The Barry Silbert segwit2x agreement with >80% miner support.

[eXpl0sive]

All said and done, if SegWit2x is implemented, how much does it increase the current network capacity? 2x? 4x? How much?

[ComputerGenie]

All said and done, if SegWit2x is implemented, how much does it increase the current network capacity? 2x? 4x? How much?

Network capacity is infinite, and thus cannot be increased over the capacity of any given time.  

[DooMAD]

All said and done, if SegWit2x is implemented, how much does it increase the current network capacity? 2x? 4x? How much?

That largely depends on how quickly people make the switch to the new SegWit keypairs and utilise the new Witness space.  The minimum throughput increase is 2x, but I think we can realistically expect something like 3.5x in the near future (although not necessarily straight away) and possibly even more later as more people migrate keys.  Once people create the new format addresses, they will also have to transfer their funds from the old format to the new one (or to clarify, they don't have to, but if they want to transact more efficiently then it will help).  But everyone can't do it all at once, or it would likely create a backlog and jam up the network.  Probably best to wait for a quiet period before transferring your funds to P2WPKH addresses, if you feel inclined to do so.

[-ck]

All said and done, if SegWit2x is implemented, how much does it increase the current network capacity? 2x? 4x? How much?

The most pessimistic estimates put segwit alone as averaging 1.7MB and then 2x will double it. The most possible would be 4MB from segwit (with all segwit transactions) and then 2x doubling that.

[franky1]

this week has proved one thing

89% pool agreement flagging is possible

segwit alone only got 10% in the first week and stalled around the 34% average of 6 months

2mb and segwit getting 89% in a week just goes to show all the chest beating from a particular group refusing to code 2mb was just wasting time. if only they released a 2mbsegwit in summer 2016 alot of drama could have been avoided

Your last paragraph is misleading.

The 89% is not signaling 2mb first.  They are signaling segwit first, and there is some contingency regarding the 2mb aspect of it, but don't mislead with your attempt to spin what is actually being signaled.  

By the way, a lot of us understand the whole ambiguity of this situation - in that some of the folks within the segwit2x are in fact wanting to argue that 2x is a given, when the only part that seems to be a given is the seg wit portion..

As already stated many times in this thread, the 2x part is contingent upon passage of time, code writing, testing and consensus.... the consensus component of the 2x, that you and some other big block nutjobs seem inclined to do, should not be assumed.

34% signalled from november2016-now for segwit first.. and 2mb at some unknown time in the future(no promise/hope)

now a new proposals has within just one week got over 89% signalling for segwit AND 2mb within 3 months of segwit.

meaning the desire for 2mb exists and the majority is happy to have it activated within 3 months.

though i agree there is a major difference between "flagging" and "handling".. meaning the 89% may flag purely to get segwit activated but only a small percentage may have the actual codebase running to cope with the 2mb part. (EG they just running core 0.14.x while false flagging for segwit2x just to get segwit active. but then backtrack during the 3 month grace of 2mb)

but thats something i highlighted in a few messages that got deleted. so it seems the only way to avoid deletion is if i word things a certain way.

Edit:
seems one of my messages didnt get deleted

now we just have to see if we can get nodes to download it (once its finalised and reviewed for RC) to then get a NODE consensus... for pools to have confidence that if they made such blocks.. the nodes wont still be running old code to reject blocks bigger than (1*1000*1000).

what people seem to forget is its not simply about waving a flag in a block.. its about consensus of nodes actually running code rules that allow bigger base blocks and consensus of pools creating bigger base blocks.

at this moment the empty sybil flag waving will just cause segwit to activate, but no guarantee of base blocks over (1*1000*1000) being accepted because from bitnodes stats, it shows no one is actually running the segwit2x (btc1) codebase to enforce it

i just wonder how many blocks are waving flags.. but not running the actual implementation that has the code. thus basically sybil flagging

real funny part is

all these bips pushing hard to "activate" segwit..

but no one will be able to actually make a segwit transaction when activated...
there will be delays and excuses of why people have to wait for blockstream to code a version which allows the segwit keypair wallet function on mainnet

so dont expect utopia on activation day.. plenty more drama after that of getting people to download yet another version after activation and then the cluster f**k of drama of getting people to move funds from legacy keypairs over to segwit keypairs

[ComputerGenie]

...With Segwit+schnorr+2mb+Lightning+RSK+Mimblewimble+TumbleBit+Factom and more side-chains to come Bitcoin is settled for years to come...

It's a damn shame that most of that is not Bitcoin and meaningless. 

[krankNL]

I first thouht this segwit thing is a simple thing but it's much more complicated than I've ever guessed. And the block size thing is also very hard to understand and I'm still looking a an easy source to understand the whole idea.

[ComputerGenie]

I first thouht this segwit thing is a simple thing but it's much more complicated than I've ever guessed. And the block size thing is also very hard to understand and I'm still looking a an easy source to understand the whole idea.

In simple terms.

• There is a limit to the amount of information a block is allowed to contain.
• Segwit changes how we calculate the amount of information in a block
• By doing so, segwit allows for the creation of a block that contains more information than current blocks do.
• Because a 1MB block will still be 1MB (with or without segwit), many people want to add an actual increase in block size (not just a reformulation of how size is calculated)
• When you hear "Segwit will give us 3 MB blocks" it means the amount of information in a block will be the amount of information that would previously have been counted as 3MB (as the signatures are not part of the segwit counting)

That help any?

[eXpl0sive]

I first thouht this segwit thing is a simple thing but it's much more complicated than I've ever guessed. And the block size thing is also very hard to understand and I'm still looking a an easy source to understand the whole idea.

In simple terms.

• There is a limit to the amount of information a block is allowed to contain.
• Segwit changes how we calculate the amount of information in a block
• By doing so, segwit allows for the creation of a block that contains more information than current blocks do.
• Because a 1MB block will still be 1MB (with or without segwit), many people want to add an actual increase in block size (not just a reformulation of how size is calculated)
• When you hear "Segwit will give us 3 MB blocks" it means the amount of information in a block will be the amount of information that would previously have been counted as 3MB (as the signatures are not part of the segwit counting)

That help any?

Thanks, that helps.

And SegWit2x proposes to increase the block size too (not only information) to 2MB. Is that correct?

[adaseb]

So what is the reasonable time for the network to be ready for a 2MB hark fork? 1 year? 2 year? 3 years?

[Searing]

So what is the reasonable time for the network to be ready for a 2MB hark fork? 1 year? 2 year? 3 years?

Assuming bitcoin core just says 'thank you' for seg witness and then blocks any future 2mb block, 4 months down the road. (Sorry it is bitcoin devs of any flavor it is how they roll)

[hv_]

I first thouht this segwit thing is a simple thing but it's much more complicated than I've ever guessed. And the block size thing is also very hard to understand and I'm still looking a an easy source to understand the whole idea.

In simple terms.

• There is a limit to the amount of information a block is allowed to contain.
• Segwit changes how we calculate the amount of information in a block
• By doing so, segwit allows for the creation of a block that contains more information than current blocks do.
• Because a 1MB block will still be 1MB (with or without segwit), many people want to add an actual increase in block size (not just a reformulation of how size is calculated)
• When you hear "Segwit will give us 3 MB blocks" it means the amount of information in a block will be the amount of information that would previously have been counted as 3MB (as the signatures are not part of the segwit counting)

That help any?

This should help at least to understand that SW is NOT a long term on-chain scaling solution at all, rather a compromise and a tech sneak to get in bitcoin with a soft fork, rather than a hard upgrade.  Might buy time, for what sake?

[Lauda]

This should help at least to understand that SW is NOT a long term on-chain scaling solution at all, rather a compromise and a tech sneak to get in bitcoin with a soft fork, rather than a hard upgrade.  Might buy time, for what sake?

If you ever thought this, you're an idiot. SW is the first stepping stone towards long term scaling. A block size increase, in comparison, is nothing and aside of throughput effectively useless. Sacrificing a part of decentralization for the sake of some profit is what "big blockers" is all about.
BW Pool has started signaling Segwit: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/0000000000000000006738d26d61dfa2020379104d55d5e77a3b5ae90fe34787

[DooMAD]

Strangely, it seems BTCC and BTC.com have changed their minds and are no longer signalling New York Agreement in their blocks.  Still above 80% in total, but only just.  Anyone have any news on the sudden change of heart?

[JayJuanGee]

Strangely, it seems BTCC and BTC.com have changed their minds and are no longer signalling New York Agreement in their blocks.  Still above 80% in total, but only just.  Anyone have any news on the sudden change of heart?

From where do you get your information?

Both of them show up on the coin.dance listings.

https://coin.dance/blocks
 

[Lauda]

Strangely, it seems BTCC and BTC.com have changed their minds and are no longer signalling New York Agreement in their blocks.  Still above 80% in total, but only just.  Anyone have any news on the sudden change of heart?

From where do you get your information?

Both of them show up on the coin.dance listings.

https://coin.dance/blocks

[hv_]

This should help at least to understand that SW is NOT a long term on-chain scaling solution at all, rather a compromise and a tech sneak to get in bitcoin with a soft fork, rather than a hard upgrade.  Might buy time, for what sake?

If you ever thought this, you're an idiot. SW is the first stepping stone towards long term scaling. A block size increase, in comparison, is nothing and aside of throughput effectively useless. Sacrificing a part of decentralization for the sake of some profit is what "big blockers" is all about.
BW Pool has started signaling Segwit: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/block/0000000000000000006738d26d61dfa2020379104d55d5e77a3b5ae90fe34787

You know that I was alwas arguing against SW and many others still do. Idiots can be very clever or even genius so I take this as merits.
If core was about to 'step' with this I can only see it was a step into a splitt of our community where you had some merits for as well.

SW2x gives back of some of the community and also some freedom and opens door for compromis and more user == decentralization. More decentralization that you might ever be able to proof having strict small blocks ( and small community support and fewer idiots).

[JayJuanGee]

Strangely, it seems BTCC and BTC.com have changed their minds and are no longer signalling New York Agreement in their blocks.  Still above 80% in total, but only just.  Anyone have any news on the sudden change of heart?

From where do you get your information?

Both of them show up on the coin.dance listings.

https://coin.dance/blocks

Lauda:  Aren't you saying the same thing as me?  You can hover over each of those blocks and several of the pools are signaling in various ways that probably show that the mining pools are currently hedging their bets, no?

[Lauda]

SW2x gives back of some of the community and also some freedom and opens door for compromis and more user == decentralization. More decentralization that you might ever be able to proof having strict small blocks ( and small community support and fewer idiots).

Lol. No. Segwit2x is probably the third worst proposal that I've seen (right after EC or Jihan-Activated-hard-Fork). It's a kludge of various code, has no technical specification (keeps changing) and has almost zero community support (then again, the software isn't ready anyways).

Lauda:  Aren't you saying the same thing as me?  You can hover over each of those blocks and several of the pools are signaling in various ways that probably show that the mining pools are currently hedging their bets, no?

No. You are confused. The images that I've posted clearly show that they are no longer signalling NY. This is how signalling looks like (blocks with red in the middle and Segwit2x text), and it seems that both have returned to doing this:

[classicsucks]

I'm trying to summarize what's happening with this Shillbert/NY Agreement/Segwit2x and the current bitcoin landscape. Please correct me if I'm wrong anywhere.

* There IS code for Seg2x, and many miners and nodes are signalling support for it, but only with a header (not actually running the code)
* There are MANY proposals to scale the network and break the Segwit deadlock and scale the network, but none have majority support
* The mempool spamming has stopped, either due to high fees or another reason (perhaps it was price-rigging, which correlates with a drop in BTC/USD price?)
* Bitcoin has completely lost crypto market dominance in terms of transaction volume, and ETH is rapidly approaching BTC's daily total fiat volume
* Core devs are still not supporting any proposal that has a majority level of approval based on votes and/or signalling
* Various fringe factions have announced radical fork proposals that probably can't work, but are creating lots of buzz and uncertainty (UASF, UAHF, changing POW etc.)
* Tension seems to be mounting for an August 1 showdown
* The mainstream public seems clueless about the conflict behind the scenes
* There are essentially no public opinion leaders on the topic of scaling and the best path forward

From my perspective (no need to correct me on this), it seems that the well-funded actors in this drama are sticking to their guns. Core/Blockstream is stuck on "waiting forever for Segwit, which will likely never come", Bitmain is advocating for "increase blocksize or else", and the Lukejr army is opting for "we willz force Segwit through no matter what". Unlimited is quietly chugging along with 40%+ support, with no recent major drama.

The huge number of proposals to fix scaling is interesting. I believe that no one wants to do the hard work to push forward a proposal that doesn't get activated, so many of the proposals are just white-board mockups. Also, many of the proposals are actually just political demonstrations of power, designed to sway the debate in one way or another. Note the naming similarities and that they are similarly radical concepts of UASF and UAHF, neither of which will likely work, but both of which are contentious and dangerous.

At the end of the day, I still see a Nash equilibrium - no changes to the protocol.