Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT!

[Carlton Banks]

i know the fact SegWit transaction have bigger size in byte

nested segwit inputs are a little bigger than old style inputs, but bech32 (i.e. native segwit) inputs are a little smaller

[franky1]

How about you actually wait to see how it's implemented before you completely jump the gun

some moral following devs have also highlighted the flaws.. you seem to be someone that wants things to break and then say "oh well X did say it was an experiment"

you love the idea of getting people off the network, you love the idea of increased fee's to deter usage, you love the idea of promoting positives to get newb's in. but then lack care about what happens when users actually want to use it

if you cared about bitcoin and cared about people in the worlds utility of it, more than your own greed of getting rich from others loses. you would actually see things more clearly.

it appears you are more so the "scum" as you have quite openly shown how much you dont want people to use bitcoin as a currency

good luck with your greedy self indulgent idea's of how you wish bitcoin to be bypassed and users pushed towards other networks. but even with me wishing you luck, im afraid to tell you that your not going to get rich via your LN promoting and utility

[DooMAD]

if you cared about bitcoin and cared about people in the worlds utility of it, more than your own greed of getting rich from others loses. you would actually see things more clearly.

If you cared about Bitcoin, you'd stop trying to turn it into a shitty BCH/SV clone.  That benefits no one other than the people in charge of those centralised shitcoins.  Now go whine to the devs of your preferred client, BU, to implement all the utterly dismal, imbecilic crap you think would make Bitcoin better.  Most of the devs on this chain just think you're a sad joke.  No wonder they ridicule you.

im afraid to tell you that your not going to get rich via your LN promoting and utility

No, moron, you've got that backwards.  I've already told you.  

[franky1]

as for ETF and Carltons debate about transaction size

bech32 uses MORE bytes
also nested segwit is also bigger
even funnier part is segwits only real purpose is for a LN gateway which requires bytes for a lock and multisig meaning when segwit does get real active for its true purpose the bytes per transaction will be higher

P.S
there are stupid websites that push the positive propaganda of segwit.. like this one
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/segwit/
celebrating how bitcoin has a 2mb block.. but look closely at the image... number of transactions: 225 (facepalm)

and good old doomad. running out of technical rebuttles so resorts to personal attacks.. how obvious
also trying to make out that i am part of bch team is him scrapping the bottom of the barrel.

if only he knew more about bitcoin and LN and not so much caring for his own greed, would doomad be singing a different song
by the way. devs do ridicule me. until they realise fixing bitcoin means more then protecting their own reputation. the ridicules end up just being about how i inform the community of flaws rather than be about the flaws. yea i dont spoon feed all details but for good reason. if those who rebuttle cant work it out, its their loss

as shown by doomads link. the devs had to do a workaround for segwit when i started mentioning its flaws in 2015/6.
same with segwits noinput. i mentioned it last year and suddenly they decide after introducing it to then not make it a public release and even a year later they still cant figure out a workaround for it. (but they still want to have it, otherwise they would have dropped it)
seems that doomad and devs have things in common. care more about reputation than bitcoin issues

[pooya87]

i know the fact SegWit transaction have bigger size in byte

nested segwit inputs are a little bigger than old style inputs, but bech32 (i.e. native segwit) inputs are a little smaller

the bech32 outputs are smaller not as inputs, it is because the ScriptPub (of type P2WPKH in comparison to P2PKH) doesn't have the same OPs otherwise the transactions spending them are bigger.
every SegWit transaction has overhead. there is the 2 byte marker/flag (=0001), there is a 1 byte leftover CompactInt indicating size of ScriptSig being zero, and finally the CompactInt added to witness indicating the number of items in it.
unless i've missed something in transactions, the total size seems to be the same for P2WPKH (smaller previous tx but bigger tx spending it)

[Wind_FURY]

if you cared about bitcoin and cared about people in the worlds utility of it, more than your own greed of getting rich from others loses. you would actually see things more clearly.

If you cared about Bitcoin, you'd stop trying to turn it into a shitty BCH/SV clone.  That benefits no one other than the people in charge of those centralised shitcoins.  Now go whine to the devs of your preferred client, BU, to implement all the utterly dismal, imbecilic crap you think would make Bitcoin better.  Most of the devs on this chain just think you're a sad joke.  No wonder they ridicule you.

Wait for the next Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Cash SV halvings. The Miners Of The Forks can't mine at a loss forever. The Forks will either follow Bitcoin's model, or their miners leave and mine Bitcoin.

[Red-Apple]

if you cared about bitcoin and cared about people in the worlds utility of it, more than your own greed of getting rich from others loses. you would actually see things more clearly.

If you cared about Bitcoin, you'd stop trying to turn it into a shitty BCH/SV clone.  That benefits no one other than the people in charge of those centralised shitcoins.  Now go whine to the devs of your preferred client, BU, to implement all the utterly dismal, imbecilic crap you think would make Bitcoin better.  Most of the devs on this chain just think you're a sad joke.  No wonder they ridicule you.

Wait for the next Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Cash SV halvings. The Miners Of The Forks can't mine at a loss forever. The Forks will either follow Bitcoin's model, or their miners leave and mine Bitcoin.

or they do another hard fork (5th one?) and manipulate the difficulty again to invent the incentive for miners to mine their shitcoin just like they did in the early days when they were practically giving away 12000-13000 BCH per day to miners and it was worth ~0.24BTC back then so the miners profit was ~3000BTC per day instead of 1800BTC per day.

[Wind_FURY]

if you cared about bitcoin and cared about people in the worlds utility of it, more than your own greed of getting rich from others loses. you would actually see things more clearly.

If you cared about Bitcoin, you'd stop trying to turn it into a shitty BCH/SV clone.  That benefits no one other than the people in charge of those centralised shitcoins.  Now go whine to the devs of your preferred client, BU, to implement all the utterly dismal, imbecilic crap you think would make Bitcoin better.  Most of the devs on this chain just think you're a sad joke.  No wonder they ridicule you.

Wait for the next Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Bitcoin Cash SV halvings. The Miners Of The Forks can't mine at a loss forever. The Forks will either follow Bitcoin's model, or their miners leave and mine Bitcoin.

or they do another hard fork (5th one?) and manipulate the difficulty again to invent the incentive for miners to mine their shitcoin just like they did in the early days when they were practically giving away 12000-13000 BCH per day to miners and it was worth ~0.24BTC back then so the miners profit was ~3000BTC per day instead of 1800BTC per day.

Plus use Bitcoin.com's mining power to mine Bitcoin Cash without the miners' permission, like the last time. Or pump Bitcoin Cash through their mined Bitcoins, like the last time.

Either of them will not be sustainable.

[Wind_FURY]

Plus use Bitcoin.com's mining power to mine Bitcoin Cash without the miners' permission, like the last time. Or pump Bitcoin Cash through their mined Bitcoins, like the last time.

Either of them will not be sustainable.

The same miners holding up BTC are holding up BCH and BSV,
you may believe them when they say they only support one coin.
But hey , you're kind-of-really stupid.  

Try harder troll.

Nothing about bitcoin is sustainable, exponential energy waste, new asics needed every 2 years, no guarantee that price covers cost, competitors with cheaper fees and faster performance with just as good security.
BTC got problems, I imagine it would die before you noticed them .  

Many have debated that, yet 10 years later it's still the king. Long live the king!

[figmentofmyass]

The same miners holding up BTC are holding up BCH and BSV,
you may believe them when they say they only support one coin.
But hey , you're kind-of-really stupid.  

compare their respective hash rates. miners obviously believe in BTC much more than those altcoins.

Nothing about bitcoin is sustainable, exponential energy waste, new asics needed every 2 years, no guarantee that price covers cost, competitors with cheaper fees and faster performance with just as good security.

"just as good security"---no, not with regard to attack cost.

why should there be any guarantee that price covers cost? is that true for gold miners or any other commodity producers? of course not, because that's not how free markets work.

[Wind_FURY]

Nothing about bitcoin is sustainable, exponential energy waste, new asics needed every 2 years, no guarantee that price covers cost, competitors with cheaper fees and faster performance with just as good security.

"just as good security"---no, not with regard to attack cost.

why should there be any guarantee that price covers cost? is that true for gold miners or any other commodity producers? of course not, because that's not how free markets work.

What anti-Bitcoin newbies like Kahos77 fail to understand, or avoid to understand, is that Bitcoin's model has been very sustainable. It's already right there in front of their eyes for 10 years.

More miners => more secure => more confidence => more users => higher price => more miners => ...

[Khaos77]

More miners => more secure => more confidence => more users => higher price => more miners => ...

This is the reality.
BTC Miners => 4 Mining Pool operators = security is dependent on 4 guys with over 51% attack vector.  

No matter the energy waste the btc miners give 4 guys a 51% attack potential every day.
LTC also has a mere 4 guys with a 51% attack potential,
which is why coins that have more than 4 guys are more secure than your PoW pooling coins.

FYI:
Wind_Fury is so clueless, he thinks running a non-mining node can earn him money. 

[Lance203sin]

I like updates of protocols. After segwit im paying much less fees

[Wind_FURY]

More miners => more secure => more confidence => more users => higher price => more miners => ...

This is the reality.
BTC Miners => 4 Mining Pool operators = security is dependent on 4 guys with over 51% attack vector.  

No matter the energy waste the btc miners give 4 guys a 51% attack potential every day.
LTC also has a mere 4 guys with a 51% attack potential,
which is why coins that have more than 4 guys are more secure than your PoW pooling coins.

Misinformation. There's more than 4 mining pools, although I admit that mining has been cartelized into a few players, especially Bitmain, who threw away Jihan Wu in the trash can.

But, the game-theory behind Bitcoin is holding everything together, miners will not dare attack the network. Something that cannot be said of your dead Zeitcoin. Hahaha!

FYI:
Wind_Fury is so clueless, he thinks running a non-mining node can earn him money.  

Try harder, troll.

[DooMAD]

This is the reality.
BTC Miners => 4 Mining Pool operators = security is dependent on 4 guys with over 51% attack vector.  

your non-mining nodes do nothing to secure the network.

Just so I've got this straight, you want to present the simultaneous argument that Bitcoin is centralised due to a limited number of miners and also that a distributed network of non-mining nodes don't help at all with securing the network?  Is that correct?

[Wind_FURY]

This is the reality.
BTC Miners => 4 Mining Pool operators = security is dependent on 4 guys with over 51% attack vector.  

your non-mining nodes do nothing to secure the network.

Just so I've got this straight, you want to present the simultaneous argument that Bitcoin is centralised due to a limited number of miners and also that a distributed network of non-mining nodes don't help at all with securing the network?  Is that correct?

Bitcoin is centralized due to the Mining Nodes decisions to Pool over 51% to only a few pools.

The problem is the LIMITED Number of Pools, not the number of mining nodes.
As if their were no pooling, then a mere 4 guys would not control bitcoin.
Remove pooling and that issue is solved.     Sad, your IQ is so low that had to be explained to you.

4 "guys" control Bitcoin?

Yes your non-mining nodes are as useless as you are in a debate.  

Then why can't the miners control a network of non-mining-node-running-basement-dwellers?

FYI:
Miners have power because they can control the network.
Large Holders have power because they can use economic clout to sway the miners.
Idiots that run non-mining nodes, just to claim they are important, are utterly powerless.  
Case in point idiots that run non-mining node have been wanting to receive some compensation for years,
and they still receive $ZERO.

No. When non-mining nodes say they want a kind of block that the miners cannot provide, then the non-mining nodes will reject those blocks.

Happy 2nd anniversary Segwit! #UASF.

[Wind_FURY]

This is the reality.
BTC Miners => 4 Mining Pool operators = security is dependent on 4 guys with over 51% attack vector.  

your non-mining nodes do nothing to secure the network.

Just so I've got this straight, you want to present the simultaneous argument that Bitcoin is centralised due to a limited number of miners and also that a distributed network of non-mining nodes don't help at all with securing the network?  Is that correct?

Bitcoin is centralized due to the Mining Nodes decisions to Pool over 51% to only a few pools.

The problem is the LIMITED Number of Pools, not the number of mining nodes.
As if their were no pooling, then a mere 4 guys would not control bitcoin.
Remove pooling and that issue is solved.     Sad, your IQ is so low that had to be explained to you.

4 "guys" control Bitcoin?

Yes, Dummy the 4 mining pool operators that can collude to over 51%,
read a damn book, you're just too bloody stupid.

Yes your non-mining nodes are as useless as you are in a debate.  

Then why can't the miners control a network of non-mining-node-running-basement-dwellers?

Maybe you should ask why the non-mining nodes can't make the mining nodes pay their worthless asses any bitcoins. 

FYI:
Miners have power because they can control the network.
Large Holders have power because they can use economic clout to sway the miners.
Idiots that run non-mining nodes, just to claim they are important, are utterly powerless.  
Case in point idiots that run non-mining node have been wanting to receive some compensation for years,
and they still receive $ZERO.

No. When non-mining nodes say they want a kind of block that the miners cannot provide, then the non-mining nodes will reject those blocks.

Happy 2nd anniversary Segwit! #UASF.

Dummy, the other mining nodes reject blocks, yours could accept or reject whatever the fuck it chooses ,

Then reject the economic majority? That would be stupid, like you.

no one cares what your Tandy 1000 computer does in your mom's basement.
Which is why no one pays you $hit. 

The miners do. Miners produce blocks the economic majority wants.

Now if Coinbase has an issue with a block the miners will take notice, but you , no one cares.
Reason being Coinbase holds large quantities of BTC and can suspend trading until they get their way, something you can't do.
Coinbase holds economic clout, all you hold is that tiny pecker when you whack off to a segwit anniversary.

Why would they do that? Losing the community's trust would be a quick way to go out if business, wouldn't it.

In fact, the top merchants and miners tried to co-opt Bitcoin, they were hulk-smashed by a community of basement-dwellers.

Non-mining nodes still earns you $zero dummy, actually costs you money but you're too dim witted to understand that.  

So.? It's important to me that I validate my own transactions.

FYI:
You have to wonder how many people in crypto are as stupid as windfury,
that when he spends money to run a node, his dumb ass actually thinks he earns money,
with people that stupid, it seems the fanatics out number the sane in these forums.
Maybe if he paid the electric bill instead of his mom, he would understand although doubtful.

Not as stupid as a Zeitcoin hodler though. Hahahaha.

Happy 2nd Segwit Anniversary.

[squatter]

Bitcoin is centralized due to the Mining Nodes decisions to Pool over 51% to only a few pools.

Tell us, why isn't Bitcoin being constantly 51% attacked?

As if their were no pooling, then a mere 4 guys would not control bitcoin.

As I recall, a super majority of hash power signaled support for SegWit2x. It was also supported by the biggest companies in the space, including Bitmain.

Why did they all back out and stop supporting the 2x hard fork?

Now if Coinbase has an issue with a block the miners will take notice, but you , no one cares.

It sounds like miners don't really control the network at all, do they? What do you think will happen to Coinbase -- legally, and in terms of market share -- if they replace their customer bitcoins with an altcoin fork? The exchanges will let the market decide, not the miners. That's been the precedent since 2017.

At most, the miners can reorganize blocks or censor transactions -- incurring great financial cost for the privilege. How is that "controlling" the network?

[squatter]

Just because you play Russian roulette ,
and that 1 pull of the trigger did not blow your brains out does not mean the next pull won't.
Just because their was no colluded 51% attack yesterday does not mean their won't be one tomorrow.
Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Profits.

Sure, there are no guarantees in life. Bitcoin's design is based on brilliant game theory, not irrefutable law. But the more years and years that go by, the less convincing your position is.

Inclusions or exclusions of transactions into blocks is the paramount of Control of the bitcoin network.
If you don't know this, you need to read more.  

What would you have me read?

[finaleshot2016]

At first, I thought SEGWIT was a layer 2 solution like the Lightning Network that's a solution for bitcoin scalability problem but I was wrong. It's was made by one of the right hand of Satoshi Nakamoto which is Gavin Andresen.

Gavin was chosen by satoshi to lead development of the Bitcoin client software. Prior to that, he created The Bitcoin Faucet to give free Bitcoin to new users. A true Bitcoin pioneer we should all be thankful for.

They knew at first that the bitcoin users will grow and by that, transactions will also grow too. So they develop something to increased the block size 1MB, that thing called SegWit. Hoping to have more update/upgrade on the main protocol of the Bitcoin since the society is getting to adapt the usage of bitcoin.