BCH, SegWit, SegWit2 - I'm confused, can you help in laymans terms please

[relentless1]

I've been trying to educate myself with all these forks etc but I'm getting confused why in November there will be a fork called Segwit2.

Regardless of what they are trying to do with increased block size and transactions, could it mean we will have 4 coins?

BTC
Bitcoin cash
BTC SegWit
BTC SegWit2x

So one main BTC coin and 3 Alt coin?

Its like creating money out of thin air.

[1715032665]

1715032665

[1715032665]

1715032665

[1715032665]

1715032665

[celot]

Segwit it is an action, bitcoin is the core of cryptocurrency and BCH is altcoin, maybe this short answer can make you understand

[rebel92]

Segwit it is an action, bitcoin is the core of cryptocurrency and BCH is altcoin, maybe this short answer can make you understand

Bitcoin cash (BCH) was only to solve the problem bitcoin is having, i can't say one negative thing about it. but Now lets see how SegWit and SegWit2 solves it they way Core kept saying it will.

[relentless1]

Segwit it is an action, bitcoin is the core of cryptocurrency and BCH is altcoin, maybe this short answer can make you understand

Thank you. So when november comes and we go to the exchange to buy, and we buy BTC as we would normally. Segwit is the action to see if it solves the transaction and block problem right?

[DannyHamilton]

Regardless of what they are trying to do with increased block size and transactions, could it mean we will have 4 coins?

BTC
Bitcoin cash
BTC SegWit
BTC SegWit2x

So one main BTC coin and 3 Alt coin?

More likely it will be 3 coins.

First there was:

• Bitcoin

Then at the beginning of August Bitcoin split into 2 coins:

• Bitcoin (which added support for the SegWit functionality and kept the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin Cash (which increased the limit on block size to 8 megabytes, and did not add SegWit functionality)

Then in November, it is expected that Bitcoin (not Bitcoin Cash) will split into two coins that both want to call themselves "Bitcoin":

• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and keeping the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and increasing the limit on block sizes to 2 megabytes)

Since Bitcoin Cash will continue to exist at that time, there will be 3 coins:

• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and keeping the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and increasing the limit on block sizes to 2 megabytes)
• Bitcoin Cash (which increased the limit on block size to 8 megabytes, and did not add SegWit functionality)

It may become confusing which "Bitcoin" a merchant or exchange is accepting.

Some may call the one with the 2 megabyte block size limit "2X", others may call the one with the 1 megabyte block size limit "SegWit".  It will be interesting to see how the market comes to an agreement on what names to use for the 2 variants.

[relentless1]

Regardless of what they are trying to do with increased block size and transactions, could it mean we will have 4 coins?

BTC
Bitcoin cash
BTC SegWit
BTC SegWit2x

So one main BTC coin and 3 Alt coin?

More likely it will be 3 coins.

First there was:

• Bitcoin

Then at the beginning of August Bitcoin split into 2 coins:

• Bitcoin (which added support for the SegWit functionality and kept the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin Cash (which increased the limit on block size to 8 megabytes, and did not add SegWit functionality)

Then in November, it is expected that Bitcoin (not Bitcoin Cash) will split into two coins that both want to call themselves "Bitcoin":

• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and keeping the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and increasing the limit on block sizes to 2 megabytes)

Since Bitcoin Cash will continue to exist at that time, there will be 3 coins:

• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and keeping the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and increasing the limit on block sizes to 2 megabytes)
• Bitcoin Cash (which increased the limit on block size to 8 megabytes, and did not add SegWit functionality)

It may become confusing which "Bitcoin" a merchant or exchange is accepting.

Some may call the one with the 2 megabyte block size limit "2X", others may call the one with the 1 megabyte block size limit "SegWit".  It will be interesting to see how the market comes to an agreement on what names to use for the 2 variants.

Great explanation! Thank you again.

I take it satoshi did not imagine this would happen with 1mb block size.

If we are to bring this main stream why not just increase block size to 500mb or at the rate of visa at 21k transaction per second. Is this too simplistic?

[DannyHamilton]

I take it satoshi did not imagine this would happen with 1mb block size.

Yes. He did.  He discussed it multiple times.  Why do you think he didn't?

If we are to bring this main stream why not just increase block size to 500mb or at the rate of visa at 21k transaction per second.

If you think you can get people to use your fork, you are welcome to do so.  Bitcoin is open source and decentralized. Anyone can change anything they want.  The tricky part is getting enough people to use your software to make the effort worthwhile.

Is this too simplistic?

Software changes always have side effects.  They are not always predictable.  Have you considered all the possible side effects of blocks that big?  Are you certain that 500MB is the "right size"?  Perhaps that is much bigger than necessary?  Perhaps that isn't nearly big enough?  What analysis have you done to determine that 500MB is the right size for a Bitcoin block?  Did you just pick the number because you thought it "sounded big, but didn't sound too big" in your mind?

[relentless1]

Thanks again for the reply. As you can see, I still have a lot to learn. I guess I need to learn about the technology itself instead of who rich it might make me.

[CryptoTamer]

actually segwit already planned in early August,
which causes the appearance of bitcoin cash because of a hard fork, that is done to solve the problem bitcoin.

and segwit ia not a name of cryptocurrencies, this ia process by which block size limit on blockchain increase by removing signature data from bitcoin transactions

and when occurs hard fork, your only accepts 1 type of coin (the equivalent of your bitcoin count).

[DannyHamilton]

actually segwit already planned in early August,
which causes the appearance of bitcoin cash because of a hard fork, that is done to solve the problem bitcoin.

Did you even read the thread before posting?

[elebit]

• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and keeping the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)

Might as well make this correct when someone did ask: Keeping the segwit functionality where fixed max block size is removed. The allowed size is now dependent on the types of transactions used resulting in blocks of up to 4 megabytes.

• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and increasing the limit on block sizes to 2 megabytes)

Same here but up to 8 megabytes.

Making a backwards compatible block size increase was one of the design factors behind segwit. I'm sure you've heard about it by now, the documentation has been updated and is actually rather good so you can get all the technical details there.

the one with the 1 megabyte block size limit "SegWit"

This is really misleading. Search the source code for "MAX_BLOCK_SIZE", or "1000000". You won't find it. Because there is no such limit.

[CryptoTamer]

actually segwit already planned in early August,
which causes the appearance of bitcoin cash because of a hard fork, that is done to solve the problem bitcoin.

Did you even read the thread before posting?

Sorry i have fixed it, I'm bad in english and i access this forum via mobile 

[Josepht]

Wow DannyHamilton, thanks for that explenation; that helps a lot.

Who are the parties that disagree about the 1MB or 2MB size? Are those the Core developers? And why do they disagree? Isn't it better for all of us to have one bitcoin. First, for simplicity. Second, to keep everyone on the same boat. It isn't good for both bitcoins if the developers split.

[haroldtee]

More likely it will be 3 coins.

First there was:

• Bitcoin

Then at the beginning of August Bitcoin split into 2 coins:

• Bitcoin (which added support for the SegWit functionality and kept the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin Cash (which increased the limit on block size to 8 megabytes, and did not add SegWit functionality)

Then in November, it is expected that Bitcoin (not Bitcoin Cash) will split into two coins that both want to call themselves "Bitcoin":

• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and keeping the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and increasing the limit on block sizes to 2 megabytes)

Since Bitcoin Cash will continue to exist at that time, there will be 3 coins:

• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and keeping the limit on block size at 1 megabyte)
• Bitcoin (keeping SegWit functionality and increasing the limit on block sizes to 2 megabytes)
• Bitcoin Cash (which increased the limit on block size to 8 megabytes, and did not add SegWit functionality)

It may become confusing which "Bitcoin" a merchant or exchange is accepting.

Some may call the one with the 2 megabyte block size limit "2X", others may call the one with the 1 megabyte block size limit "SegWit".  It will be interesting to see how the market comes to an agreement on what names to use for the 2 variants.

Thanks for this explanation. However, it seems this whole segwit thing has ended up making matters more complicated. Now, from your explanation, if we have 2 different bitcoins, the 1mb and the 2mb, do we end up experiencing the same instance that happened with BCH?
Also, how and when does the whole lightening network then come in? Is it on the 2mb? According to what I have read so far, it seems the lightening network will be the saving grace since the functionality has been included in segwit. But I am still more confused as I don't know what exactly is keeping it right now from being implemented? Also is it possible that there are some people trying to sabotage the whole segwit effort? Hoping to read your view.

[elebit]

why do they disagree? Isn't it better for all of us to have one bitcoin.

The disagreement is exactly that: It is better work out all concerns that has been put forth as to how this is being implemented, than to try to push a change that many won't agree with. It is better to have one bitcoin, after all.

Who are the parties that disagree about the 1MB or 2MB size? Are those the Core developers?

The fixed 1MB size is history. Since last week segwit is activate on mainnet, which means the fixed max block size is replaced by a flexible limit of 1-4MB.

If you look at the developers of the software bitcoin-core they have all individual opinions. But there are a few things there are consensus about. One thing is the process where every improvement proposal is put forth to the community for peer review and eventual concerns addressed.

Don't be blind about the various cash, 2x and other forks. They all speak about whatever changes or improvements they have done to their software. Sure, read about these technicalities but keep in mind that's not what's important about them. They are different software projects than bitcoin, with a handful developers all on a single company's payroll.

[sammrheza]

so we will have 3 bitcoin in my wallet soon ? pretty good to hear

[LittleBitFunny]

Who are the parties that disagree about the 1MB or 2MB size? Are those the Core developers?

Bitcoin Core proposed SegWit and opposes increasing the block size limit.

The disagreement is exactly that: It is better work out all concerns that has been put forth as to how this is being implemented, than to try to push a change that many won't agree with. It is better to have one bitcoin, after all.

When people's only justification for opposing forks is that other people oppose them, I know that they have no idea what they're talking about.

The fixed 1MB size is history. Since last week segwit is activate on mainnet, which means the fixed max block size is replaced by a flexible limit of 1-4MB.

If I understand correctly, the concept of Segregated Witness is that it creates a new transaction format which segregates the witness data from the transaction in such a way that legacy nodes don't see it.  

So there is still a 1MB max block size for legacy nodes, and therefore you could argue that the max block size remains 1MB - anything else is just about whether people decide to use the new SegWit transactions and run newer nodes.

They are different software projects than bitcoin, with a handful developers all on a single company's payroll.

OP - unless you have further questions, I'd suggest locking this thread to avoid opinionated and arguably ignorant information like this being posted.

so we will have 3 bitcoin in my wallet soon ?

No.  

[pereira4]

Segwit2x is another iteration if the usual scammers trying to push a hardfork into bitcoin to gain power of the main branch and add anti privacy stuff, including a blocksize that's too big for people to run nodes at (first it will be 2MB, quickly it will be 4... 8... etc)

Read more of the segwit2x scam here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2130222.msg21285670#msg21285670

BCH is just Roger Ver/Bitmain experiment to have big blocks without segwit.

BTC is the real Bitcoin.

[Satobit]

1mb cult is disgusting.

Segwit2x is another iteration if the usual scammers trying to push a hardfork into bitcoin to gain power of the main branch and add anti privacy stuff, including a blocksize that's too big for people to run nodes at (first it will be 2MB, quickly it will be 4... 8... etc)

Read more of the segwit2x scam here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2130222.msg21285670#msg21285670

BCH is just Roger Ver/Bitmain experiment to have big blocks without segwit.

BTC is the real Bitcoin.

[DannyHamilton]

the one with the 1 megabyte block size limit "SegWit"

This is really misleading. Search the source code for "MAX_BLOCK_SIZE", or "1000000". You won't find it. Because there is no such limit.

Perhaps you're searching for the wrong thing.  Learn to read code first.  Then tell me what is or isn't in there:

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/505955052e60e0681865f3064e005ca0d3aa90bf/src/consensus/consensus.h#L15

Code:

/** The maximum allowed weight for a block, see BIP 141 (network rule) */
static const unsigned int MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT = 4000000;

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/505955052e60e0681865f3064e005ca0d3aa90bf/src/consensus/consensus.h#L21

Code:

static const int WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR = 4;

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/f088a1bb392eaecd912ff9bca6967a8f4765c2b7/src/validation.cpp#L2814

Code:

bool CheckBlock(const CBlock& block, CValidationState& state, const Consensus::Params& consensusParams, bool fCheckPOW, bool fCheckMerkleRoot)
{
// These are checks that are independent of context.

. . .

// Size limits
    if (block.vtx.empty() || block.vtx.size() * WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR > MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT || ::GetSerializeSize(block, SER_NETWORK, PROTOCOL_VERSION | SERIALIZE_TRANSACTION_NO_WITNESS) * WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR > MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT)
return state.DoS(100, false, REJECT_INVALID, "bad-blk-length", false, "size limits failed");

So, if
block.vtx.size() is greater than 1000000
then
block.vtx.size() * WITNESS_SCALE_FACTOR will be greater than 4000000

which is the value of MAX_BLOCK_WEIGHT

As such, any block larger than 1 megabyte will be rejected as invalid.