SegWit, Industry standard for the future?

[Kakmakr]

A lot of people are moving over to SegWit now. The big question is, which implementation is going to be the standard in the future?

We currently have P2SH addresses <The ones starting with a 3 and backward compatible to non-SegWit wallets> or Bech32 addresses <Starting with bc1>    Also looks like there are bech32 P2WSH addresses & bech32 P2WPKH addresses. Bloody confusing!

This reminds me of the days when we had a VHS and Betamax videotape format war, way back then. <I feel so old now>

I find that even signing a message with a SegWit address is still a bit problematic, because different applications handle this differently, based on the format you used.   See this topic : https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2885058


Why are we making things so complicated or is this just a temporary solution to push SegWit quicker into mainstream use? Please share your experience and which implementation you used and why you chose to go that route.

[1713902511]

1713902511

[1713902511]

1713902511

[1713902511]

1713902511

[1713902511]

1713902511

[1713902511]

1713902511

[1713902511]

1713902511

[TheQuin]

Why are we making things so complicated or is this just a temporary solution to push SegWit quicker into mainstream use? Please share your experience and which implementation you used and why you chose to go that route.

As I understand it the end goal is bech32 addresses for Segwit and the other implementation is indeed meant to be tempory. That's the reason I've gone straight to using bech32 on Electrum. That also allows me to keep a legacy wallet that I can use until everyone catches up and I can withdraw to the bech32 wallet from all services.

[LoyceV]

As I understand it the end goal is bech32 addresses for Segwit

This is my understanding too. Bech32 addresses are called "native SegWit", and have a larger effect on transaction size than the more compatible 3-addresses.

Also looks like there are bech32 P2WSH addresses & bech32 P2WPKH addresses. Bloody confusing!

It took me long enough to remember Bech32, I'm not even trying to remember P2SH, P2WSH and P2WPKH. If I can't be bothered to remember, less tech savvy people won't care for sure.
Luckily, Bitcoin Core is quite conservative, and changes like this only happen about once per decade.

[RNC]

Segwit is just a sticking plaster for a system that won't scale on-block so never mind talk about becoming an industry
standard in the future because crypto has moved on and will leave Bitcoin dead in its tracks.

breaking backward comparability is a big NO NO in development circles and software developers are not going to keep
on changing code in wallets just to keep Bitcoin alive when clearly from a development perspective its days are now numbered.

 

[littleDarper]

Until now, SegWit has not been widely adopted. The other day I did a transfer through Shapeshift with Electrum, and for whatever reason the SegWit address on Electrum wasn't accepted by Shapeshift. When I attempted to deposit these coins on an exchange the fees were still high since the exchange didn't adopt SegWit.

I look at this situation the same as Python 2 vs Python 3, which if you are a programmer you would know is problematic. Python 3 is technically more advanced yet everyone is too lazy to re-write their programs to adopt it, and most of the useful scientific utilities of Python remain on Python 2. Even if a lot of libraries are migrated, there is always that essential, small library that you need somewhere that is only available on python 2, every single time.

Same story with SegWit. You can use it for a transfer here or there between two parties that have adopted it, but most exchanges, transfer services and BTC purchasing links on websites are just too lazy or lack awareness to implement SegWit. Look at Steam, rather than adopting SegWit they simply discontinued BTC due to the high transaction costs, not thinking a simple solution was in front of them. Most developers don't have time for non-backward compatible changes and quite simply will not bother implementing them. We can learn this lesson from programming languages. This is the reality - SegWit has the very real chance of being the Python 3 in crypto, even years from now it risks failing to be widely adopted.

Hopefully this is a lesson to never break backwards compatibility, ever, especially with wallet addresses. It's surprising the core team didn't learn this lesson looking into the history of programming.

[piotr_n]

Segwit is just a sticking plaster for a system that won't scale on-block so never mind talk about becoming an industry
standard in the future because crypto has moved on and will leave Bitcoin dead in its tracks.

Yeah, right... Roger Ver and Craig Wright will scale the decentralised crypto by introducing gigabyte blocks and hiring people to change the constants in the code for them

You don't know what you're talking about, man.

Why are we making things so complicated or is this just a temporary solution to push SegWit quicker into mainstream use? Please share your experience and which implementation you used and why you chose to go that route.

You can use whichever standard you find suitable - they all work and none of them will stop working.
How is it complicated? What is your problem?

[Kakmakr]

Segwit is just a sticking plaster for a system that won't scale on-block so never mind talk about becoming an industry
standard in the future because crypto has moved on and will leave Bitcoin dead in its tracks.

Yeah, right... Roger Ver and Craig Wright will scale the decentralised crypto by introducing gigabyte blocks and hiring people to change the constants in the code for them

You don't know what you're talking about, man.

Why are we making things so complicated or is this just a temporary solution to push SegWit quicker into mainstream use? Please share your experience and which implementation you used and why you chose to go that route.

You can use whichever standard you find suitable - they all work and none of them will stop working.
How is it complicated? What is your problem?

Looking at your response to RNC and myself, I should say that you should just take a chill pill, because you seem to be very tightly strung there. ^hmmmmm^

The problem is, we do not need different services using different formats all over the place. I see with the latest Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 that was released, they sort of singled out Bech32, so I reckon that is the way things are going to now. 

This means I have to switch to wallets that use Bech32 or hope that my wallet provider makes the switch soon. 

[numizmat]

The reason for Segwit is that the increasing popularity of Bitcoin caused overloads on the platform, hence the key requirements from millions of users was an update that would enhance speeds while at the same time reducing transaction costs,, so it is mostly a patch for Bitcoin itself.
SegWit aims to enhance transactions speed by removing some of them from the main network. The update was finalized in August and has been under testing, which came to an end on 26th February: Full Support for SegWit - Crucial Milestone in Bitcoin’s History

[TheQuin]

The problem is, we do not need different services using different formats all over the place. I see with the latest Bitcoin Core 0.16.0 that was released, they sort of singled out Bech32, so I reckon that is the way things are going to now.  

This means I have to switch to wallets that use Bech32 or hope that my wallet provider makes the switch soon.  

I wouldn't phrase it as 'singled out'. By default Core 0.16.0 will give you a '3' Segwit address and you have to specify if you want to have a bech32 address instead. The most important thing is that Core will now let people send to bech32 addresses. So hopefully, that will lead to all the services allowing withdrawal to all address types and everyone will be able to choose which they use.

[theymos]

The best practice currently is to give people P2SH SegWit addresses when people are paying you, but to support/allow sending to bech32 addresses when you're paying people. bech32 addresses are strictly superior except for issues of backward-compatibility, so eventually everyone will switch over, but it'll probably take a few years; it shouldn't be a format war situation unless someone decides that they hate bech32 and come up with a totally new alternative.

[Kakmakr]

The best practice currently is to give people P2SH SegWit addresses when people are paying you, but to support/allow sending to bech32 addresses when you're paying people. bech32 addresses are strictly superior except for issues of backward-compatibility, so eventually everyone will switch over, but it'll probably take a few years; it shouldn't be a format war situation unless someone decides that they hate bech32 and come up with a totally new alternative.

Ah, at last some sound advice to steer this issue in the right direction. I already had some small problems with people using different applications to verify signatures for the different formats. It would be nice if there were trusted software made available to verify signatures for all of these formats. <OpenSource>

People are currently using questionable applications to do this and it is causing some confusion. 

[diva.man]

With the SegWit2x, the existing bitcoin transactions will not be congested (at least 2-3 years), and then there will be more intelligent two-layer protocols. .


Segwit has a promising outlook, and it is difficult to compare with BU.

[achow101]

With the SegWit2x, the existing bitcoin transactions will not be congested (at least 2-3 years), and then there will be more intelligent two-layer protocols. .

Segwit is not the same as Segwit2x.

[motoprose]

Block being mined with 65% of its transaction using segwit.

I would say it is a successful advancement in bitcoin being viable in sending quick and just as affordable as any other crypto out there.

[TheQuin]

Block being mined with 65% of its transaction using segwit.

I would say it is a successful advancement in bitcoin being viable in sending quick and just as affordable as any other crypto out there.

There's been a big increase this week already since 0.16.0 was released.

http://segwit.party/charts/#
https://i.snag.gy/Wz3o8l.jpg

[FrueGreads]

Right now I'm using legacy addresses (if we can call them that), and Bech32 addresses. I decided to "ignore" the transitory ones, because I thought there could be a risk that people would start adopting those instead of the native ones. Also, since this allows for users to keep making tx with the "legacy" ones, those users might not even change at all, and it would slow adoption. I don't like forcing people into doing things, but going straight to the native segwit addresses might be the best way to increase adoption.

I'm also not sure if the transaction to segwit will take years to happen. The new update to Core 0.16.0 should make things faster (even though it uses the P2SH by default, and not the native ones). Also I do believe that the majority of tx in the network are made by exchanges, so, as soon as they adopt segwit, which is happening right now, we will see a huge increase in adoption.

[richardsNY]

Also I do believe that the majority of tx in the network are made by exchanges, so, as soon as they adopt segwit, which is happening right now, we will see a huge increase in adoption.

Correct. Exchanges and gambling related sites are what I consider to be the most active network users, which will greatly contribute to a lower overall form of network cluttering if they fully start to utilize SegWit, and thus completely distance themselves from legacy addresses. I have always believed that economical entities utilizing SegWit is the best possible trigger/motivation for the end user to start utilizing SegWit as well. Currently, all the exchanges that I use still work with legacy addresses, even when you request a new address to replace your previous address.

Currently, Bitcoin's SegWit transaction percentage is still hovering under/over the 30% level, so it has not much improved in the last days. If we look at Litecoin's SegWit transaction percentage over the last 24 hours, then it's 99.8%, which I hope will be the case for Bitcoin as well before the end of this year. Keep in mind that Litecoin enjoys far less importance, so it should be doable for Bitcoin.

[TheQuin]

Correct. Exchanges and gambling related sites are what I consider to be the most active network users, which will greatly contribute to a lower overall form of network cluttering if they fully start to utilize SegWit, and thus completely distance themselves from legacy addresses.

As most of the services use Core the fact that they have made Segwit the default should speed this up. When they upgrade to 0.16.0 then it will just automatically start generating '3' Segwit addresses unless they actively specify legacy. On the exchanges, both Coinbase and Bitfinex have switched recently and for the casinos, a hat tip to Crypto-Games for being the first service I use that allows withdrawals to bech32 addresses.

[FrueGreads]

Correct. Exchanges and gambling related sites are what I consider to be the most active network users, which will greatly contribute to a lower overall form of network cluttering if they fully start to utilize SegWit, and thus completely distance themselves from legacy addresses.

As most of the services use Core the fact that they have made Segwit the default should speed this up. When they upgrade to 0.16.0 then it will just automatically start generating '3' Segwit addresses unless they actively specify legacy. On the exchanges, both Coinbase and Bitfinex have switched recently and for the casinos, a hat tip to Crypto-Games for being the first service I use that allows withdrawals to bech32 addresses.

Has coinbase officially switched to segwit? When I say officially I know that they officially announced they they would be doing it during February, but I didn't saw any new updates after that, so I don't know if the switch was already made or not. I thought they would make an announcement informing that they were already using the new addresses.

I don't know if users keep generating new addresses there, because if they don't and they don't know that the switch has been made, then they will probably continue to use the ones that they had already created in the past, that are legacy addresses. I hope they make some announcement explaining how users can start using the new ones, and hopefully encouraging them to use segwit addresses.

[TheQuin]

Has coinbase officially switched to segwit? When I say officially I know that they officially announced they they would be doing it during February, but I didn't saw any new updates after that, so I don't know if the switch was already made or not. I thought they would make an announcement informing that they were already using the new addresses.

I don't know if users keep generating new addresses there, because if they don't and they don't know that the switch has been made, then they will probably continue to use the ones that they had already created in the past, that are legacy addresses. I hope they make some announcement explaining how users can start using the new ones, and hopefully encouraging them to use segwit addresses.

I'm not a customer so I'm not 100% sure but they did announce 2 weeks ago that they would 'definitely go ahead next week' so I'm working on the assumption they have. A lot of services automatically generate a new address each time you deposit to one (like LocalBitcoins) and others just put an announcement when you login 'Please request a new deposit address.'
If there are any Coinbase customers here I'd be interested to know.