt stop someone manually doing it. or personally tweaking their segwit node to allow it through.. BIG RISK


the other things like all the 'fixes' are only attainable by users who use segwit keys. its not an instant permenent 100% for everyone as soon as segwit activates. it just in simple terms. disarms segwit key users.
again for emphasis. it only works for people who use segwit keys

but ofcourse malicious people wont use segwit keys so they wont be disarmed. so the problems are not fixed.


proper fixes are
1. real blocksize increase so that ALL keys native or new get more buffer space and more transaction flow.
2. a new priority formulae that actually punishes bloaters and respenders rather than just being a rich vs poor snobby formulae
3. tx sigop limits to actually prevent sigop spamming

[aarturka]

meanwhile SegWit activation is underway at full throttle...  

[franky1]

meanwhile SegWit activation is underway at full throttle...  
https://i.imgur.com/XZSa3NG.png

26%
http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-2k.png
atleast use real numbers that actually matter. yep the link i posted is from the blockstreamer at the center of programming segwit. so you cant take it as being biased against segwit if its sourced by segwit dev.

otherwise if you are just gonna use hourly/daily numbers, you'll be endlessly posting 144 times a day, every time a single block changes the %

but if we were to use your silly graphic.. it shows 60% undecided either way.