Why Segwit adoption is so slow?

[Matias]

Why Segwit adoption is so slow? Is it because of lack of wallet support? Are there incentives for wallet developers to implement Segwit?

[achow101]

Why Segwit adoption is so slow?

It's likely because large services like Coinbase, Bitpay, and Blockchain.info have not yet implemented segwit.

Is it because of lack of wallet support?

Yes.

Are there incentives for wallet developers to implement Segwit?

For services, yes. It will cost them and their users less in fees. For other wallet software developers, the incentive is to avoid technical debt and have the latest and greatest.

[Matias]

^Segwit transfers are faster and cheaper? So wallets’ users would benefit?

[achow101]

^Segwit transfers are faster and cheaper? So wallets’ users would benefit?

Yes, and services which cover fees for their customers and want customers to be happy would want to have transactions that have lower transaction fees.

[Matias]

Thank you for your answer. It is strange, that big service providers are so slow to implement this, all thought it would help their customers.

[-ck]

It is strange, that big service providers are so slow to implement this, all thought it would help their customers.

I suspect a lot of services were holding off directing resources towards segwit adoption because they were preparing for the 2x fork. Now that that has been cancelled, there is really no reason for them to delay any more and it will probably come more rapidly.

[Aura]

It's because a lot users still don't use wallets that have Segwit integrated, including me.
If you want to support Segwit, then change to a wallet that has Segwit support for example core.
I am going to switch my funds to a Segwit wallet when the tx fees begin to drop.

[exstasie]

It is strange, that big service providers are so slow to implement this, all thought it would help their customers.

I suspect a lot of services were holding off directing resources towards segwit adoption because they were preparing for the 2x fork. Now that that has been cancelled, there is really no reason for them to delay any more and it will probably come more rapidly.

I think that's a reasonable stance. However, I've been noticing that Tony Gallippi (Bitpay) continues to heavily troll about Bitcoin transaction fees. Here's one from four days ago:

How many #Bitcoin UTXOs are currently unspendable? I just received $45 and now it will cost me more than that to spend it.

It's not even accurate either. I made multiple transactions right around that time and paid < $10 per transaction, and that was from a non-Segwit wallet.

To knowledgeable users, it looks like a combination of Copay having terrible fee estimation, not implementing Segwit, and misrepresenting the situation. But to new users, his concerns might look legitimate and even ring true. I really think that Bitpay is going to continue this war. I think they are more interested in implementing Bitcoin Cash and pushing users to use it than they are in implementing Segwit.

[-ck]

However, I've been noticing that Tony Gallippi (Bitpay) continues to heavily troll about Bitcoin transaction fees. Here's one from four days ago:

How many #Bitcoin UTXOs are currently unspendable? I just received $45 and now it will cost me more than that to spend it.

It's not even accurate either. I made multiple transactions right around that time and paid < $10 per transaction, and that was from a non-Segwit wallet.

To knowledgeable users, it looks like a combination of Copay having terrible fee estimation, not implementing Segwit, and misrepresenting the situation. But to new users, his concerns might look legitimate and even ring true. I really think that Bitpay is going to continue this war. I think they are more interested in implementing Bitcoin Cash and pushing users to use it than they are in implementing Segwit.

Indeed, fuckwits will remain fuckwits and people with other agendas will continue to push them however they can.

[Matias]

It is interesting, that at first Segwit adoption took of really well, then it stalled and now it has plateaued to approximately 10% level

http://segwit.party/charts/#

[kafeelniazi]

^Segwit transfers are faster and cheaper? So wallets’ users would benefit?

Main difference is that Sigwit block size is 2MB as  a result difficulty level for mining it is easy and hence transactions are fast. But people are lame at seeing there own benefit. People who just want to  use crypto-currency for transaction then sigwit is best option for them but people who only want to deal in crypto-currency for investment purpose then it will take a while before they will go for sigwit.

[Matias]

^Segwit transfers are faster and cheaper? So wallets’ users would benefit?

Main difference is that Sigwit block size is 2MB as  a result difficulty level for mining it is easy and hence transactions are fast.

To my very limited unterstanding, mining difficulty is not affected by segwit.. only block size. Because you can fit in more Segwit transaction to a block, there is incentive for miners to include as many Segwit transfers in a block as possible, and this causes Segwit transactions to go trough faster. . If I've understood correctly

[bob123]

Main difference is that Sigwit block size is 2MB as  a result difficulty level for mining it is easy and hence transactions are fast.

There are no segwit blocks. And no, we don't have 2MB blocks.
You are talking about the SegWit2x fork which should have happened a week ago. (The 2x stands for 2 times blocksize (2MB))
Bitcoin already adopted to SegWit address formats, to make transactions smaller (Which leads to lower fees per TX, since fees are calculated in sat/B).
But there hasn't been an adoption to 2MB blocks. And thats good. On-chain scaling is no solution.

@OP: There isn't a good reason to delay the SegWit adoption. But as its with everything.. people don't like changing habits.
Look at IPv6 vs. IPv4 for example.. IPv6 is available for years now.. But 80%+ in Europe/USA are still using IPv4.. Just because they are used to it.

[mpufatzis]

I believe the majority is holding their BTC because their value is growing over time.
When the prise will be more stabilised in the future, the people is going to use it more and more as a currency and will adopt the segwit.

Why Segwit adoption is so slow? Is it because of lack of wallet support? Are there incentives for wallet developers to implement Segwit?

[Carlton Banks]

Main difference is that Sigwit block size is 2MB as  a result difficulty level for mining it is easy and hence transactions are fast.

There are no segwit blocks. And no, we don't have 2MB blocks.
You are talking about the SegWit2x fork which should have happened a week ago. (The 2x stands for 2 times blocksize (2MB))

This is a very confused sounding exchange of posts, neither of you are getting the details correct.


There are (were) 2 entirely different proposals:

• Segwit (4MB blocks)
• Segwit2x (8MB blocks)

Segwit was a soft fork, and is now activated on the Bitcoin network. Segwit2x was hard fork, and was abandoned by it's developers and the miners who agreed to implement it.


This makes talk of 2MB blocks (finally) irrelevant; the max blocksize is now twice that at 4MB.

[Anon]

Demand is not that big.

[monkeydominicorobin]

Why Segwit adoption is so slow? Is it because of lack of wallet support? Are there incentives for wallet developers to implement Segwit?

The big picture. Bitcoin adoption in general is way slower than Segwit adoption.

[Wind_FURY]

Demand is not that big.

Really? Tell that to Mr. Mempool and Mrs. Unconfirmed transactions, https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size, https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count.

We need Segwit for transactions to be confirmed faster and remain cheap at the same time, plus it also might maintain the no. of unconfirmed transaction below 10,000.

Does anyone know how many transactions would fit in a full block under Segwit?

[Kakmakr]

Not a SegWit expert here, so I figured I would just ask. Does SegWit tx go to a separate MemPool or does all txs go to the same MemPool? The SegWit transactions are a lot cheaper than the old legacy <non-SegWit addresses> during the same time when the MemPool are congested or are they going to the same MemPool, but just handled differently?

Hope that makes sense. I have to brush up on my SegWit research, but time is always an issue. ^lol^

[PVminer]

Does anyone know how many transactions would fit in a full block under Segwit?

It depends on the transaction size. For a typical, transaction with 1 input and 2 outputs (you have a coin, pay someone and get a change), the legacy virtual size is 225/226 bytes, so 10^6/226=4424 transactions. The same P2SH-P2WPKH segwit transaction is 166 virtual bytes, so 10^6/166=6024 transactions and for pure P2WPKH, the size is 141 vbytes, so 7092 transactions.

The blockchain is filled also with larger transaction (many inputs or multisignatures), so the number of transaction in the typical block is less but the saving are even better with multi inputs. Segwit saves most for multi input transactions, savings are minimal for multi output transactions.

Not a SegWit expert here, so I figured I would just ask. Does SegWit tx go to a separate MemPool or does all txs go to the same MemPool? The SegWit transactions are a lot cheaper than the old legacy <non-SegWit addresses> during the same time when the MemPool are congested or are they going to the same MemPool, but just handled differently?

Segwit transaction go to the same pool. But since they are effectively smaller (actually they are not but witness data goes to a different space that is larger than 1MB but one can operate on virtual size for which they are smaller), their fee per byte is larger if they pay the same fee. So they are ahead of the same legacy transactions paying the same fee. Or you can lower the fee and have the same probability of inclusion in the block as the legacy but with a smaller fee. Or choose any intermediate fee.