Topic: BU vs SEGWIT ? - page 3. (Read 2218 times)
It's kind of like a phoney/cold war going on at the moment. When thermonuclear war breaks out, don't move your bitcoin until the radiation settles.
More transactions will probably get confirmed. Transaction fees might get smaller. New technical possibilities for transactions may be possible. Blocks might get bigger.
Incorrect.
With Segwit, consensus is uniform (i.e. the actual definition of the word "consensus") and so the blockchain will be in no danger of spontaneously splitting according to diverging blocksize preferences. And in addition, Blocks will get bigger, there is no "maybe".
With BU, the consensus system is changed so that blocksize consensus no longer exists. This means that the chain can be easily forked, constantly. And there are no guarantees the blocksize will increase, the miners could easily flood the network (or networks, once BU has forked into BU 1, 2, 3 and so on) with voting nodes to force through whatever blocksize they like (which of course includes smaller blocksizes than 1MB). Note that the banking industry would love this outcome, as it would be all too easy for their corporate media buddies to claim convincingly that Bitcoin was then a failed experiement
Bitcoin is designed to produce 1 block of transactions every 10 minutes. The size of that block is now limited to 1 MB. That comes down to a transaction capacity of about 2-3 transactions per second. Bitcoin is now reaching this transaction rate, and hence, people have difficulties getting their transactions confirmed (written in a block by a miner).
Back in the old days, Satoshi had put this limit to 32 MB, but it was lowered later to "avoid spam".
As you can see, the block chain is now full:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size
and the number of transactions is now limited:
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=2years
The fact that there is now more demand for transactions than the bitcoin block chain can provide, is now monetized by the miners, who take only those transactions with the biggest fees. This establishes a (rising) fee market.
https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd
This makes that miners are not very keen on "solving the problem": they would slaughter the hen with the golden eggs. It also makes that small bitcoin transactions make no sense any more: only large transactions, on which one pays large fees, will get through. Small wallets will be frozen for ever. The guy with half a bitcoin will soon not be able to transact any more. But the venture capitalist transacting 1000 bitcoin will have no problems paying a high fee to get his transaction on the chain. A very lucrative thing for miners at first sight: only big transactions, big fees, and small blocks. No ordinary people paying a book or a second-hand i-phone in bitcoin.
Nevertheless, there are several solutions proposed to this problem. One is simply to increase the block size again. BU. However, in order to do so, one needs a HARD FORK. New blocks (bigger than 1 MB) will not be accepted by old protocol. As such, chances are that two different coins emerge: a "big block BU bitcoin", and a standard bitcoin. Like ethereum split in ETC and ETH.
The other solution is segwit. Segwit does several things. It allows more transactions within a single 1 MB block by "compressing" transactions in a certain way. But, most importantly, it prepares for the possibility to have the Lightning network on top of bitcoin. That would make certain nodes "banks" and then you can send your transactions through these banks to your destiny, WITHOUT USING THE BLOCK CHAIN. The block chain would only hold some collateral of these banks to keep them honest. Segwit doesn't need big blocks (well...) as the block chain wouldn't be used much any more, and the "banker's network" on top of it would send the payments. A bit like normal banks do when you tell them to send money to another bank's account.
What do people say about these two solutions ? One thing for sure is that just "increasing the amount of transactions per block" (by increasing the block size, or by compressing them) only kicks the can somewhat further down the road. So much is for sure. The "banker's layer" is a radically new way of transacting bitcoin and can, in principle, handle WAY WAY larger numbers of transactions.
But:
1) some people say that bigger blocks will make bigger block chains and will discourage small nodes to exist, leading to "centralization". To me, that argument is bogus. Non-mining nodes don't matter really, but for the owner of the node. People do not agree over this, but when one looks at the investment by miners and their centralization, then the cost of a bigger hard disk and a faster PC is not going to be the main centralizing force. But nevertheless, this is a main argument against "bigger blocks". For me, the main argument is that it is just kicking the can.
2) other people say that segwit and the lightning network will totally "fiatize" bitcoin, with a banker's network that can only be afforded by big bitcoin holders (to put the collateral on chain) with large computing infrastructure. This is most probably true. However, this kind of infrastructure is the only infrastructure that can allow BIG VOLUMES of transactions in bitcoin. You can't have it both ways.
3) Segwit proponents don't want the block size to increase, as this would be too much of a relief and wouldn't pressure people to accept segwit, which is why they are furiously against a block size increase.
4) many miners see the lightning network as a serious threat to their fees, as most transactions are now not on the chain.
So there is now a religious fight between both camps.
Back in the old days, Satoshi had put this limit to 32 MB, but it was lowered later to "avoid spam".
As you can see, the block chain is now full:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size
and the number of transactions is now limited:
https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=2years
The fact that there is now more demand for transactions than the bitcoin block chain can provide, is now monetized by the miners, who take only those transactions with the biggest fees. This establishes a (rising) fee market.
https://blockchain.info/charts/transaction-fees-usd
This makes that miners are not very keen on "solving the problem": they would slaughter the hen with the golden eggs. It also makes that small bitcoin transactions make no sense any more: only large transactions, on which one pays large fees, will get through. Small wallets will be frozen for ever. The guy with half a bitcoin will soon not be able to transact any more. But the venture capitalist transacting 1000 bitcoin will have no problems paying a high fee to get his transaction on the chain. A very lucrative thing for miners at first sight: only big transactions, big fees, and small blocks. No ordinary people paying a book or a second-hand i-phone in bitcoin.
Nevertheless, there are several solutions proposed to this problem. One is simply to increase the block size again. BU. However, in order to do so, one needs a HARD FORK. New blocks (bigger than 1 MB) will not be accepted by old protocol. As such, chances are that two different coins emerge: a "big block BU bitcoin", and a standard bitcoin. Like ethereum split in ETC and ETH.
The other solution is segwit. Segwit does several things. It allows more transactions within a single 1 MB block by "compressing" transactions in a certain way. But, most importantly, it prepares for the possibility to have the Lightning network on top of bitcoin. That would make certain nodes "banks" and then you can send your transactions through these banks to your destiny, WITHOUT USING THE BLOCK CHAIN. The block chain would only hold some collateral of these banks to keep them honest. Segwit doesn't need big blocks (well...) as the block chain wouldn't be used much any more, and the "banker's network" on top of it would send the payments. A bit like normal banks do when you tell them to send money to another bank's account.
What do people say about these two solutions ? One thing for sure is that just "increasing the amount of transactions per block" (by increasing the block size, or by compressing them) only kicks the can somewhat further down the road. So much is for sure. The "banker's layer" is a radically new way of transacting bitcoin and can, in principle, handle WAY WAY larger numbers of transactions.
But:
1) some people say that bigger blocks will make bigger block chains and will discourage small nodes to exist, leading to "centralization". To me, that argument is bogus. Non-mining nodes don't matter really, but for the owner of the node. People do not agree over this, but when one looks at the investment by miners and their centralization, then the cost of a bigger hard disk and a faster PC is not going to be the main centralizing force. But nevertheless, this is a main argument against "bigger blocks". For me, the main argument is that it is just kicking the can.
2) other people say that segwit and the lightning network will totally "fiatize" bitcoin, with a banker's network that can only be afforded by big bitcoin holders (to put the collateral on chain) with large computing infrastructure. This is most probably true. However, this kind of infrastructure is the only infrastructure that can allow BIG VOLUMES of transactions in bitcoin. You can't have it both ways.
3) Segwit proponents don't want the block size to increase, as this would be too much of a relief and wouldn't pressure people to accept segwit, which is why they are furiously against a block size increase.
4) many miners see the lightning network as a serious threat to their fees, as most transactions are now not on the chain.
So there is now a religious fight between both camps.
Can anyone explain in easy words what is BU and SEGWIT ?
What is the difference between them?
What is the difference between them?
BU - Bitcoin Unlimited
SegWit = Segregated Witness
Bitcoin Unlimited is a version of the Bitcoin reference software that allows miners to agree to create blocks of transactions that are larger than 1 megabyte. It allows each miner to choose for themselves when they want to risk creating a larger block and provides a way to announce the largest size supported to help other miners make such a decision.
Segregated Witness is a feature added to the version of Bitcoin reference software that is commonly known as "Bitcoin Core". It reduces the size of transactions in the traditional bitcoin block so that more of them fit. It does this by moving parts of the transaction out of the traditional block in to a separate area. By moving these parts it opens up new technical possibilities for transactions.
What they mean for normal users of bitcoin ?
They both provide solutions that will allow more transactions to confirm. As such the transaction fees required for fast confirmation are likely to be reduced. If enough people run Unlimited, then we won't need to plan a hard fork every time we want to increase the block size. If enough people run software that supports SegWit, then there will be new technical possibilities for bitcoin transactions.
If the two options end up forking the blockchain, then you'll need to know which Bitcoin a merchant supports before sending them a payment. You'll need to make sure you use software that matches the software that the merchant uses or else they won't receive your payment.
Who decide which one will be choosen?
We all do. If everyone runs software that supports Unlimited, then Unlimited is "chosen". If everyone runs software that supports SegWit, then SegWit is "chosen". If everyone runs software that supports both, then both are "chosen". If some people decide they hate SegWit and refuse to run any software that supports it, and some people decide they hate Unlimited and refuse to run any software that supports it, then there is a possibility that the network will split into two incompatible versions of "Bitcoin" both trying to call themselves the "Real Bitcoin".
What will change after BU or SEGWIT will be choosen?
More transactions will probably get confirmed. Transaction fees might get smaller. New technical possibilities for transactions may be possible. Blocks might get bigger.
This thread again.....REALLY?
As far as I understand BU propose bitcoin scaling as designed years ago, by increasing block size.
SegWit, instead, proposes some major changes to protocol. Lots of new code and changes in transaction processing arrived with an update.
SegWit, if not failed, supposed to be able to resolve scaling problem without increasing in block size, provide some new transactions types and some other progress in Bitcoin.
BU, in the other hand, is a proven concept that never failed before and JUST WERKS.
Problem with BU: blockchain size and traffic between full nodes will rise.
Problem with SegWit: if blockstream team fuck up with coding everything will be ruined beyond repair.
SegWit, instead, proposes some major changes to protocol. Lots of new code and changes in transaction processing arrived with an update.
SegWit, if not failed, supposed to be able to resolve scaling problem without increasing in block size, provide some new transactions types and some other progress in Bitcoin.
BU, in the other hand, is a proven concept that never failed before and JUST WERKS.
Problem with BU: blockchain size and traffic between full nodes will rise.
Problem with SegWit: if blockstream team fuck up with coding everything will be ruined beyond repair.
Hello,
Can anyone explain in easy words what is BU and SEGWIT ?
What they mean for normal users of bitcoin ?
What is the difference between them?
Who decide which one will be choosen?
What will change after BU or SEGWIT will be choosen?
Please use easy words to explain people who don`t have idea about it.
Can anyone explain in easy words what is BU and SEGWIT ?
What they mean for normal users of bitcoin ?
What is the difference between them?
Who decide which one will be choosen?
What will change after BU or SEGWIT will be choosen?
Please use easy words to explain people who don`t have idea about it.
Jump to: