blockchain.com still not utilizing Segwit?

[1Referee]

I set up a blockchain account for someone today, and to my surprise there is still no Segwit support.

In 2018 we will be rolling out support for SegWit within our wallet products. This will be a major and complex update to some of the most sensitive parts of our codebase, across a wide variety of platforms and devices, affecting billions in user transactions with potentially significant privacy implications. We will do this cautiously but also with consideration for the rising miner’s fees within the bitcoin ecosystem. We are excited about the advances SegWit offers and we plan to begin making it available within our wallets in as soon as possible in 2018, with an eye towards rollout in Q1.

I get it that it requires some form of complexity, but if Coinbase can do it as much larger entity in this space, blockchain shouldn't have any problems with it at all.

BCash has full support on their platform, but no sign of Segwit. Is this going to be yet another BitPay situation where just because assholes as Roger Ver have a stake in these companies they can somewhat dictate their roadmap?

[1714792330]

1714792330

[1714792330]

1714792330

[1714792330]

1714792330

[1714792330]

1714792330

[OmegaStarScream]

You pretty much said everything yes. Blockchain.info, BitPay, ShapeShift, Changelly etc. all these services seem to work against bitcoin so don't expect much from them. If you want a web wallet with SegWit support, use GreenAddress.

[LeGaulois]

"SegWait" adoption didn't increase a lot the past few months. It has been growing good up to April, but after, services/companies look like long to implement. Currently, the percentage is maybe about 40% and it is a very low percentage in my opinion. I was expecting to see it adopted faster than this.

[1Referee]

Currently, the percentage is maybe about 40% and it is a very low percentage in my opinion.

That's indeed very low, especially when you take into consideration that we by now could have been hovering around 75% at the very minimum. From where we are today, we can gain at least 50% more throughput and thus get the median fees to tank even further. Ideally, the fees per one input>output transaction would be $0.01-$0.03 with 75% Segwit adoption.

If clients learn to seperate spam transactions from 'real world' transactions (and thus not base transaction fees blatantly on the number of mempool transactions and MB weight) we can get the fees to hover firmly around $0.01 without needing to scale over 1MB per block, but we have some time for that to catch up.

I was expecting to see it adopted faster than this.

It's all due to companies such as Blockchain that there hasn't been much growth in that regard, because these companies are responsible for a lot network traffic.

[LeGaulois]

I just checked the percentage adoption and during the past 6 months, the percentage increased by only 10%. At this speed (10%/6 months), we will need near 2 years to get the 75% adoption (of course don't hope for a 100% adoption, maybe in 10 years) Damn people, they like yelling "Houston, Houston, Bitcoin has a problem..." But when a solution comes out they don't use it  

[BitHodler]

I get it that it requires some form of complexity, but if Coinbase can do it as much larger entity in this space, blockchain shouldn't have any problems with it at all.

BCash has full support on their platform, but no sign of Segwit. Is this going to be yet another BitPay situation where just because assholes as Roger Ver have a stake in these companies they can somewhat dictate their roadmap?

Explains a lot why Coinbase rolled out SegWit support. Roger in a video once said that he regret not having invested in Coinbase back in the very early days, otherwise be would surely attempt to block it through Coinbase as well.

Everything he doesn't have as stake in swiftly upgrades to allow Bitcoin to scale as fast as possible, and unfortunately, I do think that you're right in this specific case. Blockchain.com could very well be the next BitPay.

60% of the industry is still using legacy format addresses, and while it's completely optional whether you support SegWit or not, you should at all times do what's the best for Bitcoin as the center of everything related to crypto.

[hugeblack]

I just checked the percentage adoption, and during the past six months, the percentage increased by only 10%. At this speed (10%/6 months), we will need near two years to get the 75% adoption (of course don't hope for a 100% adoption, maybe in 10 years) Damn people, they like yelling "Houston, Houston, Bitcoin has a problem..." But when a solution comes out, they don't use it 

Maybe that's not true. It was about 2% last year and 38% today.
The real rise was at the end of February "2/26 15% ----> 2/28 ---> 25%."[1]
The fee is appropriate, so many developers are lazy to upgrade. Most of the platforms are to support more shitcoins/tokens.
Maybe if the fee rises they will force to support Segwit.

[1] https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/segwit-usage?orgId=1&panelId=1&fullscreen&from=now-1y&to=now

[LeGaulois]

I just checked the percentage adoption, and during the past six months, the percentage increased by only 10%. At this speed (10%/6 months), we will need near two years to get the 75% adoption (of course don't hope for a 100% adoption, maybe in 10 years) Damn people, they like yelling "Houston, Houston, Bitcoin has a problem..." But when a solution comes out, they don't use it 

Maybe that's not true. It was about 2% last year and 38% today.
The real rise was at the end of February "2/26 15% ----> 2/28 ---> 25%."[1]
The fee is appropriate, so many developers are lazy to upgrade. Most of the platforms are to support more shitcoins/tokens.
Maybe if the fee rises they will force to support Segwit.

[1] https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/segwit-usage?orgId=1&panelId=1&fullscreen&from=now-1y&to=now

The hype about Segwit and services excited to use it, then you can see the trend faded, so, slower to get the percentage increasing at the same speed. It's like the Bitcoin price increasing too much like in December lol.
I am not sure to understand what could be the reason(s) to not use SegWit. Technical? Financial? Not interested to make Bitcoin great again? Paid by Roger Ver?

[1Referee]

I am not sure to understand what could be the reason(s) to not use SegWit. Technical? Financial? Not interested to make Bitcoin great again? Paid by Roger Ver?

- not allow Bitcoin's fees to decrease to the lower range of $0.01 during normal times.
- not willing to lose some level of ASICBOOST effectiveness.

First option is more a Roger thing where the other comes down to Jihan and miners siding with his ideology. BCash has nothing other than lower fees to praise itself for, and as long as their fees remein below Bitcoin's fees, which is something that's guaranteed to happen regardless of how much Roger is trolling, they can call BCash "faster" and cheaper.

BCash's number of transactions is already low, but if you also take into consideration that a large chunk of it (in some cases 50%) are micro payments from tip bots and whatnot, it becomes clear that there is next to no actual peer to peer usage.

[Patatas]

I get it that it requires some form of complexity, but if Coinbase can do it as much larger entity in this space, blockchain shouldn't have any problems with it at all.

I wouldn't choose/advice anyone to chose coinbase over blockchain just because of the segwit benefits. I agree it's crucial but coinbase has way lot of red flags compared to blockchain.com.

From what I heard last, they're in the process of hiring new developers and the development operations are paused till then. Maybe once their hiring is done they would implement it.

[magneto]

Nope. All the while they're trying to revamp their site and add new features, while this promise that they made way back has not been fulfilled to this date.

Honestly not surprising at this stage, they already have a pretty bad reputation. Besides, as others have mentioned the ownership of the company have probably been a contributing factor as to why other altcoins have been implemented while Segwit, which should be implemented before any of the others do, has not.

Either way, I'm not using blockchain.info again and haven't since the early days. There is no advantages whatsoever with using them compared to using Electrum, GreenAddress, or other wallets that do support Segwit, and offer more control over your coins in terms of ease of management of private keys than blockchain.info.

[audaciousbeing]

I wouldn't be bothered about whether they implement SegWit or because as a business, its in their prerogative and they are exercising such. The main reason why I feel they get to relax is because of the drastic drop in transactions fees which makes it not a significant cost compared to their counterpart that have implemented the upgrade assuming that is not there, we won't be having this discussion as users willingly would have migrated from their platform and they would be forced to implement which I believe is not really that difficult.

Another factor is see is that major upgrade like this takes time as it involves transitioning from the ways things are done to a new way. Recently they change domain which falls under that and now combining it with SegWit could mean a lot to them. With time, they would adjust.

However, 2018 is still an ongoing year and they can still be held liable for not keeping to their word until the year is over, we can then call them out.

[1Referee]

The main reason why I feel they get to relax is because of the drastic drop in transactions fees which makes it not a significant cost compared to their counterpart that have implemented the upgrade assuming that is not there

That's not a reason. At any time a spam attack or a massive increase of use can get initiated and we're back to square one. If you look back at the mempool charts, it's clear that it happens periodically, and we're not that far away from our next transaction peak cycle.

In the end, it's all about increasing Bitcoin's throughput, and by not allowing Segwit to be utilized more widely, you are basically contributing to people paying unnecessary high fees.

Another factor is see is that major upgrade like this takes time as it involves transitioning from the ways things are done to a new way. Recently they change domain which falls under that and now combining it with SegWit could mean a lot to them. With time, they would adjust.

Lol, a domain change is peanuts. Don't act like it's something that causes significant delays when it comes to more important matters.

Coinbase in the last 12 months went through way more fundamental development and changes than Blockchain in its entire existence, and Coinbase still did it.

[LeGaulois]

Changing a domain name is a matter of 1 hour and a 24h delay if you changed the DNS.
If it is a challenge to change the domain, people should be afraid to use the service knowing a team can't do the basics. It's like if your mechanic guy doesn't know how to mount the tires, sorry, I pass.

[BitHodler]

I wouldn't choose/advice anyone to chose coinbase over blockchain just because of the segwit benefits. I agree it's crucial but coinbase has way lot of red flags compared to blockchain.com.

The only downside of Coinbase in my opinion is that it isn't really a wallet, but a digital currency bank, which means that you don't own any of the coins until you withdraw them to your own wallet.

I use Coinbase quite frequently myself and it works incredibly well. In case my aforementioned point wasn't what you meant as being a red flag, please explain what you mean. Maybe that I missed something important.

That's not a reason. At any time a spam attack or a massive increase of use can get initiated and we're back to square one. If you look back at the mempool charts, it's clear that it happens periodically, and we're not that far away from our next transaction peak cycle.

Right. It would only make sense to upgrade your entire platform before severe network congestion occurs once again. Scaling to handle peak traffic as company is one of the most important aspects.

[timerland]

The is simply no reason to use blockchain.info anymore.

It's not like implementing Segwit is that much harder if at all than moving their domain over to blockchain.com or the implementation of BCH and other altcoins on their site, which are all things they did in the meanwhile without ever touching on Segwit.

It's a broken promise to me for sure and demonstrates their lack of professionalism. As others mentioned I definitely wouldn't use coinbase for the sake of segwit even though they've got support of it because you're not in control of your own funds at all. But there's still better alternatives both online and with desktop which allow exclusive control over your private keys + segwit support.

Even though blockchain.com does allow exclusive control over your private keys, it's actually extremely hard to manage your private keys, export/import, etc. with the new updates. Also, you're going to be hit with higher fees without Segwit.

[felicita]

Since now i was a friend of the blockchain wallet iam using this since many years and both sometimes bitcoins there with SEPA and no fees was good.
But its a very sad think that big players like blockchain.info not accepting Segwit




regards

[gentlemand]

I am not sure to understand what could be the reason(s) to not use SegWit. Technical? Financial? Not interested to make Bitcoin great again? Paid by Roger Ver?

Bcashers, Roger Ver and Bitmain primarily. Bitmain presumably have ordered Bitpay not to do anything that'll improve the BTC user experience. Same goes for any pie with Roger Ver's finger in.

I find it strange that despite implementing Segwit, Coinbase still don't appear to be batching. That would make a much bigger difference. And Gemini haven't bothered with Segwit or batching but then again their contribution to blockchain space will be minimal.

[1Referee]

I find it strange that despite implementing Segwit, Coinbase still don't appear to be batching. That would make a much bigger difference.

I doubt it will actually result in a noticeable difference.

Transaction batching is only viable if you repeatedly process a ton of transactions every hour, and that's not the case when it comes to Coinbase. It seems that people (mostly newbies) use Coinbase as an all-in-one platform from where they almost never actually deal with user based on-chain output transactions.

Bittrex (before they ruined my legacy account) always batched their transactions, which on one side is a good thing, but it's pretty annoying as well, especially when you take into consideration that in some cases it may take up to five minutes before you see your coins pop up in your wallet.

I don't think the average user only interested in gains is willing to wait five minutes for the sake of not cluttering the blockchain, they just don't care much.

[gentlemand]

I don't think the average user only interested in gains is willing to wait five minutes for the sake of not cluttering the blockchain, they just don't care much.

What of the approximately one trillion threads of screeching about high fees back in the day? I guess memories are short but they'll come back with a vengeance if it happens again.