Topic: Are blockchain tracking sites tracking Segwit adoption wrong? - page 3. (Read 1104 times)

Also, when P2SH embedding is in use (which is AFAIK by far the most common) you will mistake an output for non-segwit until its spent (and of course, once spent it doesn't get included in that count...).


Also the later posts indicates that the poster you're responding to is deceptively only counting non-embedded outputs as segwit.  Of course those aren't common-- they're not universally supported, so if you want people to pay you you don't generally use them yet.... p2sh embedding exists because it took years until everyone could reliably send to p2sh addresses... So segwit was introduced without a new address type to ensure it could be used instantly by anyone who wanted to use it, and so unsurprisingly that's primarily how its being used. (Later-- only after segwit was deployed-- a new address type was also created for the extra benefits it provides.)

To me it's becoming a little hard to swallow franky1's extreme dishonesty. Saying segwit adoption is low because a new address type specified a year after segwit isn't yet being that widely used in the face of almost half of all transactions using segwit and continuing to argue it after being patiently corrected isn't just an honest mistake.

data i showed is the last 6 months so
1. your number 1 excuse does not apply/make sense because segwit is more than six months of being active
EG analogy someone shows birth/death records for the last 6 years. and then you come and mention an excuse of birth/deaths of 13 year ago.
... excuses may have been better if it explained the events of july/august(within chart date) not make an excuses about something before the chart date

2. yes that can explain the non segwit chart of the 49-52mill waves of utxo. but the segwit flatline should also be growing/moving changing. and doing so at a rate of X
obviously if more are using segwit, the segwit utxo should be increasing in the last 3 months


anyway il be devils advocate..
pro segwit campaign tips:
get segwit main dev sipa to pubish bech32 address on his website and bitcointalk profile
get segwit main dev/fan LueJR to pubish bech32 address on his bitcointalk profile
get segwit main pool fan BTCC to use bech32 address for coinreward (yea i understand that btcc is dying out after dcg purchase)

as i found it funny that they themselves are not using such addresses even when being so pro segwit

you open a topic to talk about me.. but then delete a post with me supplying some info.. hypocrisy

peak total UTXO 52mill (03 jun)
peak segwit utxo 560k (11 july)

current total UTXO ~50million
current segwit UTXO under ~90k

chart of last 6 months (source data)
all segwit utxo - https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1&from=1524780395012&to=1540591595014&panelId=3
al combine utxo - https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/unspent-transaction-output-set?panelId=6&from=1524780395012&to=1540591595014

screw it lets even do you lot a favour lets just use the exact date where segwit had highest level
july 11th......... hmm not even 2%

segwit had a 6x DROP in utility on july 12th-14th

even the stats show since then total utxo went from 49mill(under, but i rounded up in your favour) to 50mill
yep the network acumilatd an extra 1mill UTXO.. yet did that mean that out of the 1m new UTXO more than 40% of new UTXO were segwit...

hmm nope segwit remained(emphasis) below 100k segwit UTXO

come on let logic prevail
if something gains 1mill and that new million of data should be 400k new segwit.. just to be 40% right?
but segwit did not grow by 40% in the last 3 months

i should have said 0% growth of segwit..(as it stayed flatline of ~90k segwit in the last 3 months)
but i done you a favour by counting the STAGNANT 90k as a rounded up 100k(one favour to you)
and made it as 10% utility in the last 3 months(1mill growth of all utxo and flatline rounded up 100k segwit)

have a nice day

Bech32 Statistics; https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?orgId=1&from=now-1y&to=now

Segwit Usage; https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/segwit-usage?orgId=1&from=now-1y&to=now

Seem's pretty viable in relation to all the other references, they have a number of viewable parameters like OP_RETURN usage etc

Enjoy

piotr_n basically answered the question decisively above based on his own analysis-- work that any of you could also reproduce.  He gave numbers in terms of percent of transactions spending one or more segwit inputs (so segwit using, by definition) as well as percentage of bytes.

As usual franky1 is trying to bamboozle people, by arguing someone isn't using segwit yet when they still have some older outputs they're spending that haven't yet become segwit outputs.

If you want to talk about users adopting segwit for their own transactions then figures like piotr_n's are exactly what you should be looking to.  If you want to, instead, talk about the resulting capacity increase then either the ratio of block size to weight (e.g. number of transactions is irrelevant) or the typical minimum fee rates to get into blocks are interesting.

It might be another one of his gaslighting. I used to listen to him and ask him and JolandFyookball a lot of questions because they gave the "other side's" perspective, now I'm debating him almost everyday. Hahaha.

But as usual I will give him the benefit of the doubt and ask him to explain how he got his data.

I don't think so.


First of all, the graph above would need to be cleaned up regarding the Bitcoin Cash stress tests mentioned in the article:


Anyone who would use the graph above to "prove" Bitcoin Cash transactions catching up to SegWit transactions would be biased in their interpretation of the data themselves.


Secondly, in this discussion so far we have only established that weighting SegWit transaction count based on the ratio of legacy vs SegWit inputs may be a more objective metric. As of now we haven't even checked the difference between weighted SegWit transaction count and simple SegWit transaction count. Put differently I'd love to see the data on which franky1 bases their claim of SegWit transactions being on average only "0.25 SegWit".

Looking at the last few blocks I see that the majority of transactions (I guess > 95%) consist of either legacy transactions only or SegWit transactions only. The mix of SegWit and legacy inputs seems to be rather rare, at least rarer than to have an impact of the magnitude as described by franky1.

Obviously one would need to take a larger sample than the manual look that I just did, but the point is: Without any data to back it up, franky1's claim of SegWit adoption being only 1/4th of what most statistics tell is a baseless assumption. If I missed the part of discussion where actual data is used to prove this claim (ie. a weighted SegWit transaction count or the amount of "mixed" SegWit transactions) please link me up.

Thanks Heretik. Would it then be fair to postulate that some people or organizations that say that Segwit is more "adopted" than Bitcoin Cash are wrong, or maybe biased, based on their interpretation of the data?

Take a look at this.

https://blog.bitmex.com/segwit-vs-bitcoin-cash-transaction-volume-update-bitcoin-cash-investor-flow-update/

Transactions can include inputs from both legacy as well as SegWit addresses. As soon as a transaction includes a single input from a SegWit address, the whole transaction needs to be sent in the SegWit format.

Looking at the code in the repository posted by ETFbitcoin above, that's all that segwit.dance is checking for:


https://github.com/prusnak/segwit.party/blob/gh-pages/charts/extract.py

Unless I'm missing some additional data processing there's no weighing going in terms of how many inputs came from legacy addresses and how many inputs came from SegWit addresses.

So yes, frank1 is right in that a transaction is counted as a (full) SegWit transaction regardless of how many legacy inputs are involved. I'm not sure if I'd call it misleading though as from a protocol view a SegWit transaction is simply a SegWit transaction as soon as a single SegWit input is included. As such the data is pretty straight forward and a fairly reasonable metric to use.

If it's a useful metric for defining SegWit adoption is up for debate of course. But what does SegWit adoption even mean? eg. SegWit transactions weighted by input ratio, percentage of blockweight taken up by SegWit transactions, count of used SegWit addresses, bitcoins stored in SegWit addresses...? I guess you'd have to use a mixture of multiple metrics to get a clearer picture. The conclusions would still be a question of interpretation though.

I think the best way to measure "Segwit adoption" is to look at how many segwit txs are inside the recently mined blocks.

Taking the last 1008 blocks (about one week of time) - up to block #546129:

There were 685908 segwit out of all 1727116 (non-coinbase) transactions - which means that about 39% of all mined transactions have been of segwit type.

If you look at the size (instead of tx count), you get 472263476 out of 984012845 bytes, coming down to about 47% of blocks' transactions space being used by segwit type.

I got into a debate with franky1 some weeks ago in this thread, starting with this post, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.45926698

He claimed that websites like segwit.party were misleading everyone, and that Segwit adoption is only 10%, not 40%.


I replied with this.


Then he replied with this which confused me, because why would those websites be misleading us? Plus why isn't there anyone calling this issue out?

Can it be proven that there is only 10% Segwit adoption? How?