The newly found block has size larger than 1MB?

[kotbi]

woot???!!! Look at the newly found block 481947. It has size larger than 1MB? Is this because of Segwit? Can anyone please explain to me?

[1714843913]

1714843913

[1714843913]

1714843913

[krishnapramod]

woot???!!! Look at the newly found block 481947. It has size larger than 1MB? Is this because of Segwit? Can anyone please explain to me?

Yes, it is because of Segwit. Segwit is a block size increase up to a maximum of 4 MB with an average limit of 2 MB.

https://blockchain.info/block-height/481947

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#block-capacitysize-increase

[kotbi]

woot???!!! Look at the newly found block 481947. It has size larger than 1MB? Is this because of Segwit? Can anyone please explain to me?

Yes, it is because of Segwit. Segwit is a block size increase up to a maximum of 4 MB with an average limit of 2 MB.

https://blockchain.info/block-height/481947

if so, why do we need segwitX2?  if we already have average of 2MB?

[defined]

Woot! But BTC.com and ViaBTC still mine blocks under 1MB.

if so, why do we need segwitX2?  if we already have average of 2MB?

The average is still 1MB. I now know I know nothing anymore.
What is Weight (kWU)? https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/54726/what-is-block-weight-and-how-is-it-different-from-block-size answers:

'Block weight is defined as Base size * 3 + Total size. (rationale[3])'

[krishnapramod]

Woot! But BTC.com and ViaBTC still mine blocks under 1MB.

if so, why do we need segwitX2?  if we already have average of 2MB?

The average is still 1MB. I now know I know nothing anymore.
What is Weight (kWU)? https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/54726/what-is-block-weight-and-how-is-it-different-from-block-size answers:

'Block weight is defined as Base size * 3 + Total size. (rationale[3])'

The block transaction capacity of non-Segwit transactions is the same as before Segwit, 1 MB.

Blocks received by legacy nodes will be less than 1,000,000 bytes. Blocks received by Segwit nodes, on the other hand, can be up to 4 MB.

The average Segwit block size will be roughly 2 MB, though Legacy nodes will still receive blocks that are 1,000,000 bytes or lower due to stripped witness data.

https://medium.com/@jimmysong/understanding-segwit-block-size-fd901b87c9d4

woot???!!! Look at the newly found block 481947. It has size larger than 1MB? Is this because of Segwit? Can anyone please explain to me?

Yes, it is because of Segwit. Segwit is a block size increase up to a maximum of 4 MB with an average limit of 2 MB.

https://blockchain.info/block-height/481947

if so, why do we need segwitX2?  if we already have average of 2MB?

That's the point, we don't need it.

[Lauda]

Woot! But BTC.com and ViaBTC still mine blocks under 1MB.

They have to set the maximum weight to 4 MB, otherwise this won't work which is why it's already less effective than it should be. Most miners are lazy / slow / incompetent or malicious. Take a look at the nice blocks that Antpool is mining: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/antpool.

[OmegaStarScream]

if so, why do we need segwitX2? 

We clearly don't need it and BitcoinCash already proves it and with Bitcoin Core not supporting it, I doubt anyone will be using it, but hopefully whoever signed the New york agreement changes his mind, we don't want chaos.

[Zalfa_mui]

Yes it is because of the segwit effect that requires block size of up to 4mb, and I think segwit is very needed and it will work, maybe now they still use the average size of 1mb

[NeuroticFish]

66490 Unconfirmed Transactions
Segwit ain't helping yet.  Imagine that.

Transactions will not become SegWit, they have to be sent like that.
And people (and, more important, businesses) will not migrate to SegWit overnight.
It could take more than a month to start seeing the effects. But the path was opened, and that's important.

Advertising your altcoin doesn't help it much...

[CHubert]

Hey krishna, thanks for your answer buddy. It is really helpful.

[Jet Cash]

Segwit offers many advantages, and is not just about a blocksize alternative imho.
Larger blocks are a bad thing for Bitcoin, and will stop it becoming the major crypto in the future. Who wants great lumbering juggernauts, that are being overtaken by the fastwer traffic.

I'll hold off updating my core node in the hope that sense prevails, and we can keep blocks at 1Mb maximum.

[nexus99]

Yes, we are now seeing SegWit in action. The block size will be bigger

[NUFCrichard]

if so, why do we need segwitX2? 

We clearly don't need it and BitcoinCash already proves it and with Bitcoin Core not supporting it, I doubt anyone will be using it, but hopefully whoever signed the New york agreement changes his mind, we don't want chaos.

This kind of comment makes me think that maybe Bitcoin Cash/big blockers are right.
Bitcoin is almost unusable for a large percentage of the world now as the fees are so incredibly high. I wouldn't use a credit card with fees as high as bitcoin.

But we don't need to solve that problem, because Segwit slightly increases the number of transactions that can be processed?
When the average fee is about 10 satoshis per byte, the problem is solved. The median transaction with the recommended fee costs about $3.50 now, I'd like to see that at about 10c.

[Jet Cash]

The Amish feel the same way , who needs a car when they have a horse and buggy.

Who Need Faster / Cheaper Transactions, Suffer with Segwitcoin, it is good for the soul.  

╥Aztek

Not quite a good analogy. Bitcoin was the horse and buggy I agree, but why switch to a stagecoach with eight horses, when others are using motorcycles and cars.

I think it is a shame that segwit seems to have got bundled in with bigger blocks. Segwit is great, but bigger blocks are a ball and chain for Bitcoin.

[dothebeats]

66490 Unconfirmed Transactions
Segwit ain't helping yet.  Imagine that.

https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions

Size Matters Bitcoin Cash has it and Segwitcoin has some pitiful attempts at compression by moving witness data.

╥Aztek

Larger blocks only benefits large miners, and small-time mining operations just couldn't keep up with that so the hashing power would all be in the hands of Antpool and the likes. I don't know how much are they paying you to shill such an idea. Would you like to give up the control in mining to companies that explicitly deny transactions just to make a point?

Also, poor representation of SegWit vs BitcoinCash. If you want to make us believe that BCH brings all good, you should convince us with some solid benefits of switching to BCH.

[subSTRATA]

if so, why do we need segwitX2?

We clearly don't need it and BitcoinCash already proves it and with Bitcoin Core not supporting it, I doubt anyone will be using it, but hopefully whoever signed the New york agreement changes his mind, we don't want chaos.

This kind of comment makes me think that maybe Bitcoin Cash/big blockers are right.
Bitcoin is almost unusable for a large percentage of the world now as the fees are so incredibly high. I wouldn't use a credit card with fees as high as bitcoin.

But we don't need to solve that problem, because Segwit slightly increases the number of transactions that can be processed?
When the average fee is about 10 satoshis per byte, the problem is solved. The median transaction with the recommended fee costs about $3.50 now, I'd like to see that at about 10c.

fees amounted to mere pennies a year ago, I was pretty surprised when I saw fees rose to this extent.
I haven't really kept up with the bch / segwit news, but I'm starting to get the gist of it.

Woot! But BTC.com and ViaBTC still mine blocks under 1MB.

They have to set the maximum weight to 4 MB, otherwise this won't work which is why it's already less effective than it should be. Most miners are lazy / slow / incompetent or malicious. Take a look at the nice blocks that Antpool is mining: https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/pool/antpool.

so in a perfect world, if the miners got off their lazy asses and set to 4mb blocks, I'm assuming it goes
bigger blocks > more tx processed per block > eventually no unconfirmed transactions > back to lower fees
am I understanding this correctly so far?

[marky89]

We clearly don't need it and BitcoinCash already proves it and with Bitcoin Core not supporting it, I doubt anyone will be using it, but hopefully whoever signed the New york agreement changes his mind, we don't want chaos.

This kind of comment makes me think that maybe Bitcoin Cash/big blockers are right.
Bitcoin is almost unusable for a large percentage of the world now as the fees are so incredibly high. I wouldn't use a credit card with fees as high as bitcoin.

Bitcoin is not a credit card, nor a replacement for credit cards. I use bitcoin for commerce less and less as time goes on. Credit cards are great for commerce; I even get up to 5% cash back when I use them! With Bitcoin? No way. And then you have to account for fees.

But if you think of your bitcoins as a long term investment, as digital gold, then the fees aren't a big deal at all. There are all sorts of different systems (Lightning Network, different sidechains/drivechains, atomic cross-chain interaction with altcoins, etc) that can help to alleviate network congestion and enable microtransactions, in addition to other cool things like anonymous transactions (CT). All in due course.

[babo]

cut cut

one image say more more than thousands words
i quote your amazing image explain the situation

[kotbi]

The segwit has been passed and active for some time, yet the adoption of segwit is so slow. Is there any webiste show the stats about segwit adoption?

[talkbitcoin]

-snipped stupid meme-

your mining overlords that you are currently shilling for, have already proven that they only created bitcoin cash to make more money this year. they have implemented this little thing for their profitability called EDA and they are using it the best they can to milk the cow called BCH.

{insert a cow meme with BCH+EDA branded on its butt with bitmain holding the hot branding iron here}