Why do people hate segwit so much?

[TheGodson]

So there is a group of people that are really against segwit and I don't really understand it. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is. Basically my understanding is that it removes the signature part of a transaction so that more transactions can be sent. Also, somehow it allows atomic swapping which is a fancy way of exchanging coins quickly. So why all the hate on segwit?

[1713962815]

1713962815

[1713962815]

1713962815

[1713962815]

1713962815

[Wind_FURY]

Politics and the need to have the Core developers out. Some say it was because it would render Bitmain's Asic boost useless, and all other reasons that distracted us away from the truth. But I believe it was politics.

I will leave Achow and the rest more learned about the situation to comment.

[Gimpeline]

I dont think it's segwit, I think it is Core that they don't like.
If core thinks one thing they will always think that its a bad idea or make up some kind of tinfoil-hat story about how it is a conspiracy against bitcoin.

[Kakmakr]

So there is a group of people that are really against segwit and I don't really understand it. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is. Basically my understanding is that it removes the signature part of a transaction so that more transactions can be sent. Also, somehow it allows atomic swapping which is a fancy way of exchanging coins quickly. So why all the hate on segwit?

SegWit includes some code changes that would pave the way for the Lightning Network and some people are not keen on implementing that as a scaling solution. If they can sabotage SegWit, then they can delay the implementation of the Lightning Network.

They are also butt hurt, because SegWit2x failed. < SegWit had no hand in that >

The first step to the solution for the scaling is on the table, but politics & pride are getting in the way of progress. Is this sabotage? They might be in a better position to answer that. ^hmmmmmm^

[mda]

I think it's about Lightning Network which isn't easily implemented without SegWit. The SegWit soft fork complicates a bit things but the main worry is Lightning Network that leads to more centralization.

[Ucy]

Should be :  "Why do cabals hate Segwit so much?"  Very few Crypto fans "hate" Core.
Some of the most vicious Core haters I know on Twitter are never honest. Fake Satoshi is even a strong Core/Bitcoin hater. He attacks everybody on Twitter these days.

[exstasie]

So there is a group of people that are really against segwit and I don't really understand it. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is. Basically my understanding is that it removes the signature part of a transaction so that more transactions can be sent. Also, somehow it allows atomic swapping which is a fancy way of exchanging coins quickly. So why all the hate on segwit?

Ostensibly, their argument is that "Segwit is not Bitcoin" because signature information is segregated such that older nodes cannot fully verify Segwit transactions. Their arguments against the Lightning Network are an extension of that. In other words, they argue that if it's not a standard, on-chain transaction, it's not "Bitcoin."

On its face, this is a cop out. They push hard forks on the timeline of a few weeks. Older nodes cannot verify anything on the new chain after the fork has taken place. I don't see how one can support hard forks --- especially rushed hard forks, like Bcash's November fork --- and say that it's about older nodes. The truth is that they have a very different vision for scaling (if you could call it that) than Core. They want huge blocks. Segwit and Lightning are clearly obstacles to that.

[ceferov]

As much as I can understand after the attacks of BCH owners to BTC blockchain most of anti segwit people changed their mind. Bitcoin really needs upgrade

[malikusama]

Politics and the need to have the Core developers out. Some say it was because it would render Bitmain's Asic boost useless, and all other reasons that distracted us away from the truth. But I believe it was politics.

I will leave Achow and the rest more learned about the situation to comment.

What i have observed that Segwit blockage by Bitmain is one of the major reasons why some people are against segwit. Many myths are also created about this contradiction like Blockstream will have control over the bitcoin and they can dictate whatever they want but all these are just rumors nothing else.

[cingles9413]

segwit puts power where power shouldnt be, loading up on central nodes capable of discemenising aganst the norm of protocols that dont exist in the nural network of things just like the IOT but more passivevly integrated in the server database layer

[BritVR]

So there is a group of people that are really against segwit and I don't really understand it. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is. Basically my understanding is that it removes the signature part of a transaction so that more transactions can be sent. Also, somehow it allows atomic swapping which is a fancy way of exchanging coins quickly. So why all the hate on segwit?

Because it change bitcoin structure......Bcash has the closest structure to original bitcoin

[DooMAD]

Some of the earliest complaints (that seem to have fallen by the wayside now) were around fungibility, the notion that there is no discernible difference between one Bitcoin and another.  If some Bitcoins can be processed with lower fees or a higher priority than others because of a difference in formatting, technically they aren't identical anymore.  But since you can still exchange one type for another, it's not really a huge issue.

The general sense I get isn't so much that people hate SegWit, they just aren't sure of new things they haven't encountered before.  Some people aren't comfortable with change.  Give it time.

[chacha66]

and its beginning to dilute the whole bitcoin brand, aspects of it are good but there you go

[Daniel_West]

Politics and the need to have the Core developers out. Some say it was because it would render Bitmain's Asic boost useless, and all other reasons that distracted us away from the truth. But I believe it was politics.

I will leave Achow and the rest more learned about the situation to comment.

Isn't that about a change of block size? Could you go into a bit more of details, how exactly would it render ASIC boost useless?

[Thirdspace]

maybe because people already feel comfortable with 1xxx instead of bxxx addresses
and from the miner's point of view, it would create less tx size hence more txs confirmed
thus will resulted tx fee rate to drop and less income for miners
because there is no more tx fee wars (competition) amongst users trying to get their tx included in a block
in short: segwit ~> less tx size ~> more txs/block ~> less tx fee rate ~> less miner's income

[doctor-s]

Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is.

Honestly I think this is a huge part of it. The developers really failed at communicating what the change was to the average user. Now some might argue that it isn't their job, but there certainly should be some responsibility there for some party.

Anyway, yes, I think the reason there's a lot of hate, is because ther'es a lot of ignorance. People just genuinely do not comprehend how complicated bitcoin is, and how changes like segwit work, and what they do.

The implications of changes are also widely underappreciated and undercommunicated.

[Biscutard]

So why all the hate on segwit?

Because they were just the bandwagon army who follow the trend of those butthurt people when in fact they can't do anything about it.

[nizamcc]

So there is a group of people that are really against segwit and I don't really understand it. Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is. Basically my understanding is that it removes the signature part of a transaction so that more transactions can be sent. Also, somehow it allows atomic swapping which is a fancy way of exchanging coins quickly. So why all the hate on segwit?

To my understanding, SegWit is something that "removes the signature" (as you said) to compress the transactions in order to gather more and more transactions by reducing the size of each. Some hate SegWit because even after its implementation, we are still having the scaling issues ongoing as well as the fees are getting higher and higher each day. I think that if they hate it, it's their choice and let us remain quiet and see what they will come up with. For example, those who support BCH will eventually cry because it didn't solve the problem, but increased it by adding 7 MB more to its block size where we already know that after just 7 years, the blockchain size of BTC has bloated to more than 150 GB.

[Andre_Goldman]

Politics and the need to have the Core developers out. Some say it was because it would render Bitmain's Asic boost useless, and all other reasons that distracted us away from the truth. But I believe it was politics.

I will leave Achow and the rest more learned about the situation to comment.

Sometimes I think about the economics regards how a network will scale.

Is it possible to do an analogy between bitcoin network and TCP/IP stack development  ? My point of analogy is that both networks have a finite supply (bitcoin 21 million and IPV4 2³².

For instance, when IPV4 was developed it faced the problem of address exhaustion ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv4_address_exhaustion ) the solution was network address translation (NAT)and Classless Inter-Domain Routing (CIDR)...

Sometimes I think that we are reaching a point of bitcoin supply curve that you can be either reward by LN channels or old fashion mining to keep the network running ...

ps-> I am not totally sure what I am talking about ... I pretty much appreciate any comments ...  

[achow101]

So there is a group of people that are really against segwit and I don't really understand it.

A lot of the hate stems from either a fundamental misunderstanding of how segwit works (or misrepresentation of how it works) or from hatred towards the Bitcoin Core developers.

Honestly, I'm not even 100% sure I know what segwit is.

Segwit does multiple things. It essentially defines a new type of address which, when spent from, does not have its signatures in the txid calculation. It also redefines the block size limit as a thing called block weight. A lot of opposition is from this block weight re-definition. The block weight makes spending from segwit addresses cheaper (less block weight) than non-segwit addresses, and a lot of people did not like that for some reason. This re-definition also means that if more segwit addresses are being spent from, then transactions will take up less block weight and thus more transactions can fit in a block.

Also, somehow it allows atomic swapping which is a fancy way of exchanging coins quickly. So why all the hate on segwit?

Segwit allows for second layer solutions like the Lightning network to exist more easily. The Lightning Network is what would allow for atomic swaps, not segwit itself.