Topic: Andreas Antonopoulos: "Segwit is enough, gets us 2MB+, is ready, and is safer" (Read 2126 times)

So, I would like to add that SegWit is nowdays used by more than 1 Alts

$LTC http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php
$VIA https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-viacoin-via-safe-segwit-lightning-network-auxpow-fast-1840789 https://twitter.com/viacoin/status/855497634567651328?lang=en
$DGB already Adopted https://digibyte.co/
$Groestlcoin https://twitter.com/groestlcointeam/status/823919356065280000?lang=en
$Syscoin http://syscoin.org/syscoin-core-segwit-lightning/
$Monacoin http://mona-coin.com/segwit.html

All of them has proven that SegWit works, so right now to secure Bitcoin the Segwit is an option that will bring stability into the Blockchain.
Destroy the btc and split into two "BU" Should come up with a different "shitty" coin name - guys its just another alt - there is not any interest into something so like thst atm - hard fork is not the solution - are not being advised to operate/run both at the same time.

Intelligent people can be lazy. Thats a goal.

 

Yeah great, just what bitcoin needs - less engineering 

You can try to execute lots of academic analyis and experiments what things are good or bad for bitcoin.

You will always end up in the misery of interpreting, implementing and selling these 'good' things but you never know in advance and you just have a very low chance to predict future in complex environments bitcoin is living in.

There a two paradigms here:

1) you can try to find out what might be good and do lot of Engineering, regulation, meetings, hacking and dictating

2) you can try to deregulate, reduce the parameters to minimum needed (protocol design) and let the nature and markets find the correct way to work = freedom

You say how you see bitcoin and what paradigm you vote for.
I am for 2).  Crystal clear.

I would still like to see benchmarks on speed advantages segwit claims, over core.

I don't like the way segwit and bitcoin unlimited turn this into a debate about "block size", rather than quantifying what type of real world performance advantages can be obtained by larger blocks. They're avoiding points that would allow people to do legitimate pro versus con breakdowns on the topic.

This reminds me of old school console wars when the sony playstation was a 32 bit console and nintendo tried to convince everyone their console was superior because parts of its hardware architecture were 64 bits.

Bigger isn't necessarily better.

That's correct.

WRONG. This is a political powergrab attempt. Roger Ver's fragile ego was shattered and now he wants to get rid of Core at all costs. He is a dumb child with a lot of money, that's all. Check this out:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarEszFY1WY

Bruce Fenton asked Jake (BU guy who filled in after Roger left) "is there anything Core can do to change your mind and get you to support the efforts of Core?" He responded "no". Bruce continued, "Even if Core advocated exactly what BU is advocating as a scaling solution?" He again responded "No". This reminded me of Ken Ham's response to Bill Nye when he was asked if there was any evidence that could possibly convince him to change his mind, and Ham said no, because he values a strict adherence to his faith over reason. My point is that Ver has essentially created an anti-core cult. Bitcoin Jesus, indeed.
We are dealing with trolls and brainwashed cultists at this point.

I was under the impression that they only made a BU BIP for a Segwit hard fork, and not a Segwit soft fork?

This is precisely why Bitcoin should not split, and anyone who is *genuinely* concerned about the network or its users would never advocated for this.

'Segwit nodes are nearly 60% of the network'

that's a joke if you wanna be THE high quality tested and best dev team supporter in crypto world.

How about hash power - multi million business at stake ?


You look desperate...

Whichever fork is adopted by the majority, bitcoin will probably split, plan accordingly, a pump and dump battle may be on the horizon where Core proponents dump Unlimited bitcoins and Unlimited proponents dump Core bitcoins they will also buy their chosen bitcoin, fun times ahead.


Never had Ethereum, still have none, although I could have been amongst the first investors, sadly I passed that opportunity.

Why don't you go fuck yourself?

They have, they've done a BU BIP for it in the last few days. But what's the point of even bringing it up, BU promoters have been deriding Segwit so heavily for so long, they'd look desperate and hyprocritical if it were accepted into BU now.

How could they say "oh well, majority has spoken I suppose" when the actual majority has been running Segwit clients for a month or more now (currently Segwit nodes are nearly 60% of the network)

Segwit has been extensively tested in:
1) Specialized test nets.
2) Currently on the Bitcoin test net.
3) In live environments (at least 1 altcoin).

Safety should be a non-issue considering the amount of peer review and testing that has happened.

---

If BTU developers used their brains, they'd add Segwit in there and we'd have a clear path forward. They can shill for 'emergent danger' later.

Segwit is far riskier than a simple blocksize increase, Andreas is clearly wrong here.

My opinion, he is probably invested in Ethereum ...

Thats why i agree with him. Segwit is a way to go now, its ready, more risky solutions that are not ready on technical side are liability to bitcoin.

bitcoin already allows you the opportunity to use a offchain service to then move value to a side chain.
its called an altcoin exchange..

Segwitt is onchain scaling that opens the doors for sidechains projects, having the opportunity to scale beyond youre wildest dreams.

You dont understand how it works, miners will follow the users not vice-versa. BU can fork if they have enough hash power but when there are none ore enough transactions to verify they will go down after 10 min.

segwit does not give 2mb

just like bitcoin did not give 7txps 2009-2017

..
mathematically its possible if all users made transactions in a certain way both 'could be' achieved. but reality is that users are more variable than maths can account for.

we have not had a 7txps block..
we wont have 100% of users using segwit keys. plus those segwit users wont be all making lean input counts either

some "spammers" may move over to segwit keys and do the attack carlton displayed of using multisig to have 4mb of weight but only half the base block filled

but also, more simply. spam just using native keys to not get the weight area utilised

spammers will stick to native keys and bloat up the base bloc to reduce the number of segwit key users the base block lets in.
either just with large data bloat to 1mb
or
using up all the base blocks sigop limits so no other tx can be let in because all the sigop allowances are used.(i mean sigop limit bloat attack not a propagation slowdown sigop attack) thus reducing/preventing segwit sitting in base block to spread its legs into the weight area = no tx/data 'boost'

sticking to 1mb base and requiring users to move to segwit keys just to achieve anything, is a empty gesture.
you cannot re-segwit a segwit to double up again later.. its a one time 'possible' temporary gesture. with no guarantees of effectiveness.

it may be well written, it may not
it may have bugs, it may not

but
when all the promises have been rekt:
tx boost to ~4500tx+ - rekt by native key data/sigop bloat and even segwit multisig bloat(amunst other ways too)
malleability fixed - rekt by native users still making native malleable tx's
sigops fixed - rekt  by native users still making native sigop tx's
LN needs it - rekt by native keys able to make multsigs
backward compatible - rekt by segwit being upstream filters. they can trim a block to give to native nodes downstream. but does not make native nodes compatible to sync TO segwit(only from) thus creating a TIER network, not a PEER network

while also adding new attacks
if a bug is found requiring dactivating segwit. funds on a sgwit key cannot be spent and are locked
when segwit bans native nodes from being upstream and orphans native blocks causing an altcoin of the minority that dont agree to be downstream nodes. if segwit tx's are replayed through a malicious native pool that minority can mess around with them as 'anyonecanspends'

(i now expect usual rants of blockstream defenders shouting "fud because wrong" (empty rebuttals) or insults, or other whistles in the wind of no meaningful context. purely to protect the devs, rather than bitcoin. due to more desire to trust devs than read the code)

Yeah - if this your point - I also don't care too much, but rather the conflict of interests they have.

And where did I point to BU here ? -

I mostly try to show that you cannot sell : (limit on-chain scaling   + unlimited off-chain scaling) in one go.

Miners will reject this - crystal clear ?

Segwit => DeadWIT,

Only Groestlcoin has ever activated it, by a hard fork. (And no one cares!)  

BTC & LTC miners will never activate that deadwit code, because they are not stupid enough to give away their paycheck.

BTC Core/ Blockstream could have fixed the issue with a blocksize increase or a faster blockspeed, they have done nothing except try a hostile takeover of BTC with an OFFCHAIN network.

BTU is the only workable solution because BTC core /Blockstream has failed to do their jobs by introducing something the miners could agree too.

How many of you would send your paycheck to someone else and keep working the same job for free, why do you expect the miners to be any different?

 

Nobody cares how Blockstream has been funded, even the most bankster haters they also just dont care. Amazing that this argument is only comming from BU shills from the past 2-4 weeks  


Segwit is the best possible update Bitcoin can have and it will not be replaced with another alt-coin. ETF has been rejected due investors protection which i can understand.


Why dont you spread youre ETH FUD pump talk in the Alt-section?