Will segwit empty the mempool?

[erre]

As far as I understood, segwit will become operative 2 weeks after activation.
Will we finally see the fees starting to get lower after that?

I hope bcc crew will fail for all the money they are wasting for spamming and pumping...

[CARrency]

As far as I understood, segwit will become operative 2 weeks after activation.
Will we finally see the fees starting to get lower after that?

I hope bcc crew will fail for all the money they are wasting for spamming and pumping...

I don't know if we will. As far as I know the block will be bigger but I dont know about the fees. maybe we will be seeing that this week.

[Red-Apple]

SegWit is already active and and it is working.
since it is also a capacity increase it can help with cleaning up some of the stuck transactions if people start using it. but it will take some time to see its real effects.

[Iranus]

We've already seen the first block over 1MB mined by Bitfury.  However, Antpool has been mining a lot of empty and small blocks.

Considering that they're supposed to be in favour of larger blocks, it doesn't really make sense, but it's certainly not being helpful.

Looks like the Ledger and TREZOR wallets are integrating SegWit very soon, after which I will be sending and receiving cheaper transactions.

[Mandoy]

As far as I understood, segwit will become operative 2 weeks after activation.
Will we finally see the fees starting to get lower after that?

I hope bcc crew will fail for all the money they are wasting for spamming and pumping...

I don't know if we will. As far as I know the block will be bigger but I dont know about the fees. maybe we will be seeing that this week.

In my own opinion the mempool will not be emptied but somehow segwit activation will mots likely to decrease the volume of traffic in bitcoin transactions. Further, I dont see the transaction fee going down even if the blocksize is increased and transactions has already speed up. But I am still hoping for a miracle to happen.

[The One]

As far as I understood, segwit will become operative 2 weeks after activation.
Will we finally see the fees starting to get lower after that?

I hope bcc crew will fail for all the money they are wasting for spamming and pumping...

Why would anyone want BCC/BCH to fail. It is like you being on an aeroplane, hating the pilot, hoping he fails.

The total value of bcc and btc is higher than btc itself, all should rejoice.

[Red-Apple]

We've already seen the first block over 1MB mined by Bitfury. 

what
how is that even possible? are you sure you were looking at a "bitcoin" block?  because it is impossible to mine a block which is bigger than 1 MB unless you want to create a rejected block.
the consensus has not changed with SegWit, it is still at
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000 Byte (1 MB)

am i missing something here? please explain if i do

[Zalfa_mui]

After segwit block will become bigger, transaction fee will be cheaper and transaction time will be faster. And for BCC why do you allow it to fail, does it make you lose ?? To my knowledge after the appearance of BCC did not adversely affect the BTC.

[aleksej996]

Segwit activated fully yesterday. Blocks are not bigger now, it is just that transactions can be smaller, that is it. Old transactions in the mempool might get accepted if people who would be using non-segwit transactions use segwit ones now instead. I assume that the fees will go down, yes. We also have a hardfork pending in 3 months that will increase the blocksize to 2 mb and still have the segwit. We will see how that will go, since to my knowledge this would be a first successful hardfork in Bitcoin's history if people switch to it.

[HTracer]

We've already seen the first block over 1MB mined by Bitfury. 

what
how is that even possible? are you sure you were looking at a "bitcoin" block?  because it is impossible to mine a block which is bigger than 1 MB unless you want to create a rejected block.
the consensus has not changed with SegWit, it is still at
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE = 1000000 Byte (1 MB)

am i missing something here? please explain if i do

As I get it Segwit activation means that block size limit is replaced by a block weight limit, which allows for block to increase to 4MB in size. If a block doesn't have witness data its size remains 1 MB max

[chopstick]

Core devs openly saying you should just use fiat instead if the fee's are too high for you.

Amazing. What leadership. What people. True cypherpunks, that lot.

Don't worry guys, I'm sure segwit will fix all our problems soon, and these $10-20 w/d fees will go away soon.. 

[1Referee]

Don't worry guys, I'm sure segwit will fix all our problems soon, and these $10-20 w/d fees will go away soon.. 

Sarcasm? Segwit was never pointed at as being something that would get rid of potential spam attacks. People just assume Segwit will instantly reduce fees significantly, instantly reduce mempools significantly, but that's obviously not the case - they should invest some time into getting to know what Segwit is actually about. It makes spamming the network more costly for whatever entity, that's pretty much it. Nothing prevents those behind Bitcoin Cash to keep spamming the network for plenty of more years, if they can justify spending more to susain these attacks for whatever period of time. I am fairly sure that they are greatly contributing towards the greatly increased number of rubbish transactions that we experience right now.

[chopstick]

Ah yes, the classic Core defense. "It's just spam."

LOL

[Samarkand]

Core devs openly saying you should just use fiat instead if the fee's are too high for you.

Amazing. What leadership. What people. True cypherpunks, that lot.

Don't worry guys, I'm sure segwit will fix all our problems soon, and these $10-20 w/d fees will go away soon..  

The sad thing about the current fee level is that many "dust balances" can not be spend at all.
I read about a guy that regularly bough 10 $ worth of BTC every week and sent them to his personal wallet.
If he decides to transfer these BTC out of his wallet now, he will have to pay a ridiculously high
fee because his transaction would combine so many small balances.

Besides, the higher fees make certain use cases of Bitcoin completely unfeasible:
-tip bots
-micropayments
-small transactions, which depend on fast confirmations in the next 1-2 blocks
...

I really hope that some of the 2nd layer solutions will allow some of these use cases to become
feasible again  

[erre]

Don't worry guys, I'm sure segwit will fix all our problems soon, and these $10-20 w/d fees will go away soon.. 

Sarcasm? Segwit was never pointed at as being something that would get rid of potential spam attacks. People just assume Segwit will instantly reduce fees significantly, instantly reduce mempools significantly, but that's obviously not the case - they should invest some time into getting to know what Segwit is actually about. It makes spamming the network more costly for whatever entity, that's pretty much it. Nothing prevents those behind Bitcoin Cash to keep spamming the network for plenty of more years, if they can justify spending more to susain these attacks for whatever period of time. I am fairly sure that they are greatly contributing towards the greatly increased number of rubbish transactions that we experience right now.

Segwit and cash are both intended to "resolve" spam making it more costly. The point is I find segwit solution more "elegant", because instead of increasing blocks (very resource-consuming in the long time) they make tx smaller.

I will search for reference, but I understood that now we are still in a test case, and segwit benefits will become fully operational only after 2 more weeks after activation.

[1Referee]

I will search for reference, but I understood that now we are still in a test case, and segwit benefits will become fully operational only after 2 more weeks after activation.

Everything is mostly being tested on the testnet chain, but the point is that if we are going to make use of Segwit, we have to move our funds away from the current non Segwit addresses (i.e send funds to Segwit address, where after that we can start ulitizing the Segwit update). If people aren't moving their funds, and just remain using Bitcoin as how they have always been using it, nothing will change, and thus they will continue to transact in the old fashion (i.e pre Segwit activation time) way. Look at Litecoin for example - a whole lot of transactions that are being sent are till this day still non Segwit transactions.

[erre]

I will search for reference, but I understood that now we are still in a test case, and segwit benefits will become fully operational only after 2 more weeks after activation.

Everything is mostly being tested on the testnet chain, but the point is that if we are going to make use of Segwit, we have to move our funds away from the current non Segwit addresses (i.e send funds to Segwit address, where after that we can start ulitizing the Segwit update). If people aren't moving their funds, and just remain using Bitcoin as how they have always been using it, nothing will change, and thus they will continue to transact in the old fashion (i.e pre Segwit activation time) way. Look at Litecoin for example - a whole lot of transactions that are being sent are till this day still non Segwit transactions.

Thank you for this explanation. So the segwit public key is different? I thought it was just a matter of how the wallet craft the tx...

[squatter]

I will search for reference, but I understood that now we are still in a test case, and segwit benefits will become fully operational only after 2 more weeks after activation.

Everything is mostly being tested on the testnet chain, but the point is that if we are going to make use of Segwit, we have to move our funds away from the current non Segwit addresses (i.e send funds to Segwit address, where after that we can start ulitizing the Segwit update). If people aren't moving their funds, and just remain using Bitcoin as how they have always been using it, nothing will change, and thus they will continue to transact in the old fashion (i.e pre Segwit activation time) way. Look at Litecoin for example - a whole lot of transactions that are being sent are till this day still non Segwit transactions.

Thank you for this explanation. So the segwit public key is different? I thought it was just a matter of how the wallet craft the tx...

Yes, a Segwit-compatible wallet must support P2SH (BIP16) and its address format (BIP13). To receive payments, the wallet must be able to create a P2SH address based on a P2WPKH script (and be able to recognize payment to such addresses).

So, Segwit addresses have a prefix 3, like other P2SH addresses. (As opposed to the the standard prefix of 1)

[franky1]

to answer the OP's question....

no it wont empty the mempool.. infact it will fill the mempool

the only way to utilise the "weight" is to first move funds out of old transaction format (legacy keypairs) and then spend again in new segwit transactions (sw keypairs) then and only then would the segwit transaction utilise the weight area.

the issue with this is if everyone was to move to use segwit keys to even get close to a 2.1mb weight estimate.. everyone has to move their funds out of old legacy keypairs..

there are millions of UTXO's using legacy keypairs, meaning alot of spending needs to occur BEFORE its treated as segwit based funds..

[bitart]

to answer the OP's question....

no it wont empty the mempool.. infact it will fill the mempool

the only way to utilise the "weight" is to first move funds out of old transaction format (legacy keypairs) and then spend again in new segwit transactions (sw keypairs) then and only then would the segwit transaction utilise the weight area.

the issue with this is if everyone was to move to use segwit keys to even get close to a 2.1mb weight estimate.. everyone has to move their funds out of old legacy keypairs..

there are millions of UTXO's using legacy keypairs, meaning alot of spending needs to occur BEFORE its treated as segwit based funds..

And how does it affect the 'dust'? If I need to move out my balance (gathered up from dust) to a SW compatible address, I still have to pay the high fees first (because of the several inbound transactions of that address), and only after I will enjoy the benefits of segwit? If this is true, despite of switching to sw or not, do I have to pay the high fee at least at the first time?