Percentage of blocks signalling SegWit support

[Colorblind]

Looking at this graph I'm getting a little confused:
https://blockchain.info/ru/charts/bip-9-segwit
does that means miners not signaling segwit anymore? It seems I have wrong understanding of what segwit signaling is.I thought every miner support  segwit blocks and even though only ~10% of all tx are segwit all segwit transactins can end up in a valid block because all miners support them.

[1714818683]

1714818683

[1714818683]

1714818683

[1714818683]

1714818683

[piotr_n]

since segwit got activated, signalling for it has became irrelevant

[ennafa]

As far as I know, Coinbase is not using SegWit. Wouldn't SegWit allow em to spend less on transaction fees?

[Xynerise]

That is old info.
Some BCash miners are still signalling segwit support

It doesn't mean anything now.
It was relevant before segwit was activated, that was how you knew which miners supported it.

Segwit transactions can fit in the same block as legacy transactions.
There is no... discrimination (for lack of a better word) between them.

[cellard]

As far as I know, Coinbase is not using SegWit. Wouldn't SegWit allow em to spend less on transaction fees?

Coinbase has been delaying segwit for ages now. I have seen Brian Armstrong support BCash also known as Bitcoin Cash, and I have seen him saying how "It's likely Ethereum takes over Bitcoin soon", I have seen him talk a lot of shit basically.

Now, I think I may give him the benefit of the doubt on delaying segwit until at least May, because Bitcoin Core 0.16 does not come out until May and this will be the version that supports bech32, so they may be waiting until then, im myself waiting until then to use segwit at all.

[Anti-Cen]

since segwit got activated, signalling for it has became irrelevant

The miners will vote for anything that makes them more money and so developers pretend that
miners won't like Lightning Network but they will love it with it's mini banks the development team
likes to call hubs "That will charge a small fee" because I still remember read a white paper that said
"Virtually free transaction fess" so that one won't wash again.

See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpfvhiqFw7A and jump towards the end

[alani123]

since segwit got activated, signalling for it has became irrelevant

Signalling is nothing more than an indication of potential support too so I would say that it it irrelevant too in general. Signalling doesn't act as an obligation, just as way for miners to broadcast preference but no indication that they would deliver on the promise.

[Anti-Cen]

Now, I think I may give him the benefit of the doubt on delaying segwit until at least May, because Bitcoin Core 0.16 does not come out until May and this will be the version that supports bech32, so they may be waiting until then, im myself waiting until then to use segwit at all.

I won't change my wallet because the development team has not got it act sorted out in dealing with fees
and if they don't fix it before May then it might not be a problem anymore because BTC could well crash
so the transaction rate will be near zero like our fees use to be.

Also I like all my data on the block-chain so forget Lighting with its "Off-Block" banks they want to Hubs that charge
fees on top of the miners $25 transaction costs.

[Carlton Banks]

As far as I know, Coinbase is not using SegWit. Wouldn't SegWit allow em to spend less on transaction fees?

Coinbase has been delaying segwit for ages now.

There are alternatives to Coinbase, they'll lose customers to those eventually

Now, I think I may give him the benefit of the doubt on delaying segwit until at least May, because Bitcoin Core 0.16 does not come out until May and this will be the version that supports bech32, so they may be waiting until then, im myself waiting until then to use segwit at all.

Should be far earlier than May. Some features have been moved to 17.0 so that 16.0 can be centered around Segwit wallet and bech32.

I would guess March is more likely the release date for 16.0

[Colorblind]

since segwit got activated, signalling for it has became irrelevant

Signalling is nothing more than an indication of potential support too so I would say that it it irrelevant too in general. Signalling doesn't act as an obligation, just as way for miners to broadcast preference but no indication that they would deliver on the promise.

So this means 100% blocks mined in BTC are Segwit blocks ATM?

[TheQuin]

So this means 100% blocks mined in BTC are Segwit blocks ATM?

Segwit is activated on the network so yes. The signalling was voting for it to be implemented and now that it has been there is no need to vote anymore.

[Carlton Banks]

So this means 100% blocks mined in BTC are Segwit blocks ATM?

Segwit is activated on the network so yes. The signalling was voting for it to be implemented and now that it has been there is no need to vote anymore.

Well, not quite.

There's a tiny percentage of blocks mined that are using the pre-segwit block type. Activation means that Segwit blocks cannot be rejected, not all blocks must be capable of including Segwit transactions.

[TheQuin]

I knew it was still possible to mine a non-Segwit block but I just cannot remember the last time I saw one. I thought that everyone mining had switched over now. I guess there could still be some small solo miners out there.

[Carlton Banks]

I knew it was still possible to mine a non-Segwit block but I just cannot remember the last time I saw one. I thought that everyone mining had switched over now. I guess there could still be some small solo miners out there.

It's pretty rare, that's true. But there are still maybe < 20 every week.

[Colorblind]

I knew it was still possible to mine a non-Segwit block but I just cannot remember the last time I saw one. I thought that everyone mining had switched over now. I guess there could still be some small solo miners out there.

It's pretty rare, that's true. But there are still maybe < 20 every week.

Are segwit blocks de-facto larger then normal blocks (or rather they contain both classic 1mb block filled with transactions and witness appendix with signatures piled in it)?

[TheQuin]

Are segwit blocks de-facto larger then normal blocks (or rather they contain both classic 1mb block filled with transactions and witness appendix with signatures piled in it)?

Segwit replaces the 1Mb block size limit with a 4000 weighted unit limit. Each normal byte in each transaction receives a weight of 4 except in a Segwit transaction the witness data only receives a weight of 1. This is what results in larger blocks. Segwit transactions are not actually smaller it is just that they have less weight and therefore have lower fees.

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_weight