|
JGoRed (OP)
|
 |
April 11, 2017, 01:51:15 AM |
|
Do you support SegWit? Please elaborate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ebliever
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1035
|
 |
April 11, 2017, 02:10:23 AM |
|
In addition to the article's list, I'll give one more benefit Segwit can provide: Shutting down covert use of ASICBOOST to monopolize the mining industry. That's not exactly minor for the survival of Bitcoin.
|
Luke 12:15-21
Ephesians 2:8-9
|
|
|
Duzter
Sr. Member
Offline
Activity: 1092
Merit: 256
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
|
|
April 11, 2017, 02:34:07 AM |
|
Do you support SegWit? Please elaborate.
Most of the bitcoin experts and the developer network were providing full support to segwit. So I do support segwit, and now segwit activation on Litecoin is going faster to make it more worthy. |
|
|
|
|
|
█▀▀▀▀▀
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█▄▄▄▄▄ | | .
Stake.com | | ▀▀▀▀▀█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
▄▄▄▄▄█ | | | ▄████████████████████████████████████▄
██ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██ ▄████▄
██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██████████ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██ ██████
██ ██████████ ██ ██ ██████████ ██ ▀██▀
██ ██ ██ ██████ ██ ██ ██ ██ ██
██ ██████ ██ █████ ███ ██████ ██ ████▄ ██
██ █████ ███ ████ ████ █████ ███ ████████
██ ████ ████ ██████████ ████ ████ ████▀
██ ██████████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ██████████ ██
██ ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██
▀█████████▀ ▄████████████▄ ▀█████████▀
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███ ██ ██ ███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
██████████████████████████████████████████ | | | | | | ▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄
█ ▄▀▄ █▀▀█▀▄▄
█ █▀█ █ ▐ ▐▌
█ ▄██▄ █ ▌ █
█ ▄██████▄ █ ▌ ▐▌
█ ██████████ █ ▐ █
█ ▐██████████▌ █ ▐ ▐▌
█ ▀▀██████▀▀ █ ▌ █
█ ▄▄▄██▄▄▄ █ ▌▐▌
█ █▐ █
█ █▐▐▌
█ █▐█
▀▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▀█ | | | | | | ▄▄█████████▄▄
▄██▀▀▀▀█████▀▀▀▀██▄
▄█▀ ▐█▌ ▀█▄
██ ▐█▌ ██
████▄ ▄█████▄ ▄████
████████▄███████████▄████████
███▀ █████████████ ▀███
██ ███████████ ██
▀█▄ █████████ ▄█▀
▀█▄ ▄██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██▄ ▄▄▄█▀
▀███████ ███████▀
▀█████▄ ▄█████▀
▀▀▀███▄▄▄███▀▀▀ | | | █▀▀▀▀▀
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█▄▄▄▄▄ | | .
PLAY NOW | | ▀▀▀▀▀█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
█
▄▄▄▄▄█ |
|
|
|
|
Sadlife
|
|
April 11, 2017, 02:41:23 AM |
|
Yep segwit maybe the solution for bitcoin stagnant scaling problem, mining pools started signalling for it and started testing it in some other alt coin.
I hope the community will see the benefits for these solution in long term basis for bitcoin.
|
▄▄▄▀█▀▀▀█▀▄▄▄
▀▀ █ █
▀ █ █
█ ▄█▄ ▐▌
█▀▀▀▀▀▀█ █▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█
█ ▀█▀ █
█ █ █
█ █ ▄█▄
█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█ █
█ ▐▌ ▀█▀
█▀▀▀▄ █ █
▀▄▄▄█▄▄ █ █
▀▀▀▄█▄▄▄█▄▀▀▀ | .
CRYPTO CASINO
FOR WEB 3.0 | | .
► | | | ▄▄▄█▀▀▀
▄▄████▀████
▄████████████
█▀▀ ▀█▄▄▄▄▄
█ ▄█████
█ ▄██████
██▄ ▄███████
████▄▄█▀▀▀██████
████ ▀▀██
███ █
▀█ █
▀▀▄▄ ▄▄▄█▀▀
▀▀▀▄▄▄▄ | | .
OWL GAMES | | | .
Metamask
WalletConnect
Phantom | | | | ▄▄▄███ ███▄▄▄
▄▄████▀▀▀▀ ▀▀▀▀████▄▄
▄ ▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄▄▀▀▀ ▄
██▀ ▄▀▀ ▀▀▄ ▀██
██▀ █ ▄ ▄█▄▀ ▄ █ ▀██
██▀ █ ███▄▄███████▄▄███ █ ▀██
█ ▐█▀ ▀█▀ ▀█▌ █
██▄ █ ▐█▌ ▄██ ▄██ ▐█▌ █ ▄██
██▄ ████▄ ▄▄▄ ▄████ ▄██
██▄ ▀█████████████████▀ ▄██
▀ ▄▄▄▀▀█████████▀▀▄▄▄ ▀
▀▀████▄▄▄▄ ▄▄▄▄████▀▀
▀▀▀███ ███▀▀▀ | | .
DICE
SLOTS
BACCARAT
BLACKJACK | | .
GAME SHOWS
POKER
ROULETTE
CASUAL GAMES | | ▄███████████████████▄
██▄▀▄█████████████████████▄▄
███▀█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████▌
█████████▄█▄████████████████
███████▄█████▄█████████████▌
███████▀█████▀█████████████
█████████▄█▄██████████████▌
██████████████████████████
█████████████████▄███████▌
████████████████▀▄▀██████
▀███████████████████▄███▌
▀▀▀▀█████▀ |
|
|
|
|
U2
|
|
April 11, 2017, 02:44:50 AM |
|
Yes I support segwit. I have no reason not to as there's no downside for me. I would choose BU if they were actually better but I've heard nothing but bad things constantly on every bitcoin forum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
quake313
|
|
April 11, 2017, 03:57:01 AM |
|
I just want the fighting to stop and Bitcoin to moonMoonMOON!
|
|
|
|
|
Amph
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 3206
Merit: 1069
|
|
April 11, 2017, 05:33:12 AM |
|
i support it but not because i really find it the best solution, but because for now there are no better solution, the other solution is a broken attempt to scale in a centralized way with unlimited block, and it's clear that this isn't working
but i'm looking forward to extension blocks, which seems a good proposal, but still lack testing, i wondering if it can be added to segwit in the future, instead of hindering it
|
|
|
|
|
|
housebtc
|
|
April 11, 2017, 05:43:29 AM |
|
I support SegWit because to me it is still the only transparent solution to Bitcoin scaling solution, unlike others putting their selfish interest ahead of Bitcoin but they are the minority few
|
|
|
|
|
|
OliynyK
|
|
April 11, 2017, 05:43:40 AM |
|
In addition to the article's list, I'll give one more benefit Segwit can provide: Shutting down covert use of ASICBOOST to monopolize the mining industry. That's not exactly minor for the survival of Bitcoin.
We have to avoid the monopoly of corporate investors in the mining industry as they will be here to make the maximum profit without caring about the idea behind bitcoin and so it is really important to avoid these sort of mass attack toward bitcoin because some corporate has the largest hashing power and that is simply because they have more money,it is not fair,it has to be truly decentralized . |
|
|
|
|
QuestionAuthority
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1393
You lead and I'll watch you walk away.
|
|
April 11, 2017, 06:07:24 AM |
|
I support segwit because it will fix malleability and allow third party trust vendors to completely control Bitcoin essentially ending Bitcoin as we know it. It will finally be over once the Lightening Network turns Bitcoin into Ripple.
|
|
|
|
|
cengsuwuei
|
|
April 11, 2017, 06:35:34 AM |
|
follow support segwit
but segwit and bitcoin unlimited same issue, about incraese block size, but about compare bitcoin unlimited i prefered segwit
|
|
|
|
|
AngryDwarf
|
|
April 11, 2017, 06:59:15 AM |
|
Not in its current form as a soft fork.
Implemented as a soft fork, it creates a two tier network where non-segwit nodes are fed a kludge of data which means they cannot validate transactions fully. Also it creates a 'two bucket economy' situation where segwit transaction types are heavily discounted. It also requires two merkle trees instead of one. Without miner majority, the implementation could create a hard fork leading to a bilateral split, as non-segwit nodes would see a longer chain, but segwit nodes would invalidate that chain as soon as segwit block is mined and built on top of it. That is also why UASF without miner support is a terrible idea. Sorry if my technical analysis here is misinformed, please correct it.
As a non contentious hard fork with miner majority support (one chain left standing as the longest active chain, the other killed off), these issues could be eradicated. It could be implemented alongside a blocksize increase and the segwit data space and been given a 1:1 weighting. That would likely have received miner consensus too.
I'm certainly not technically clued up enough to state with certainty that perhaps a better technical implementation could have been achieved had it been rolled out as a hard fork, but it would have reduced the code complexity and technical debt trying to achieve what is a very poor definition of 'backwards compatibility'. It is possible that as a hard fork, some of the soft fork kludges would not have been needed, and I wonder how much more could have been achieved for such a major protocol upgrade.
So I suppose the best available option in this poll, is 'don't care'!
|
|
|
|
|
Poll
