Segwit wallet might not save you any fees

[Anti-Cen]

Yes you read that right so I want to hear what people here are saying who have used any of the
new segwig wallets after being forced to change their keys and obviously pay the crazy miner fees
to do so.

Lets look at what the media says since the Bitcoin development team dare not show it's nose around here
and give us any numbers.

https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@justusspringer/segwit-has-activated-where-are-the-lower-fees

Segwit will not decrease transaction fees
However, the average transaction size will decrease. Segwit introduces a new way of storing transactions on the blockchain, namely by storing the signature of the sender (which makes up almost 60% of the transaction size) in a seperate so-called extended block. This makes more room in the actual block to store more transactions. But in order to support this new kind of transaction, you have to move your coins to a Segwit address. All the user has to do, is switch to a segwit supporting wallet (or wait for your wallet to update to Segwit) and receive coins to a newly generated segwit address, which starts with a '3', instead of the '1' for an "old" Bitcoin address. If you then spend your Bitcoin (to any address), Segwit will be used and you will benefit from a cheaper overall transaction fee.
 

Someone here did say it was about 20% cheaper in fairness when he used a Segwit wallet but most exchanges
are not supporting it yet so was it just another money making scam by the miners who seem to have the ears
of the Bitcoin development team.

[btcgreen63]

The article you cite doesn't back up your claims (which you post repeatedly, over and over and over again, day after day).

We will see the effect of Segwit addresses when they make up a higher percentage of the transactions. No one knows exactly how big the effect will be or how quickly it will get here, but it is reasonable to assume it will reduce fees.

[Anti-Cen]

The article you cite doesn't back up your claims (which you post repeatedly, over and over and over again, day after day).

Are you saying that the content posted above does not come from the link provide and i have
somehow doctored the contents ?

oh yes I do and will continue to repeat myself "over and over and over again, day after day" when it comes to
fees but I have hardly said much about Segwit so carry on with your "Going to the moon" talk and I will carry
on with mine thank you.

We will see the effect of Segwit addresses when they make up a higher percentage of the transactions. No one knows exactly how big the effect will be or how quickly it will get here, but it is reasonable to assume it will reduce fees.

Segwit was implement about five months ago and the charts show that fees went up to a peek after that
date so you are incorrect in your assessment or numbers must lie but if you have a Segwit wallet then do speak up
if it has saved you any money because we would all like to hear it.

BTCGreen ? You must be joking unless your heating your house as a miner playing CPU-Wars

[squatz1]

That's just simply not true, if you are to go on a site to estimate both of the fees you'd see that the fees are lower. It's not by a crazy amount, but it is saving in a time where there is a lot of money that COULD be saved by people.

Here is the link, check it out here - https://coinb.in/#fees You'll see!

[pooya87]

your title is 100% wrong because simply (as above user pointed out) when you use a SegWit transaction you will end up with a transaction size which is about 20% smaller than before so you will pay a 20% smaller fee too. additionally more transactions will be able to go into a block and that reduces the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool.

what SegWit can not do, is t hat it can not do shit about the spam attack. that will still go on and as long as it is going on the competition for the block size will be there and fees will still be unacceptably high. even if you are paying %% lower than before.

but i have a feeling that as soon as SegWit adoption goes higher the spam attack will slow down and stop.

[Anti-Cen]

your title is 100% wrong because simply (as above user pointed out) when you use a SegWit transaction you will end up with a transaction size which is about 20% smaller than before so you will pay a 20% smaller fee too. additionally more transactions will be able to go into a block and that reduces the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool.

what SegWit can not do, is t hat it can not do shit about the spam attack. that will still go on and as long as it is going on the competition for the block size will be there and fees will still be unacceptably high. even if you are paying %% lower than before.

but i have a feeling that as soon as SegWit adoption goes higher the spam attack will slow down and stop.

All the outputs have to also be Segwit addresses and you can find people on the forum that said the saving was only 20%
who have Segwit wallets and I agree that payments of $0.01 is spam but no one today would dare send payments this small
so it must be my $100 spam that's clogging up the network and pushing the mempool high

[NeuroticFish]

but i have a feeling that as soon as SegWit adoption goes higher the spam attack will slow down and stop.

I see at least 2 possible culprits for the spam attack:
* companies like the biggest exchanges, which didn't switch yet to SegWit although they have huge number of transactions.
* some (possibly Ver-affiliated) miners

People already started petitioning exchanges.
I've read that some miners are just being relocated out of China, it may be a reason for the latest drop in the quantity of spam.

Someone here did say it was about 20% cheaper in fairness when he used a Segwit wallet but most exchanges
are not supporting it yet so was it just another money making scam by the miners who seem to have the ears
of the Bitcoin development team.

OP, you missed quite some info about SegWit and such. You are not right. Let me summarize, from what I know:
Most exchanges use their own logic and their own, usually fixed, fees. They could do better, but they don't. At getting Bitcoin out of exchanges you most probably not gain anything on the fees.
The fact most don't know of SegWit just means you have, for a start, to use 3.. SegWit addresses (as opposed to "pure" SegWit address), which they know and can handle.
If you use SegWit address you should have smaller fee at sending Bitcoin.

So if you do it right you have a chance to save some money from fees, clearly not paying more.

[alyssa85]

Most of the transactions in the mempool are not from ordinary people (I'd estimate that ordinary folk sending bitcoin from their qt-wallets to the exchanges are no more than 20% of the transactions). Users sending from exchange to exchange tend to use litecoin, doge or bitcoincash.

That leaves the big exchanges sending coins to one another and the whales moving large amounts as the main source of transactions. If they batch their transactions and use segwit, it reduces the size of the mempool and reduces the fees.

Coinbase announced at the start of the year that they were working on batching, and the sudden drop of the mempool indicates that either they or another exchange have implemented this.

[Anti-Cen]

The fact most don't know of SegWit just means you have, for a start, to use 3.. SegWit addresses (as opposed to "pure" SegWit address), which they know and can handle.

Buy pure you mean Segwit input and all Segwit outputs with all segwit addresses starting with "3" ?

Most of the transactions in the mempool are not from ordinary people (I'd estimate that ordinary folk sending bitcoin from their qt-wallets to the exchanges are no more than 20% of the transactions). Users sending from exchange to exchange tend to use litecoin, doge or bitcoincash.

I think BTC is very common between exchanges so are you saying this exchange-exchange makes up the 80% on top of the 20% "ordinary folk sending bitcoin"
or am i reading it wrong ?

Good too see mempool down and Tx fees at about $12 because this was the elephant in the room so maybe BTC price
can rise again if faith in the development team is restored

[HasHe]

your title is 100% wrong because simply (as above user pointed out) when you use a SegWit transaction you will end up with a transaction size which is about 20% smaller than before so you will pay a 20% smaller fee too. additionally more transactions will be able to go into a block and that reduces the number of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool.

what SegWit can not do, is t hat it can not do shit about the spam attack. that will still go on and as long as it is going on the competition for the block size will be there and fees will still be unacceptably high. even if you are paying %% lower than before.

but i have a feeling that as soon as SegWit adoption goes higher the spam attack will slow down and stop.

That's a valid point and if miners try once again to spam the network, then there would be no use.But it seems that most of the bitcoin users are still unaware of the segwit address and so the miners have more time to engage actively in spamming the network.But i'm also going to try to use the segwit address.

[GreatOrchid]

You are completely wrong with this.

I am using a segwit address right now (with a Ledger nano) And a Trezor too.

And i am paying less than $2,30 right now for each transaction (with less than 100 satoshis per byte) It takes more than 3 hours to get confirmed, but it goes through.

So i enjoy paying little peannuts just for large transactions.

[NeuroticFish]

The fact most don't know of SegWit just means you have, for a start, to use 3.. SegWit addresses (as opposed to "pure" SegWit address), which they know and can handle.

Buy pure you mean Segwit input and all Segwit outputs with all segwit addresses starting with "3" ?

No. There are 2 types of addresses you can use for SegWit:
"3.." addresses, which are backward compatible (old wallets can send there)
"bc1.." bech32 addresses, like you can see in this transaction: https://blockchain.info/tx/c23248b87ae5f1533e62d4e5f99ac4373a209a38050ac78b1c84b8b7b8d91b1f?show_adv=true

By "pure" I meant "bc1" addresses. From what I've read the tx from those addresses is smaller than from "3.." addresses (hence the fee should be smaller too).