Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT!

[Carlton Banks]

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.

wrong and wrong

• not "Satoshi's right hand man", he volunteered, he was not chosen
• he had precisely nothing to do with Segwit

[Lizzylove1]

Thanks to whoever came up with the Segwit idea. I can pay less for my bitcoin transaction fee and I need not wait for too long before confirmation. Waiting for full lightening network.

[Wind_FURY]

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

Dummy, you don't validate shit.

Any full node do validate. Any invalid transaction/not following the rules will not be relayed in the network. Bitcoin, therefore, is a validation stronghold.

You should learn how the network works, before trolling. You're an ineffective troll.

Only mining nodes can include transactions only they can validate by future inclusion of previous blocks.

Wrong. That's not how Bitcoin works. Bitcoin is trustless, anyone can run a full node and validate everything for themselves.

Considering how you keep pumping this worthless thread for meager ad rewards,
proves how inconsequential you are in transactions of bitcoins.  

 

Who's pumping? I'm merely recognizing Segwit's anniversary.

Plus about 51% attacks, here are some misstatements about it, https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4391393.0

[Saltius]

All non-mining nodes do nothing more than relay blocks,
only mining nodes include transactions and only mining nodes validate,
since validation only occurs by the addition of new blocks after the older blocks, something non-mining nodes can't do.

Turn off all the mining nodes and your non-mining nodes does what when it can't relay, it does nothing but sit there.
Turn off all non-mining nodes and no one gives a shit.

As all non-mining nodes including the ones belonging to all the exchanges, miners' deposit to exchanges won't get confirmed unless those exchanges are stupid enough to trust others' nodes.

Then what do miners pay for the bill for electricity without fiat provided by exchanges?

Well, miners themselves are not too stupid to recognise the true bosses behind.
That's why Jihad Wu resigned from Bitmain and started Matrixport in July this year.

[Saltius]

All non-mining nodes do nothing more than relay blocks,
only mining nodes include transactions and only mining nodes validate,
since validation only occurs by the addition of new blocks after the older blocks, something non-mining nodes can't do.

Turn off all the mining nodes and your non-mining nodes does what when it can't relay, it does nothing but sit there.
Turn off all non-mining nodes and no one gives a shit.

As all non-mining nodes including the ones belonging to all the exchanges, miners' deposit to exchanges won't get confirmed unless those exchanges are stupid enough to trust others' nodes.

Then what do miners pay for the bill for electricity without fiat provided by exchanges?

Well, miners themselves are not too stupid to recognise the true bosses behind.
That's why Jihad Wu resigned from Bitmain and started Matrixport in July this year.

Interesting note, if you ever deal with an exchange and your deposit or withdrawal has an issue,
the 1st thing they ask is what is the transaction id and what block explorer is the coin using.

They then check the public block explorer verses their own records,
but at the end of the day they have to follow the public block explorer even if it differs from their node.
So they are trusting other nodes (Block Explorer) more than their own node.

FYI:
Non-mining nodes only relay data, and you may use it to verify receipt of transactions.
But you can also verify receipt of transactions at public block explorers , which you have to follow even if it differs from your own node.
Because if you don't accept the block explorer 3rd party verification of transactions, no one will use your exchange.  
Many smart people , just verify with multiple block explorers instead of wasting time / money running their own node.

Wait, hasn't nodes of block explorers been shut down under the circumstance you assumed?

[Wind_FURY]

All non-mining nodes do nothing more than relay blocks,
only mining nodes include transactions and only mining nodes validate,
since validation only occurs by the addition of new blocks after the older blocks, something non-mining nodes can't do.

In the Bitcoin network's standpoint, it doesn't care if it's a mining node or a non-mining node. A full node is a full node that validates, then relays if transactions/blocks are valid.

Before you debate with me on this topic, you should know how the network works first. You are simply wrong.

Turn off all the mining nodes and your non-mining nodes does what when it can't relay, it does nothing but sit there.
Turn off all non-mining nodes and no one gives a shit.

That's not what the top miners, and top merchants said when UASF/NO2X arrived.

[DooMAD]

All non-mining nodes do nothing more than relay blocks

They don't relay blocks if those blocks don't conform to the protocol rules the non-mining nodes are enforcing.  The function of the node is to validate first, then relay.  They don't just blindly pass the information along without checking it first.  Here's how the validation process works, in case your ignorance proves overwhelming to reason and you need further explanation.

Every non-mining node carries out those checks on every single block.  If miners violate those rules, their block is rejected by the network.

You are a disinformation agent, who would happily see a network where miners were in full control because there weren't enough non-mining nodes to keep their behaviour in check.  But you might as well give up, because anyone with eyes can see what you're doing, it's that obvious.

[DooMAD]

*post based entirely on a link to Craig Scammer Wright lies*

If you're foolish enough to believe anything that lying scumsack says, then you are in no position to question anyone's intelligence.  FakeSatoshi clearly doesn't value full nodes and will lie to make other people think they're not important.  You will spread those lies because you're an idiot.

[franky1]

if only Doomad could wipe away the purple glaze in his eyes to finally see the negatives of the core team. he would then understand the negatives of "able to implement new features via softfork", which means that the normal nodes provide a LESS impactful part of the network then they did in the past.

pre-empt Doomads insults
pre-empt Doomads spinning core devs into gods speach
pre-empt Doomads ignorance of negatives
pre-empt Doomads just spin the reply into some chat about another network and its devs/ spokesmen
doomad. dont reply with your usual flip flops. if you cant understand the negatives and dont understand that its just pools and merchant nodes that become the deciding factor, then atleast do some research on your best buddy group of the bscartel (core and NYA agrement list)


anyways.. segwit 2 years on and no improvement to transaction counts or fee's. seems the "solution" for the 2015 highlighted issues, still exist, and will do until core devs really started to give a crap about bitcoin again, instead of their investors

[franky1]

if only Doomad could wipe away the purple glaze in his eyes to finally see the negatives of the core team. he would then understand the negatives of "able to implement new features via softfork", which means that the normal nodes provide a LESS impactful part of the network then they did in the past.

Both of you only looking on a side of coin. While hard-fork on each features have less technical complexity (and i wouldn't mind it), but
1. you'd need consensus each time it happens (remember SegWit consensus took at 2 years)
2. older nodes won't run at all (as opposed have less impact/usefulness on soft-work)
3. forcing wallet, payment processor, exchange, etc. update their software or it won't run at all

1. segwit was not consensus. it was aparthied to fake consensus.. as your point three points out. to remain on the network after a consensus people need to update. segwit was implemented by throwing users off BEFORE the consensus number was reached.
a true consensus would only change its settings AFTER the majority of nodes decided they wanted the new settings.

2. segwits august aparthied campaign was more impactful than many other things that happened in the past. but again a TRUE consensus would only activate only in the event of a consensus..... thus impact is only 5%
segwit activated below 95% of usernode compliance, this just goes to show as my last post stated that core devs have bypassed the old priority that nodes would provide.

3. again not forcing.. of majority dont upgrade. it doesnt activate.. end of story. the confusion is the 2016 segwit bip was more consensus compliant. but only achieved 45%. thus no activation.. but the 2017 segwit bip allowed pushing nodes and pools off th network unless they complied to segwit..

this 2017 version was not true consensus. but pople still dont realise or even understand what consensus really is, nor how it should be achieved properly, which is wher people are not realising that the usernodes importance in the network has been deminished.

even core devs(paid by barry silbert) will admit that segwit activated only due to pools and merchants and it didnt need random hobby users nodes to do anything(backward compatibility)

.. that said. i can understand softworks used to just introduce new address formats. like the 2018 adding bc1q addresses. but when it comes to bigger settings like block sizes and how transactions should fit into a block. that kind of important thing should require proper and moral obiding consensus

pre-empt core fanboys hatred of consensus by saying "bitcoin is not democratic"..
those that want to rebutt. try to learn consensus. and if you still love the idea of consensus bypass.. learn the word tyranny, trojan horse risks and also centralisation

[DooMAD]

*usual misinformed drivel about consensus*

Stop derailing the topic, please.  No one cares what your personal (along with warped, insane, wrong and stupid) definition of consensus is.  The software people run determines the consensus rules.  Not you.  You are an insignificant nothing.  Keep running your BU node along with the other paltry dozen or so people on the entire planet who don't understand Bitcoin.  That's as far as you can go with your objection.  Anything else is just verbal diarrhoea on your part.  If that's not good enough for you, go cry to someone who cares, because none of us do.

It's beyond hilarity that you try to back up your fellow disinformation agent in spreading the lie that nodes don't matter when you spend every waking moment of your sad little existence whining about the software doing things you don't want it to.  As always, the reply is:

It wouldn't do those things if the other people running that code agreed with you.  Ergo, it stands to reason that they don't agree with you.  Troll harder.

[franky1]

It wouldn't do those things if the other people running that code agreed with you.  Ergo, it stands to reason that they don't agree with you.  Troll harder.

now flop back to your love of the "compatibility" trick. that changes were implemented without people needing to update their code as they would just bypass true validation and verification of segwit transactions and just accept them.
(thus devs deem it ok for the home user community to not be required to do full validation as they are not important)

wake up and care about bitcoin and the network/protocol. stop trying to defend a dev team when they are allowed by people like you to change things without a true moral consensus upgrade procedure

aparthied/segregation analogy:
you would have been great as a bus driver in america's 1950's saying its ok to separate blacks from whites and pretend you are still providing a community service as blacks can still be on the bus.

yet you are ignorant about the whole community should include the blacks ability to vote.
pretending its ok to ignore a large portion of the communities vote because you want to pretend they dont lose anything in the fake vote..

sorry but the ability to change network rules without getting the majority to accept iit under the ruse of 'backward compatibility, validation bypass' makes user nodes less important

do you really think that this statement
'usernodes independently validate every signature matches the inputs to ensure a transaction is valid'
compares to
'usernodes simply accept segwit transactions, because the previous peer sent the block, meaning they validated it'

saying a change to a network is ok because those that oppose the change dont count. those that remain after the change have to trust other peers.. makes the network less secure


the whole 'power of network changes' is not home user node based. but instead pool and merchant.
atleast do some research and stop just caring about defending a few devs and start caring about the network

[figmentofmyass]

segwit was not consensus. it was aparthied to fake consensus

wrong---all valid soft forks (backed by sufficient hash power) are part of the consensus because they are compatible with existing consensus rules. no one needs your permission to add compatible rules, franky.

you already opted into bitcoin's consensus rules by virtue of running a bitcoin node. segwit (because it was backed by sufficient hash power) was 100% compatible with the existing consensus rules, meaning you already consented.

this is the same reason why 51% attacks and miner transaction censorship are also 100% compatible with bitcoin. that is bitcoin's security model: miners don't need "consent" to do what nodes have already consented to. nodes enforce the consensus rules, nothing more.

[DooMAD]

* A single coin would have been stronger than the divided coins we have now. *

Unless you're ready to admit that this Khaos77 persona wasn't your first account (and it honestly wouldn't surprise me if you were RNC/Anti-cen/some another banned account) then you weren't around before SegWit was implemented.  Hell, even your old Zin-Zang account was registered post-SegWit (Deja vu, anyone?  ).  If you had been around at the time to see for yourself the incessant infighting and lack of progress being made, you wouldn't say we were stronger together.  The simple fact is that the two ideologies are not compatible.  So those other chains are free to experiment with their larger blocks, but, at the same time, there's nothing to prevent them swallowing their pride and using this chain as well.  That's the beauty of it and none of your toxic poison can taint that. 

[squatter]

So splitting a community in two was not consensus , but division (the exact opposite).

That's actually how network consensus works. Consensus means unanimity. It's impossible to get every single Bitcoin user to affirmatively agree to a new consensus -- i.e. a new set a consensus rules; a hard fork. So if users (like those who created BCH) want to create an incompatible fork, they are therefore leaving the consensus and establishing a new network, completely incompatible (and incommunicable) with the old. Breaking consensus = leaving the network. This is literally what happens on a networking level.

The Bitcoin network keeps chugging along as always, regardless of whatever hard forks are being spun off.

* A single coin would have been stronger than the divided coins we have now. *

Hard forks are inevitable in any FOSS project. Bitcoin isn't immune to that. People are free to fork the code, and they will.

[bob123]

Consensus is only gained by actual agreement of the majority %,
since a large % of the prior majority exited before segwit activation to form bch ,
segwit was failing consensus before their departure and could not activate.

A large percentage ?

Current hashrate of BTC: ~ 78 EH/s
Current hashrate of BCH: ~ 2 EH/s

A small percentage decided to support BCH, instead of BTC (including segwit).

So splitting a community in two was not consensus , but division (the exact opposite).

It is consensus.
Just because a very small minority decided to do something else, it doesn't mean that no majority was achieved.

* A single coin would have been stronger than the divided coins we have now. *

Not really, the difference is marginal.
BCH's hashrate currently is roughly 2.5% of BTC's. This doesn't influence the security/strength of BTC at all.

[franky1]

segwit was not consensus. it was aparthied to fake consensus

wrong---all valid soft forks (backed by sufficient hash power) are part of the consensus because they are compatible with existing consensus rules. no one needs your permission to add compatible rules, franky.

you already opted into bitcoin's consensus rules by virtue of running a bitcoin node. segwit (because it was backed by sufficient hash power) was 100% compatible with the existing consensus rules, meaning you already consented.

this is the same reason why 51% attacks and miner transaction censorship are also 100% compatible with bitcoin. that is bitcoin's security model: miners don't need "consent" to do what nodes have already consented to. nodes enforce the consensus rules, nothing more.

seems your re-writing history... funny that.
simple english
BEFORE the consensus activation. nodes were BANNING other nodes and REJECTING blocks.
again.. incase you dont get it
before even having a chance to form the consensus to activate segwit. nodes were set to push objecting nodes off the network, to then fake a majority vote by not counting part of the community.

it was core devs that split the network. by pushing objectors off before consensus was reached

i think maybe doomad and 'figmentofmyass' still want to forget history to favour their idolism of devs. so for a third time

the DEVS THEMSELVES released code that without consensus, at a specific date of august first. anyone objecting to segwit wont be counted. yes the devs themselves done it.

consensus is a vote to cause software new feature upgrade. it is not a power tool of tyranic 'accept feature of fuck off'
consensus: :   agreement, harmony, concord, like-mindedness, concurrence, consent, common consent, accord, unison, unity, unanimity, oneness, solidarity,

so a mandated aparthied execution of code is not 'consent', nor harmony, nor solidarity or unity.

but ht basic point being. now there is a backdoor in the network for devs to add new features without needing consnsus from now on.. guess what: TROJAN RISK

if you cant grasp the negatives of such then seriously just admit you care not about the network and only care for the devs to have free reign over the network.. just be a man and admit it

[franky1]

seems those that are 100% fangirling over certain devs instead of the network seem to be twisting the narative to explain consensus to b about AFTER the activation. the issue i keep addressing and informing factually is about how devs should achieve consensus to cause an activation.

banning nodes for not accepting rules before the rule even activated, is like throwing election votes in the trash that didnt vote for trump, BEFORE the election votes were counted, to ensure trump won.

what devs should do is not just push their idea of what they want. but listen to the community. and then make a feature that the community can accept. devs ignored and avoided the 2015 segwitx2 and the 2017 2mbsegwit. there was no consent, agreement on august 1st of the community... because if there was an agreement. there would not have been a split

its really revealing when the cor fangirls say things like "we dont ned your permission" as that is an admission that user nodes dont count. even ETFbitcoin and others subtly state that only merchant and mining pools count. but even then. forcing such merchants/pools to accept something before its activated or get banned off the network, is still not the right way to achieve consensus.

again if devs cant offer a feature that the majority can agree on. then devs should re design the feature into something that can get the community to back. NOT throw objectors off to fake a vote

i again will pre-empt the usual insults and flip flops and fangirling to say core are gods.. ill just say to those.. that caring for the network and wanting to avoid trojan risks should be higher priority than dev love, especially when devs ARE NOT IMMORTAL. they WILL move onto different projects, retire, or eventually die. so no point protecting a few temporary entities that are currently putting the network at risk

risk: did you know that devs can implement new tx formats that bypass signature approval requirements and also reintroduce malleability, and even allow randoms to sign on behalf of others without the others knowing who signed the tx.. and all this can be done without the nodes having to form a united community of agreement

do not reply if your mindset is still to fangirl a dev. if you dont like what i say. hit the ignore button on the left

[Wind_FURY]

if only Doomad could wipe away the purple glaze in his eyes to finally see the negatives of the core team. he would then understand the negatives of "able to implement new features via softfork", which means that the normal nodes provide a LESS impactful part of the network then they did in the past.

Doomad was only pointing out the facts. You cannot debate that. I can respect your opinion on the Bitcoin Core developers, but I cannot accept misinformation. It's simply wrong.

UASF less impactful? It actually opened everyone's eyes that it's more impactful.

anyways.. segwit 2 years on and no improvement to transaction counts or fee's. seems the "solution" for the 2015 highlighted issues, still exist, and will do until core devs really started to give a crap about bitcoin again, instead of their investors

What do you propose?

[nutildah]

anyways.. segwit 2 years on and no improvement to transaction counts or fee's.

Fees are definitely improved. They are not perfect but they are currently less than they were 2 years ago, even though the price has increased significantly and blocks are near full, at about the same size they were in January 2018. That's a drastic improvement.

Just compare the 2 charts and see for yourself:

https://bitcoinfees.info/
https://www.blockchain.com/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=2years

Look at the satoshis per byte fee chart. Definitely reduced.