Do you think BTC SegWit will be activated?

[d.kevin29]

So BU is trying as much as possible to block SegWit for BTC and vice-versa.. do you think SegWit will ever be activated on Bitcoin during these 26-activation periods?

EDIT: I just noticed I posted in the wrong category.

[lurker10]

Hope not. Segwit is too much unknown, it could kill Bitcoin.

[X-ray]

So BU is trying as much as possible to block SegWit for BTC and vice-versa.. do you think SegWit will ever be activated on Bitcoin during these 26-activation periods?

EDIT: I just noticed I posted in the wrong category.

The possible thing to activated SegWit through UASF, but it's a terrible way in my mind. It likes forced to fork the chain and it will be splitting the bitcoin chain as what will happen if bitcoin unlimited gets activated in the future.

[alyssa85]

No, is the short answer.

I think Segwit will be activated for Litecoin, and people will be told, why don't you use LTC for segwit related activities. Then it will turn out no-one actually uses it at all, and the whole thing will fall flat.

Loads of little alts now have segwit, eg digibyte and some others, so plenty of segwit around for the afficionados without involving bitcoin!

[Ayers]

So BU is trying as much as possible to block SegWit for BTC and vice-versa.. do you think SegWit will ever be activated on Bitcoin during these 26-activation periods?

EDIT: I just noticed I posted in the wrong category.

they are making a nice match there, but bu is not getting more voting for now, they are about equalt at 38 vs 34 %, let's see how the things will goes

Hope not. Segwit is too much unknown, it could kill Bitcoin.

it was tested many times, what is unknown excatly and how it can kill bitccoin? i don't see any worry here, only miners are converned on less fee gained if segwit plus LN will be adopted, other than that segwit alone will be fine

[lurker10]

Hope not. Segwit is too much unknown, it could kill Bitcoin.

it was tested many times, what is unknown excatly and how it can kill bitccoin? i don't see any worry here, only miners are converned on less fee gained if segwit plus LN will be adopted, other than that segwit alone will be fine

It had problems on the testnet only a month ago, this is in the Bitcoin dev mailing list. It does have issues. Most important, you can't undo it through a hardfork if it goes bad. Meaning if there is a big problem and it surfaces after Segwit activation Bitcoin is completely fucked. I hope Segwit doesn't activate, Bitcoin works great as a crypto reserve currency and the crypto settlement network in its current form.

[n0ne]

As users quoted it has been found through the testnet that a lot of features will be lost paving path for a little positive response. So most probable the segwit activation won't happen, but we cannot be sure as the miners support may vary any time. Right now without any problem bitcoin is​ developing itself in a better way.

[Anno MMXVI]

Hope not. Segwit is too much unknown, it could kill Bitcoin.

May you explain us why SegWit would kill Bitcoin ? This is just a blocks reorganisation so that we can fit more transactions in the same block size, so what is the problem ?

[European Central Bank]

i don't think it'll ever happen. bitcoin's too much in the hands of a small number of miners. i also don't believe we'll ever get bigger blocks. the people pushing them so far are too incompetent and childish.

question is what will the market do with a bitcoin that won't change? i don't think it's gonna put up with it forever.

[lurker10]

Hope not. Segwit is too much unknown, it could kill Bitcoin.

May you explain us why SegWit would kill Bitcoin ? This is just a blocks reorganisation so that we can fit more transactions in the same block size, so what is the problem ?

It had problems on the testnet only a month ago, this is in the Bitcoin dev mailing list. It does have issues. Most important, you can't undo it through a hardfork if it goes bad. Meaning if there is a big problem and it surfaces after Segwit activation Bitcoin is completely fucked. I hope Segwit doesn't activate, Bitcoin works great as a crypto reserve currency and the crypto settlement network in its current form.

BU/Classic/BIP100 have a goal to just fit more transactions in the same block.
Segwit is much more than that, it is too complex to be sure it has no fatal bugs. It cannot be undone through a hardfork if the fatal vulnerability happens to be found in Segwit code.

[lurker10]

i don't think it'll ever happen. bitcoin's too much in the hands of a small number of miners. i also don't believe we'll ever get bigger blocks. the people pushing them so far are too incompetent and childish.

question is what will the market do with a bitcoin that won't change? i don't think it's gonna put up with it forever.

Bigger blocks may be better than no change, no change is better than Segwit.
No change is the safest outcome.

Bitcoin should be a safe haven to store crypto wealth, and no change should be preferred over all the other outcomes.
Bitcoin works great as a crypto reserve and crypto settlement network, it has proven to be safe and should be left alone, except bugfixes.

There is a bunch of coins that developers can use as testing ground for their innovations, Bitcoin is just too big for that, too big to fail.

[European Central Bank]

Bigger blocks may be better than no change, no change is better than Segwit.
No change is the safest outcome.

Bitcoin should be a safe haven to store crypto wealth, and no change should be preferred over all the other outcomes.
Bitcoin works great as a crypto reserve and crypto settlement network, it has proven to be safe and should be left alone, except bugfixes.

the question is who's going to be settling on it?

apart from dollar signs, most users were sold on the idea of low fees and quick transactions, even though that was a really stupid way to sell it because it could never last.

most users also ain't clever or interested enough to use the most secure network if  it costs them too much. they'll switch to the most convenient one even if it incredibly flawed. and most people here are in it for the quick bucks anyway. very few actually need what bitcoin offers.  

[lurker10]

Bigger blocks may be better than no change, no change is better than Segwit.
No change is the safest outcome.

Bitcoin should be a safe haven to store crypto wealth, and no change should be preferred over all the other outcomes.
Bitcoin works great as a crypto reserve and crypto settlement network, it has proven to be safe and should be left alone, except bugfixes.

the question is who's going to be settling on it?

apart from dollar signs, most users were sold on the idea of low fees and quick transactions, even though that was a really stupid way to sell it because it could never last.

most users also ain't clever or interested enough to use the most secure network if  it costs them too much. they'll switch to the most convenient one even if it incredibly flawed. and most people here are in it for the quick bucks anyway. very few actually need what bitcoin offers.  

The only thing that makes Bitcoin preferred over other cryptocurrencies is stability and safety. Activating Segwit is such a huge change that it will remove this stability and safety - the competing advantage of Bitcoin. If Segwit is activated and Bitcoin loses this stability safe haven status, why not go for coins that are technologically much more superior? Bitcoin with Segwit will offer the same level of safety as these other coins but will be much more backward technologically, so it makes no sense to stay in Bitcoin with Segwit.

[d.kevin29]

It's pretty hard right now, after so many replies, to answer everyone's posts so I'll make an answer for everyone above me.

Thanks for the ideas and opinions - I read things I wouldn't have thought of before. I thought Segwit would be a good change because of bigger block sizes and stuff, but it all depends on the big miners (probably the Chinese). I still got one unanswered question yet: how will we handle 1MB block sizes in a few years if right now it keeps becoming harder and harder for transactions to get confirmed and there keep summing up more and more unconfirmed transactions everyday? Even I, out of 10 transactions, have 2-3 for which I have to wait +12hours which is NOT normal, and I pay +$0.35 in fees per transaction.

I looked Segwit up for a while and read as much as I could. I might have not understood 100% the way it works and why it is implemented so I might have said some wrong things in this post. However, I totally agree to the fact that Bitcoin should remain unchanged forever. What bothers me is how hard it keeps getting to get a simple, small transaction confirmed in a relatively OK period of time..

[maku]

Hope not. Segwit is too much unknown, it could kill Bitcoin.

How exactly would it kill bitcoin?

Both SegWit and Bitcoin Unlimited has cons and tinkering (and danger of messing up) software worth $20 billion is an awful perspective.
The best solution would be never upgrading core bitcoin protocol, and instead move priority to off-chain channels. Bitcoin is not decentralized anymore anyway.

[lurker10]

Hope not. Segwit is too much unknown, it could kill Bitcoin.

How exactly would it kill bitcoin?

Both SegWit and Bitcoin Unlimited has cons and tinkering (and danger of messing up) software worth $20 billion is an awful perspective.
The best solution would be never upgrading core bitcoin protocol, and instead move priority to off-chain channels. Bitcoin is not decentralized anymore anyway.

I fully agree. The best solution is to do nothing. Bitcoin is a safe haven coin for investors, new things should be experimented on other coins.

[Chikito]

Hope not. Segwit is too much unknown, it could kill Bitcoin.

How exactly would it kill bitcoin?

Both SegWit and Bitcoin Unlimited has cons and tinkering (and danger of messing up) software worth $20 billion is an awful perspective.
The best solution would be never upgrading core bitcoin protocol, and instead move priority to off-chain channels. Bitcoin is not decentralized anymore anyway.

I fully agree. The best solution is to do nothing. Bitcoin is a safe haven coin for investors, new things should be experimented on other coins.

There is nothing safe in investing, surely an investment has a risk of loss, at least when investing in bitcoin already calculates about the losses to be received. with the current price  1000 $ , consider new bitcoiner  about bitcoin including a very expensive investment. but , people who understand Cryptocurrency buy at a price of 1000 $ and break up in some altcoin is reasonable .

[oaks05]

im sure litecoin will be a testing block if successful on litecoin than i think it is very possible to happen.

[d.kevin29]

im sure litecoin will be a testing block if successful on litecoin than i think it is very possible to happen.

Yeah, but as others pointed out.. it could be a mistake.

Although we get longer confirmation times and unconfirmed transactions, Bitcoin should stay as it has been since it was released. It was released to be unchanged and this could be a huge failure for it. At the same time, we're looking at how difficult it becomes to get a transaction completed. I have to wait hours on polo for a small deposit. Not sure what to say about it - it has pros and cons, but because Segwit could turn into a big failure, Bitcoin should probably stay the way it has been since day 0.

[European Central Bank]

It was released to be unchanged and this could be a huge failure for it.

where in any bitcoin literature is it stated that everything is set in stone? loads of things have been refined since the early days. and it started off with theoretically unlimited block size with a 32mb block size limit implied.

hard to change, sure. but not impossible.