Andreas Antonopoulos: "Segwit is enough, gets us 2MB+, is ready, and is safer"

[franky1]

Segwitt is onchain scaling that opens the doors for sidechains projects, having the opportunity to scale beyond youre wildest dreams.

You dont understand how it works, miners will follow the users not vice-versa. BU can fork if they have enough hash power but when there are none ore enough transactions to verify they will go down after 10 min.

bitcoin already allows you the opportunity to use a offchain service to then move value to a side chain.
its called an altcoin exchange..

[Velkro]

The always level-headed, always neutral bitcoin expert Andreas Antonopoulos has spoken

Thats why i agree with him. Segwit is a way to go now, its ready, more risky solutions that are not ready on technical side are liability to bitcoin.

[chopstick]

Segwit is far riskier than a simple blocksize increase, Andreas is clearly wrong here.

My opinion, he is probably invested in Ethereum ...

[Lauda]

Segwit is far riskier than a simple blocksize increase, Andreas is clearly wrong here.

Segwit has been extensively tested in:
1) Specialized test nets.
2) Currently on the Bitcoin test net.
3) In live environments (at least 1 altcoin).

Safety should be a non-issue considering the amount of peer review and testing that has happened.
If BTU developers used their brains, they'd add Segwit in there and we'd have a clear path forward. They can shill for 'emergent danger' later.

[Carlton Banks]

If BTU developers used their brains, they'd add Segwit in there and we'd have a clear path forward. They can shill for 'emergent danger' later.

They have, they've done a BU BIP for it in the last few days. But what's the point of even bringing it up, BU promoters have been deriding Segwit so heavily for so long, they'd look desperate and hyprocritical if it were accepted into BU now.

How could they say "oh well, majority has spoken I suppose" when the actual majority has been running Segwit clients for a month or more now (currently Segwit nodes are nearly 60% of the network)

[pedrog]

Whichever fork is adopted by the majority, bitcoin will probably split, plan accordingly, a pump and dump battle may be on the horizon where Core proponents dump Unlimited bitcoins and Unlimited proponents dump Core bitcoins they will also buy their chosen bitcoin, fun times ahead.

Yesterday was crazy, you could see the capital fleeing away from bitcoin to Ethereum, as bitcoin's market cap was decreasing Ethereum's was increasing, amazing stuff.

People are starting to vote with their money on the development team's choices, Segregated Witness and Lightning Networks have been controversial since the beginning and eventually it will reflect on the price.

Bitcoin's market cap and trade volume dominance have never been lower, and they will go lower.

Why dont you spread youre ETH FUD pump talk in the Alt-section?

Never had Ethereum, still have none, although I could have been amongst the first investors, sadly I passed that opportunity.

Why don't you go fuck yourself?

[hv_]

If BTU developers used their brains, they'd add Segwit in there and we'd have a clear path forward. They can shill for 'emergent danger' later.

They have, they've done a BU BIP for it in the last few days. But what's the point of even bringing it up, BU promoters have been deriding Segwit so heavily for so long, they'd look desperate and hyprocritical if it were accepted into BU now.

How could they say "oh well, majority has spoken I suppose" when the actual majority has been running Segwit clients for a month or more now (currently Segwit nodes are nearly 60% of the network)

'Segwit nodes are nearly 60% of the network'

that's a joke if you wanna be THE high quality tested and best dev team supporter in crypto world.

How about hash power - multi million business at stake ?


You look desperate...

[Lauda]

If BTU developers used their brains, they'd add Segwit in there and we'd have a clear path forward. They can shill for 'emergent danger' later.

They have, they've done a BU BIP for it in the last few days. But what's the point of even bringing it up, BU promoters have been deriding Segwit so heavily for so long, they'd look desperate and hyprocritical if it were accepted into BU now.

I was under the impression that they only made a BU BIP for a Segwit hard fork, and not a Segwit soft fork?

Whichever fork is adopted by the majority, bitcoin will probably split, plan accordingly, a pump and dump battle may be on the horizon where Core proponents dump Unlimited bitcoins and Unlimited proponents dump Core bitcoins they will also buy their chosen bitcoin, fun times ahead.
-snip-

This is precisely why Bitcoin should not split, and anyone who is *genuinely* concerned about the network or its users would never advocated for this.

[pereira4]

A dynamic limit at least allows for the possibility of a balanced fee market.
A Fixed limit is sure to produce an unbalanced fee market.

I am  onboard with segwit, but I REALLY like a dynamic limit.
I REALLY want to do both, who wouldn't?

I wish for less ways to wish for and more ways to work toward it

Dynamic Block size increase is the only things that sounds interesting about BU, in the end we will need sidechains to make it mainstream. Innovation will flourish, each sidechain with there own specialization. LN, Mimblewimble, Rootstock and TumbleBit are just the beginning. Sidechains will offer many useful features to institutions that want to build applications based on blockchain technology. Basically, sidechains should allow businesses to better implement peer-to-peer applications while cutting out the middleman. Certain startups will be able to utilize sidechains to disrupt many Wall Street processes.

Segwit will deliver all oure needs and shoud be rolled out asap. LN is already on the testnet so adoption can move fast.

Jihan from Bitmain (with to many mining power) + Roger Ver are the only idiots who's blocking this cool stuff.

I mostly agree with you
and so does Jihan
and so does Ver
and so does mostly everyone.

the thing that is blocking us, is inability to come to a compromise
and considering we are mostly  in agreement, its kinda pathetic a compromise isn't being reached or even sought out!

WRONG. This is a political powergrab attempt. Roger Ver's fragile ego was shattered and now he wants to get rid of Core at all costs. He is a dumb child with a lot of money, that's all. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY

Bruce Fenton asked Jake (BU guy who filled in after Roger left) "is there anything Core can do to change your mind and get you to support the efforts of Core?" He responded "no". Bruce continued, "Even if Core advocated exactly what BU is advocating as a scaling solution?" He again responded "No". This reminded me of Ken Ham's response to Bill Nye when he was asked if there was any evidence that could possibly convince him to change his mind, and Ham said no, because he values a strict adherence to his faith over reason. My point is that Ver has essentially created an anti-core cult. Bitcoin Jesus, indeed.
We are dealing with trolls and brainwashed cultists at this point.

[Carlton Banks]

If BTU developers used their brains, they'd add Segwit in there and we'd have a clear path forward. They can shill for 'emergent danger' later.

They have, they've done a BU BIP for it in the last few days. But what's the point of even bringing it up, BU promoters have been deriding Segwit so heavily for so long, they'd look desperate and hyprocritical if it were accepted into BU now.

I was under the impression that they only made a BU BIP for a Segwit hard fork, and not a Segwit soft fork?

That's correct.

[Hydrogen]

I would still like to see benchmarks on speed advantages segwit claims, over core.

I don't like the way segwit and bitcoin unlimited turn this into a debate about "block size", rather than quantifying what type of real world performance advantages can be obtained by larger blocks. They're avoiding points that would allow people to do legitimate pro versus con breakdowns on the topic.

This reminds me of old school console wars when the sony playstation was a 32 bit console and nintendo tried to convince everyone their console was superior because parts of its hardware architecture were 64 bits.

Bigger isn't necessarily better.

[hv_]

I would still like to see benchmarks on speed advantages segwit claims, over core.

I don't like the way segwit and bitcoin unlimited turn this into a debate about "block size", rather than quantifying what type of real world performance advantages can be obtained by larger blocks. They're avoiding points that would allow people to do legitimate pro versus con breakdowns on the topic.

This reminds me of old school console wars when the sony playstation was a 32 bit console and nintendo tried to convince everyone their console was superior because parts of its hardware architecture were 64 bits.

Bigger isn't necessarily better.

You can try to execute lots of academic analyis and experiments what things are good or bad for bitcoin.

You will always end up in the misery of interpreting, implementing and selling these 'good' things but you never know in advance and you just have a very low chance to predict future in complex environments bitcoin is living in.

There a two paradigms here:

1) you can try to find out what might be good and do lot of Engineering, regulation, meetings, hacking and dictating

2) you can try to deregulate, reduce the parameters to minimum needed (protocol design) and let the nature and markets find the correct way to work = freedom

You say how you see bitcoin and what paradigm you vote for.
I am for 2).  Crystal clear.

[-ck]

You can try to execute lots of academic analyis and experiments what things are good or bad for bitcoin.

You will always end up in the misery of interpreting, implementing and selling these 'good' things but you never know in advance and you just have a very low chance to predict future in complex environments bitcoin is living in.

There a two paradigms here:

1) you can try to find out what might be good and do lot of Engineering, regulation, meetings, hacking and dictating

2) you can try to deregulate, reduce the parameters to minimum needed (protocol design) and let the nature and markets find the correct way to work = freedom

You say how you see bitcoin and what paradigm you vote for.
I am for 2).  Crystal clear.

Yeah great, just what bitcoin needs - less engineering 

[hv_]

You can try to execute lots of academic analyis and experiments what things are good or bad for bitcoin.

You will always end up in the misery of interpreting, implementing and selling these 'good' things but you never know in advance and you just have a very low chance to predict future in complex environments bitcoin is living in.

There a two paradigms here:

1) you can try to find out what might be good and do lot of Engineering, regulation, meetings, hacking and dictating

2) you can try to deregulate, reduce the parameters to minimum needed (protocol design) and let the nature and markets find the correct way to work = freedom

You say how you see bitcoin and what paradigm you vote for.
I am for 2).  Crystal clear.

Yeah great, just what bitcoin needs - less engineering  

Intelligent people can be lazy. Thats a goal.

 

[Sinone]

Segwit is far riskier than a simple blocksize increase, Andreas is clearly wrong here.

Segwit has been extensively tested in:
1) Specialized test nets.
2) Currently on the Bitcoin test net.
3) In live environments (at least 1 altcoin).

Safety should be a non-issue considering the amount of peer review and testing that has happened.
If BTU developers used their brains, they'd add Segwit in there and we'd have a clear path forward. They can shill for 'emergent danger' later.

So, I would like to add that SegWit is nowdays used by more than 1 Alts

$LTC http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php
$VIA https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1840789.0 https://twitter.com/viacoin/status/855497634567651328?lang=en
$DGB already Adopted https://digibyte.co/
$Groestlcoin https://twitter.com/groestlcointeam/status/823919356065280000?lang=en
$Syscoin http://syscoin.org/syscoin-core-segwit-lightning/
$Monacoin http://mona-coin.com/segwit.html

All of them has proven that SegWit works, so right now to secure Bitcoin the Segwit is an option that will bring stability into the Blockchain.
Destroy the btc and split into two "BU" Should come up with a different "shitty" coin name - guys its just another alt - there is not any interest into something so like thst atm - hard fork is not the solution - are not being advised to operate/run both at the same time.