[2017-08-29] SegWit's Slow Rollout: Why Bitcoin's Capacity Hasn't Seen a Sudden

[tyz]

SegWit's Slow Rollout: Why Bitcoin's Capacity Hasn't Seen a Sudden Boost

"Why do transaction fees appear unaffected?" asked one Reddit user.
Another posted an image of a man poking the word "SegWit" with a stick, saying, "C'mon, do something..."

Such comments, while sparse, have been indicative of the reaction some more casual bitcoin users have so far had to the activation of Segregated Witness (SegWit), a code change that went live on bitcoin last week after nearly two years of testing and debate.

Though the much-hyped technology is well-known for two things – boosting average block size and paving the way for a secure Lightning Network – when SegWit finally activated on August 23, the code change didn't immediately trigger these benefits.

https://www.coindesk.com/segwits-slow-rollout-bitcoins-capacity-hasnt-seen-sudden-boost/

[1714139288]

1714139288

[1714139288]

1714139288

[1714139288]

1714139288

[1714139288]

1714139288

[1714139288]

1714139288

[Kemarit]

I guess its gonna be a waiting game. Its been a week now and majority has claimed that it didn't do its thing and the fees are still high. I haven't done any transaction yet, that's why I can't really say that it has no effect, however, reading the article says its not.

This really give Jeff Garzik more justification to have fork again in November unless all miners have upgraded to Segwit, its more like that we are heading to this path.

Let's give Segwit more grace period to really see if it fulfill what it promises, otherwise we may see another battleground regarding the scaling issue.

[TraderTimm]

Its increasing slowly with every block. It takes time. I don't get why people think things work like switching on a TV.

http://segwit.party/charts/

Its the same mindset that foamed at the mouth about "bigger blocks now", when the truth of the matter was non-organic spam pushing the network hard. Always an agenda, always someone with zero impulse control spewing complete bullshit.

[Xavofat]

Let's give Segwit more grace period to really see if it fulfill what it promises

It has already fulfilled exactly what it promised.

To use SegWit, you will need to use the new transaction type between new SegWit addresses.  As TraderTimm correctly points out with that chart, less than one percent of transactions currently being sent are SegWit transactions.  That's nothing to do with SegWit, it's to do with wallets not creating easy interfaces for spending SegWit transactions and it's about users not deciding to adopt them as soon as possible.

It's only a "waiting game" in that you have to wait until people are competent enough to use it.

[Josepht]

Let's give Segwit more grace period to really see if it fulfill what it promises

-snip-
To use SegWit, you will need to use the new transaction type between new SegWit addresses.  As TraderTimm correctly points out with that chart, less than one percent of transactions currently being sent are SegWit transactions.  That's nothing to do with SegWit, it's to do with wallets not creating easy interfaces for spending SegWit transactions -snip-

I agree with you 100%. The problem is that the average bitcoin user doesn't know how to use it. I mean, I don't know how to do it, and I know more about bitcoin than the average person on this forum.
We need someone who raises general awareness, and can easily explain how it works.

[Carlton Banks]

List of > 1MB blocks since Segwit activation:

• 482187 (1.00003 MB)
• 482191 (1.00001 MB)
• 482205 (1.00015 MB)
• 482224 (1.00004 MB)
• 482240 (1.00004 MB)
• 482244 (1.06792 MB)
• 482245 (1.00002 MB)
• 482253 (1.00003 MB)
• 482335 (1.00001 MB)
• 482345 (1.00001 MB)
• 482359 (1.00121 MB)
• 482367 (1.00002 MB)
• 482371 (1.0001 MB)
• 482374 (1.00249 MB)
• 482383 (1.00014 MB)
• 482386 (1.00216 MB)
• 482393 (1.0023 MB)
• 482396 (1.0004 MB)
• 482400 (1.00267 MB)
• 482409 (1.0004 MB)
• 482431 (1.00196 MB)
• 482436 (1.0005 MB)
• 482440 (1.00128 MB)
• 482454 (1.00003 MB)
• 482463 (1.00114 MB)
• 482470 (1.00209 MB)
• 482472 (1.00003 MB)
• 482477 (1.0 MB)
• 482480 (1.00121 MB)

So, that's a grand () total of 88 kB of extra transactions since block 481824. And yeah, many of those are just developers testing Segwit transactions live on the network, but that's hardly unwelcome (it's better that services and wallet software get it right before offering Segwit addresses for users to use).

Let's not get caught up in these mindless Reddit comments, not only do these people not know what they're talking about, they're unlikely to be making useful contributions to the situation no matter what.

Wallets and websites will offer Segwit soon, we just have to wait for the respective developers to test and upgrade their software before we judge the full impact of Segwit.

[cr1776]

Let's give Segwit more grace period to really see if it fulfill what it promises

-snip-
To use SegWit, you will need to use the new transaction type between new SegWit addresses.  As TraderTimm correctly points out with that chart, less than one percent of transactions currently being sent are SegWit transactions.  That's nothing to do with SegWit, it's to do with wallets not creating easy interfaces for spending SegWit transactions -snip-

I agree with you 100%. The problem is that the average bitcoin user doesn't know how to use it. I mean, I don't know how to do it, and I know more about bitcoin than the average person on this forum.
We need someone who raises general awareness, and can easily explain how it works.

Once more wallets roll out with support - e.g. Electrum - I think usage will increase particularly when people see, "oh, I can pay 1/4 (or whatever) the fees by selecting SegWit".  Kind of like the P2SH rollout wasn't instant.

[Xavofat]

Let's give Segwit more grace period to really see if it fulfill what it promises

-snip-
To use SegWit, you will need to use the new transaction type between new SegWit addresses.  As TraderTimm correctly points out with that chart, less than one percent of transactions currently being sent are SegWit transactions.  That's nothing to do with SegWit, it's to do with wallets not creating easy interfaces for spending SegWit transactions -snip-

I agree with you 100%. The problem is that the average bitcoin user doesn't know how to use it.

There's nothing complicated about it.  Presumably your wallet will just give you the option to receive and send from SegWit addresses once they integrate support (the hardware wallets Ledger and TREZOR have already done so, though TREZOR's integration is in beta).

Since the SegWit transactions will be cheaper to send, most people will start sending them when they have the opportunity.  Especially people dealing with smaller amounts and people who want to make use of the Lightning Network.

So, that's a grand () total of 88 kB of extra transactions since block 481824. And yeah, many of those are just developers testing Segwit transactions live on the network, but that's hardly unwelcome (it's better that services and wallet software get it right before offering Segwit addresses for users to use).

Fair enough.  And hopefully the pools which support larger blocks (particularly Antpool) will actually start mining blocks larger than 1MB sooner or later.

[Carlton Banks]

And hopefully the pools which support larger blocks (particularly Antpool) will actually start mining blocks larger than 1MB sooner or later.

That might be later rather than sooner. Bitmain is the company behind Antpool, and they're vocal critics of Segwit (and, of course, the most significant supporter of "Bitcoin Cash").

[buwaytress]

I think most of us knew this was always going to be a slow climb, even if most (or all?) of the sites and wallets who'd openly professed SegWit support still haven't done so. Was testnet not enough or did they simply to wait for the network to have it activated before they could test? I wonder also if users will still stick to legacy for a while after wallets offer new addresses. I'm not unhappy with the wait, since it will be a minor hassle for me to update my main addresses, priv keys etc.

[eckmar]

I think most of us knew this was always going to be a slow climb, even if most (or all?) of the sites and wallets who'd openly professed SegWit support still haven't done so. Was testnet not enough or did they simply to wait for the network to have it activated before they could test? I wonder also if users will still stick to legacy for a while after wallets offer new addresses. I'm not unhappy with the wait, since it will be a minor hassle for me to update my main addresses, priv keys etc.

Yeah that is how most users think. It would be a hassle. But if you think long term it will pay of and if everyone do it eventually we will see some benefits

[Xavofat]

And hopefully the pools which support larger blocks (particularly Antpool) will actually start mining blocks larger than 1MB sooner or later.

That might be later rather than sooner.

The interesting thing will be when we find out how Antpool (and BITMAIN) acts in the New York Agreement in November.  They have said they're in favour of SegWit when implemented with a hard fork and a base block size increase, so I imagine they will follow through on that and mine on the new chain.

and, of course, the most significant supporter of "Bitcoin Cash"

While they're in favour of block size increases, they're not supporters of Bitcoin Cash.  IIRC they just viewed it as opposition to UASF and now don't consider it necessary.

[Carlton Banks]

Well, I was wrong, apparently!

Antpool mined a block today breaking the 1MB limit, so it must have included Segwit transactions, and hence they must be using Segwit enabled Bitcoin client to process and broadcast their blocks.

Turns out business > politics after all


Still, Bitmain have demonstrated that someone there (i.e. probably not Jihan Wu, but some power-monger standing quietly behind him) really sees the value in commandeering the Bitcoin source code.

This is likely not the last time it will be tried, I predict someone within Bitcoin Core will eventually try to split the team (as well as the blockchain). Can't predict who, but it's an obvious subterfuge technique since time immemorial ("someone on the inside").

It's not so worrying IMO, the user base will always have people that are smart enough to understand and explain the latest hard fork proposals, business > politics is equally important to the users, fortunately

[Samarkand]

...

It's not so worrying IMO, the user base will always have people that are smart enough to understand and explain the latest hard fork proposals, business > politics is equally important to the users, fortunately

This really proves what a genius Satoshi Nakamoto was. He really designed a beautiful system with the right incentives. This ensures
that neither the miners, nor the developers can make decisions unequivocally (unless they want a minority chain / altcoin). I´d even argue
that the long scaling debate has demonstrated how resiliant Bitcoin is to change, which is good news for all the people, who intend
to use Bitcoins as a store of value or even as their retirement fund.