How much better placed are we capacity-wise for future spikes in use?

[gentlemand]

Does anyone have an overview of how many exchanges, wallets and services have fully taken on Segwit and batching compared to the previous fee squeeze? If we were to have similar transaction demands, is BTC now considerably better placed to cope with them?

It's hard to tell of course how much of that was Bitmain and others spamming to make a point, but by the time another bubble comes around demand will be that much larger again. What would be the likely outcome if there was a stampede right now?

[1715362498]

1715362498

[pooya87]

you are asking about two separate things.
1. whether services such as exchanges are using SegWit, batching,...
which is easy to measure SegWit adoption since you can simply check the wallet they give you or their announcements to see if they support it. but it is harder to see if they support batching, etc since you have to do chain analysis to see if they use it for all their transactions.

2. whether bitcoin can handle its demand.
in my opinion the answer is no. if you check the mempool and fee spikes you can see that they are becoming more common and fees spike to as high as 30-40 satoshi/byte. for instance about an hour ago it went as high as 5. and this is happening while price is the most stable!
with a tx surge it will be high again, this time we may not need a spam attack to see 2017 repetition.

[Carlton Banks]

Does anyone have an overview of how many exchanges, wallets and services have fully taken on Segwit and batching compared to the previous fee squeeze? If we were to have similar transaction demands, is BTC now considerably better placed to cope with them?

Somewhere between half and 2 thirds of larger bitcoin services allow segwit depositing, and all support sending (as all support any P2SH address). Which is not ideal, but at least most of the way there.

Segwit isn't going to help if someone is determined to spam the network, but it will push up the price: the price of the attack increases (as there is more space to fill in a block), and the BTC price may get pushed up too, as the spammer might run out of BTC if they overestimate natural demand. Defining spam is hypothetical to some extent; a sophisticated spammer will craft their spam to be indistinguishable from regular use by individuals (although there were cases in the past where a BTC output was repeatedly spent to the same address in a chain of dependent transactions, which would be a very simple way of scripting some spam, and of no other conceivable purpose)

It's hard to tell of course how much of that was Bitmain and others spamming to make a point, but by the time another bubble comes around demand will be that much larger again. What would be the likely outcome if there was a stampede right now?

Lightning can take some of the load now, but not that much (there's about 100 BTC on the LN as of today, October 28th). There's probably a small amount of people using lightning for which a big spike in on-chain transactions would be unnoticeable; they've already got as much money as they need into channels already, enough to ride out the spike until it dies off. In the end, Lightning will help to relieve the impact of on-chain transactions queues far more effectively, but not yet.

[AdolfinWolf]

Can u help me , I have a question  , Who I can ?

Open a topic about your issue in the section you think fits your question best. ...?

[Zin-Zang]

Lightning can take some of the load now, but not that much (there's about 100 BTC on the LN as of today, October 28th). There's probably a small amount of people using lightning for which a big spike in on-chain transactions would be unnoticeable; they've already got as much money as they need into channels already, enough to ride out the spike until it dies off. In the end, Lightning will help to relieve the impact of on-chain transactions queues far more effectively, but not yet.

LN is the worst place to be , if bitcoin suffers a massive spam attack,
as their is a vulnerability if the ONCHAIN does not have enough transaction capacity.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/here-s-how-bitcoin-s-lightning-network-could-fail-1467736127/

The Lightning Network’s Failure Mode

The Lightning Network failure scenario described by Todd, takes place when a large number of people on the Bitcoin network need to settle their Lightning Network disputes on the blockchain in a relatively short period of time.

“We do have a failure mode which is: Imagine a whole bunch of these [settlements] have to happen at once,” Todd explained. “There’s only so much data that can go through the bitcoin network and if we had a large number of Lightning channels get closed out very rapidly, how are we going to get them all confirmed? At some point, you run out of capacity.”

In a scenario where a large number of people need to settle their Lightning contracts on the blockchain, the price for doing so could increase substantially as the available space in bitcoin blocks becomes sparse. “At some point some people start losing out because the cost is just higher than what they can afford,” Todd said. “If you have a very large percentage of the network using Lightning, potentially this cost is very high. Potentially, we could get this mass outbreak of failure.”

The way the Lightning Network works, a user must be able to issue a breach remedy transaction in order to keep their counterparty honest.
If a user is unable to make the proper transaction on the blockchain in a certain amount of time, their counterparty may be able to take control of bitcoins tied up in the smart contract between the two parties.

LN is no solution to bitcoin's onchain limits, if those onchain limits are pushed to the max,
in fact it would make matters worse if LN users starting closing channels as the onchain fees increase.
Segwit only gave a ~1.7 megabyte size increase from the 1 megabyte.
Using LN is only safe, if bitcoin onchain limits are not being exceeded.

Which is why using litecoin with LN is safer than using bitcoin with LN, as litecoin has onchain transaction capacity to spare.
*Onchain Capacity Matters*

[hulla]

Although, lightning network is not full activated but it doing fine and gaining more users. Meanwhile, it ought to be fully activated before another high traffic happen again and if it does happen faster than expected, with my research I find out that almost 50% of bitcoin transaction now use SegWit which is still good to handle any bubble.

[Zin-Zang]

Although, lightning network is not full activated but it doing fine and gaining more users. Meanwhile, it ought to be fully activated before another high traffic happen again and if it does happen faster than expected, with my research I find out that almost 50% of bitcoin transaction now use SegWit which is still good to handle any bubble.

https://oxt.me/charts

Click on Segwit usage, Site Reported # is Less than 40% for October.

I guess the part about the danger of being in LN, if bitcoin onchain transactions is maxed out eluded you.

With that kind of research you'll be a Millionaire in no time, if you started off as a Billionaire.  

FYI:
Franky1 claims that 40% is really only ~10%

"and worse still how segwit is being used in the real world"

so by you mashing in legacy data to fudg numbers and make presumptions and inflate numbers.. positively affects how segwit affects how segwit is being used in the real world

..
sorry but only a segwit UTXO (whether p2wsh or p2wpkh") affect how segwit acts in the real world
no fudging in legacy data and calling it segwit can twist that.

anyway.
have a nice month
p.s if you are interested in facts about segwit. and the now 3 year "onchain scaling" debate that this all stems from

find out how many TRUE FULL bytes of data a legacy tx of 2-in-2-out tx uses. and compare it to a 2-in-2-out segwit uses
then do the same for a legacy 2 of 2 multisig vs a segwit 2 of 2multisig

again non of the stripped, filtered, downstream compatible vbyte wishy washy stuff.. i mean FULL TRUE BYTES of full true validation transaction

then ask yourself. if they just removed the witness scale factor so both segwit and/or legacy could all happily utilise the 4mb weight, without the wishy washy nonsense. which transaction type would use less bytes per tx

FYI2:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/9sex11/jihan_no_longer_includes_segwit_transactions_last/

If you look at my mempool statistics at Oct 27, around 15:00 UTC, this behaviour is obvious.
Antpool found four consecutive blocks, so there were a lot of segwit transactions accumulating in the mempool that they didn't take.
Their block 547,566 with 0.04 BTC fee, accepted mostly low fee transaction. The next block by btc.com had 0.24 BTC fee.

Hmm,
Antpool earned 12.5 bitcoins for finding a block , making the transaction fees chump change to them since it was so low.
If they start blocking all segwit transactions from their blocks , (they can delay segwit transactions)
they could increase the danger to LN when people need to cash out onchain,
increasing the risk LN funds can be stolen.  Interesting to say the least.