SegWit not Bitcoin?

[Scay47]

At the moment most of my discussions around SegWit are that many claim, that SegWit is his own Coin and if you want to send BTC from a SegWit address to a non SegWit address the coins would be lost.

And that SegWit updated blocks would not be able to HardFork?! So SegWit is against the Consensus rules.


Maybe I am getting something totally wrong.

Can someone give me a proper explanation about this topic. Cause lots of people I have been talking to, are either against it or want to shill me to BCash.

[1713882612]

1713882612

[seoincorporation]

At the moment most of my discussions around SegWit are that many claim, that SegWit is his own Coin and if you want to send BTC from a SegWit address to a non SegWit address the coins would be lost.

And that SegWit updated blocks would not be able to HardFork?! So SegWit is against the Consensus rules.


Maybe I am getting something totally wrong.

Can someone give me a proper explanation about this topic. Cause lots of people I have been talking to, are either against it or want to shill me to BCash.

You are wrong because you can send BTC from a SegWit address to a non SegWith address without a problem. The issue about segwit address are the support, not all wallets or all block explorers gives support to that kind of addies, so is hard to trace their transactions or to have a segwit addy in your wallet.

[NeuroticFish]

Cause lots of people I have been talking to, are either against it or want to shill me to BCash.

Then you clearly got something wrong in the "info" / "help" you received.

At the moment most of my discussions around SegWit are that many claim, that SegWit is his own Coin and if you want to send BTC from a SegWit address to a non SegWit address the coins would be lost.

No. It's incorrect.
If you have a Bitcoin SegWit wallet you can clearly send Bitcoin to non-SegWit. (It's backward compatible).
If you (or a service you use) have an old Bitcoin wallet that doesn't know what's SegWit and you don't want to upgrade then you cannot send to pure SegWit (bc1*) address, but you still can send to compatible (3*) address. Yes, there are 2 types of addresses that support SegWit.

Now, SegWit is, let's say, a technology. Some other coins (Litecoin) have also adopted it. Of course, you should not send Bitcoin to a Litecoin address, with or without SegWit.

And that SegWit updated blocks would not be able to HardFork?! So SegWit is against the Consensus rules.

A hard fork means somebody did a big change and the blockchain "splits". The regular chain will go on as it is and the new chain will go by the new rules.
Indeed, if you had Bitcoin in a SegWit address there's a big chance you'll not access the coins from the fork because of technical difficulties. But most of those "fork" coins were/are shitcoins with 0 value, so there's not much of a loss...

[bL4nkcode]

You get that info in wrong sources. Segwit is an upgrade protocols of bitcoin, a soft fork, so there's no segwit coin. 'Twas designed to solve the bitcoin's growing blockchain size, its limitation. As the block size remains the same as 1mb, but it can contain data more efficiently. To reduce the tx fee.

You can send from a legacy address (non-segwit) to a segwit address and vice versa.
A segwit address mostly starts with a character "3" which is a P2SH segwit, and the segwit native has a string starts with "bc1" and the legacy address are the common that starts in "1". But don't be confused coz not all address that  starts in "3" is a segwit compatible.

If I'm correct tx fee may vary depend:
Segwit -> Segwit = Cheap
Segwit -> Legacy = Cheap
Legacy -> Segwit = Standard

[franky1]

segwit is not a separate coin on the same network. its a tx format specialised to be used as the gateway format to be compatible with other networks. namely the LN network.

segwit tx format on the bitcoin network IS moving bitcoin value. but yes some nodes not segwit compatible wont relay, create or be able to independently fully verifying the funds of a segwit tx format. at best/worse. once other nodes have confirmed the block containing the segwit tx formatted btc funds. the non segwit user would just have to "trust" the peers they connected to honourable validated the block on their behalf. effectively relegating the non segwit nodes to no longer be full nodes, but leacher/lite nodes just archiving stripped data and trusting peers done a good job.

its the LN network which is not bitcoin.
LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin. it requires locking up for instance bitcoin into a 'vault'(segwit multisig) that is co-signed by another entity. which puts pressure on the bitcoin networks UTXOset if everyone started doing.. it to then let the user use a different network(LN).

segwit has made it so bitcoin can be forked and/or upgraded far more easily without having to achieve a 95% consensus before features activate, stalling out incompatible nodes or causing those nodes that did not upgrade into no longer being full nodes.
whereby using the old 95% consensus:
the incompatible stalled 5% nodes could decide to just go offline, upgrade to be part of the network again or make an altcoin at the stall date.
whereby using the more contentious method:
the incompatibe stalled out higher % nodes could decide to just go offline, upgrade to be part of the network again or make an altcoin at the stall date.
the unupgraded "compatible" can continue under a downstream/filtered 'trust of peer' situation, upgrade or join an altcoin should one be made at the stall date.

now if segwit activated new features at a lower threshold with more than 5% nodes not compatible. then it becomes more contentious. as was seen in august 2017

as for the fee's.
compared to the 2015 promise of segwit bring so much benefit. segwit has not made transactions cheaper. it had ripped out fee priorities. caused fee wars and has, using a feature known as witness scale factor, made it so normal bitcoin tx formats are 4x more expensive. even while the segwit fee's are still higher than the 2015 average fee cost to transact thus making traditional bitcoin tx formats 4x more again than that.

..
the last 3 years has not been done to scale bitcoin because as of yet even as far back as 2009-10 when satoshi himself mentioned that bitcoin could handle 7tx/s (600k tx a day) the bitcoin network still has not surpassed 600k tx a day, even after all the promises promised. and also even when mempools have surpassed 1mb per 10min and people still having to wait more than one block just to get a confirm.

segwit is simply a tx format to be a gateway format to allow users to use another network and take utility away from using bitcoin, as that was its primary purpose.
hard drive byte per byte segwit is not proposed as a scaling solution.
segwit sat per byte is not proposed as the fee reduction solution compared to the 2015 levels and the total opposite of solving fee promises for non segwit tx formats

[Wind_FURY]

its the LN network which is not bitcoin.
LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin. it requires locking up for instance bitcoin into a 'vault'(segwit multisig) that is co-signed by another entity. which puts pressure on the bitcoin networks UTXOset if everyone started doing.. it to then let the user use a different network(LN).

The "Lightning Network" is an off-chain layer, which you can use to make transactions in Bitcoin. Plus no, Lightning is not a network of "multiple coins". That is misinformation.

Remember that your Bitcoins never leave the blockchain when you use the Lightning Network. That's why some people say that "off-chain" is not a perfect term for it.

[franky1]

its the LN network which is not bitcoin.
LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin. it requires locking up for instance bitcoin into a 'vault'(segwit multisig) that is co-signed by another entity. which puts pressure on the bitcoin networks UTXOset if everyone started doing.. it to then let the user use a different network(LN).

The "Lightning Network" is an off-chain layer, which you can use to make transactions in Bitcoin. Plus no, Lightning is not a network of "multiple coins". That is misinformation.

Remember that your Bitcoins never leave the blockchain when you use the Lightning Network. That's why some people say that "off-chain" is not a perfect term for it.

your so stuck in a propaganda myth
try researching the truth.. heres a keyword
chainhash

it allows the LN network to know what chain (network/coin) the payment/channel is involved in. its what allows litecoin, vertcoin and others to use LN.

its why LN lets litecoin use it and also allows atomic swaps to occur
LN is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate network for multiple coins to use.

the "off-chain" is the mis information.. its a way to be subtle that LN is a non blockchain network

if you are next going to argue that LN is not its own network.. simply ask yourself what does N stand for in LN
ill give you a hint 'network'
ask yourself why is it not called a LBF
lightning bitcoin feature

more proof?
https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd/blob/master/chainregistry.go#L570

Code:

	// litecoinTestnetGenesis is the genesis hash of Litecoin's testnet4
	// chain.
	litecoinTestnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
		0xa0, 0x29, 0x3e, 0x4e, 0xeb, 0x3d, 0xa6, 0xe6,
		0xf5, 0x6f, 0x81, 0xed, 0x59, 0x5f, 0x57, 0x88,
		0x0d, 0x1a, 0x21, 0x56, 0x9e, 0x13, 0xee, 0xfd,
		0xd9, 0x51, 0x28, 0x4b, 0x5a, 0x62, 0x66, 0x49,
})

	// litecoinMainnetGenesis is the genesis hash of Litecoin's main chain.
	litecoinMainnetGenesis = chainhash.Hash([chainhash.HashSize]byte{
		0xe2, 0xbf, 0x04, 0x7e, 0x7e, 0x5a, 0x19, 0x1a,
		0xa4, 0xef, 0x34, 0xd3, 0x14, 0x97, 0x9d, 0xc9,
		0x98, 0x6e, 0x0f, 0x19, 0x25, 0x1e, 0xda, 0xba,
		0x59, 0x40, 0xfd, 0x1f, 0xe3, 0x65, 0xa7, 0x12,
}

if lightning NETWORK was not for multi coin usage, it would not even want to register/acknowledge the existence of other coins and would only want to accept bitcoin...
.. but thats not the case.
its a open network for any coin that is compatible. (its why litecoin done segwit too. to have a tx format that is a gateway format into LN)

also...
the reason they misguide you with "bitcoin layer" is just the fundraiser/sponsorship advert to get some investment for devs by playing off the separate network as something "relevant" to bitcoin.
its much like coinbase buzzwording bitcoin service even though they also accept other coins. and mainly a fiat service.. but by mentioning bitcoin. creates the hype and gets them better investors

[DooMAD]

segwit has made it so bitcoin can be forked and/or upgraded far more easily without having to achieve a 95% consensus before features activate

LIE.

Any fork can be activated at any threshold.  It depends what code those securing the chain choose to run. 

For hardforks, you are more than welcome to run software that sets activation at 95% if that's what you want.  But if enough users are running code that allows a fork to activate at a lower threshold, then that's what will happen.  There is no rule that states it always has to be 95%.

For softforks, you are more than welcome to run software that doesn't support the fork at all.  But if you've made the choice to do that, then you accept the consequences that you may need to trust others that did choose to support the fork.  Much like you accept the consequences that you need to trust others if you choose to run an SPV client.  Run what you want, but understand what the implications are.

You don't get to dictate that forks can't activate with a lower threshold.  Users are free to decide this for themselves.

[franky1]

segwit has made it so bitcoin can be forked and/or upgraded far more easily without having to achieve a 95% consensus before features activate

LIE.

Any fork can be activated at any threshold.  It depends what code those securing the chain choose to run.  

For hardforks, you are more than welcome to run software that sets activation at 95% if that's what you want.  But if enough users are running code that allows a fork to activate at a lower threshold, then that's what will happen.  There is no rule that states it always has to be 95%.

For softforks, you are more than welcome to run software that doesn't support the fork at all.  But if you've made the choice to do that, then you accept the consequences that you may need to trust others that did choose to support the fork.  Much like you accept the consequences that you need to trust others if you choose to run an SPV client.  Run what you want, but understand what the implications are.

You don't get to dictate that forks can't activate with a lower threshold.  Users are free to decide this for themselves.

again you are misguided.
1. im not dictating crap. thats what the "dev state" done in august 2017
2. consensus of majority means just that. majority.. by the "dev state" wanting a lower threshold is a contentious fork
3. by making nodes get banned and blocks getting rejected is also a different scenario than consensus.
the old consensus mechanism would not ban old nodes and would not ban old block formats..
but the dev state you support have and did..
4. by promoting such threatening contentious fork which occured on august 1st. was not consensus

but atleast your starting to admit that core are running code that activates at a lower threshold...
you finally tripped over your own flip flop which goes against your previous flips of 100% loyalty

anyway my argument is not about the %. its about the fact that it was not a clear majority accrued via full community count. due to the tricks of NYA/UASF/"compatibility" etc...
i already told you in many topics "mandatory" "mandatory" "mandatory" "mandatory" is what i am against.

you keep saying how users get to choose by them upgrading to a feature they want. yet segwit wasnt not activated by the method you flip.. you even admit the "compatibility. and the no vote and the other stuff that users dont get to dictate what core should do... so no point you flopping by suddenly saying users do get a vote

now may you go in peace and watch some eastenders. because i know you love your soap opera/drama more so that reality

[DooMAD]

again you are misguided.
1. im not dictating crap.

LIE.

You're dictating it has to be 95% support to activate a fork.  You're dictating we can't use softforks.  You're dictating we can't use activation dates in forks. 

2. consensus of majority means just that. majority.. by the "dev state" wanting a lower threshold is a contentious fork

LIE.

Devs can suggest a threshold.  They can't enforce one.  Those securing the chain make that decision.  As it happens, SegWit was activated by 90%+ of the hashrate.

3. by making nodes get banned and blocks getting rejected is also a different scenario than consensus.

LIE.

I can prevent nodes connecting to my node if I want.  That's my decision.  I have had that right since I first fired up my node.  SegWit has not changed this.  If I want to run code that disconnects a particular client, that's my call.  Not yours.

4. by promoting such threatening contentious fork which occured on august 1st. was not consensus

LIE.

"Promoting" things on an internet forum is not related to consensus.  Consensus is determined by the code people are running.  Not by what is said on the internet. 

now may you go in peace and watch some eastenders. because i know you love your soap opera/drama more so that reality

Said the forum's #1 fan of Kardashians.   

[franky1]

You're dictating

things on an internet forum is not related to consensus.  Consensus is determined by the code people are running.  Not by what is said on the internet.  

so show me the dictating code i wrote?

oh wait. there is none. because i am not dictating. im just stating what occured IN THE PAST
no one can dictate the past.. thus im just informing people that august 1st 2017 actually occured because you wish people to not be aware of it.

i know its a negative hit against your dev state. but it happened. and funnily enough they are proud of it. they are the ones PROMOTING mandated upgrades and upgrades that dont need consensus

which keps me wondering why your denying the actions occured when the guys you wish to defend are promoting their involvement and joy of it happening

[DooMAD]

so show me the dictating code i wrote?

Show me the code Mussolini wrote.
Show me the code Stalin wrote.
Show me the code Kim Jong-un wrote.

You're still a cunt.

[franky1]

yawn

Code definition: A code is a set of rules about how people should behave or about how something must be..

google can show you the rules/laws they made.
should you care to eventually want to independently research.

also, should you care to read my footnote

"Please do your own research & respect what is written here as both opinion & information gleaned from experience. many people replying with insults but no on-topic content substance, automatically are 'facepalmed' and yawned at"

i would also like to emphasize opinions on a discussion forum.. are discussions. not rules, not laws. not dictating or and not binding.. unlike the actions of the "dev state" in august 2017

if you dont like what i have to say. hit the ignore button

[Paashaas]

Said the forum's #1 fan of Kardashians.   

Frank is full with bullshit when it comes to Segwit and LN.

[franky1]

Said the forum's #1 fan of Kardashians.  

Frank is full with bullshit when it comes to Segwit and LN.

referencing the kardasians is about the social drama distraction going on within the "dev state" of dcg.co/portfolio
to which doomad and windfury and any core loyalist are fans of.

yet the devs themselves have something different to say than what windfury and doomad believe.
windfury i take with a pinch of salt, as he is still learning.
but doomad has an obvious issue, which makes me wonder what his end agenda is with all his flip flopping and even going against the mantra of the very team he tries to defend.
i still wonder what some fanboys are even doing defending something that even the devs dont try denying.

but hey if your rebuttals only end up being insults. then many yawns and facepalms would be heard.. and thats about it

[NoMoreForksPls]

At the moment most of my discussions around SegWit are that many claim, that SegWit is his own Coin and if you want to send BTC from a SegWit address to a non SegWit address the coins would be lost.

And that SegWit updated blocks would not be able to HardFork?! So SegWit is against the Consensus rules.


Maybe I am getting something totally wrong.

Can someone give me a proper explanation about this topic. Cause lots of people I have been talking to, are either against it or want to shill me to BCash.

You are wrong because you can send BTC from a SegWit address to a non SegWith address without a problem. The issue about segwit address are the support, not all wallets or all block explorers gives support to that kind of addies, so is hard to trace their transactions or to have a segwit addy in your wallet.

Well yes, you can send money to a segwit address, doing it the other way around is more challenging...
I'm totally not a fan of segwit, in fact I think it's awful. But SegWit is Bitcoin because that's what the market decided after the fork, and I respect the market's decision.

[ðºÞæ]

SegWit not Bitcoin?
Correct.

Here is Bitcoin white paper
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf

Satoshi quote

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshis Version is Peer to Peer (Men to Men, Person to Person) without a Segregated Witness (SegWit).aka creating a banking channel. (like opening a bank account).

[franky1]

SegWit not Bitcoin?
Correct.

Here is Bitcoin white paper
https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf

Satoshi quote

A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.

Satoshis Version is Peer to Peer (Men to Men, Person to Person) without a Segregated Witness (SegWit).aka creating a banking channel. (like opening a bank account).

LN is the separate network with channels.
segwit is a tx format... its a bitcoin tx format.. when its used on the bitcoin network
it can be used to lock bitcoin up should people want to use the tx format as a gateway into LN.
so segwit is part of bitcoin. but its utility opens users up to something thats not bitcoin

segwit is a tx format... its a bitcoin tx format.. when its used on the litecoin network
it can be used to lock bitcoin up should people want to use the tx format as a gateway into LN.
so segwit is part of litecoin. but its utility opens users up to something thats not litecoin

[kamBlanV]

in my opinion, segwit has a big influence on a blockchain transaction. segwit comes to alleviate the scalability of bitcoin which has long been a major obstacle in distributed ledgers such as Bitcoin.

The scalability of this block is the same as it happens and becomes an obstacle also in crypto variants other than Bitcoin, or what is called Altcoin.

segwit is a basic consensus, and will be followed by full nodes in the network.

[Wind_FURY]

its the LN network which is not bitcoin.
LN is a separate network for utility of multiple coins such as litecoin, vertcoin and bitcoin. it requires locking up for instance bitcoin into a 'vault'(segwit multisig) that is co-signed by another entity. which puts pressure on the bitcoin networks UTXOset if everyone started doing.. it to then let the user use a different network(LN).

The "Lightning Network" is an off-chain layer, which you can use to make transactions in Bitcoin. Plus no, Lightning is not a network of "multiple coins". That is misinformation.

Remember that your Bitcoins never leave the blockchain when you use the Lightning Network. That's why some people say that "off-chain" is not a perfect term for it.

your so stuck in a propaganda myth
try researching the truth.. heres a keyword
chainhash

Where's the propaganda? Where is the "myth".

it allows the LN network to know what chain (network/coin) the payment/channel is involved in. its what allows litecoin, vertcoin and others to use LN.

its why LN lets litecoin use it and also allows atomic swaps to occur
LN is not a bitcoin layer. its a separate network for multiple coins to use.

the "off-chain" is the mis information.. its a way to be subtle that LN is a non blockchain network

Yes I have already heard of that, but it is a long way from where Lightning is today.

But wouldn't you say that that is good for trading between coins in a trust-minimized way, decentrally? Wouldn't that reduce our need for centralized exchanges that require KYC/AML? Wouldn't the be better for our freedom?

I do not see how it is bad.