Topic: ★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit - page 364. (Read 3059029 times)

Very 1st Segwit test block on version 6.13.1 has been mined on the main DigiByte blockchain!
https://twitter.com/DigiByteCoin/status/844920496470704130

We are doing this to test backwards compatibility before releasing new wallets!

It sounds crazy, as it would mean that the coin would get a top 20 spot on coinmarketcap. If it happens though, remind me of it and I will proclaim that we should all have believed you For now, I would first like to see some around 40 stability.

Not bad for now, may be higher in the near future.

DGB is extremely undervalued, I estimate it will go as high as 500 satoshi's.

There's active development of new features, coin transfers are fast, you don't have to struggle with fractions of a coin and the market cap is still low.

Even at 500 satoshi's the market cap won't be that high and it will only take 1800 BTC which is nothing looking at the top coins on Poloniex.

I know it sounds crazy but we have seen allot of crazy things the last couple of days.

If it keeps rising a lot of those sells will drop away as ppl change their mind in the heat of the moment. Not all of course. Remember that not all orders on a buy/sell book are honest ones.

743 btc to 100 on Poloniex and 92 on bittrex. It will require a lot of traders to come to the party to see +100 sat levels at a stable level but with the new bitcoin code update that Gulden has done in December last year, it should have a positive impact on the price like it did for Gulden.

finally the price is going in a good direction, I have been buying all the way down to 19 sat. I won't sell anything before 75 sat. I only want to sell 30 btc worth and keep the rest for long term.

In order for the coin to maintain 100 sat about 1000 btc in buy orders will be required at 100 to combat a dump of 1 billion coins. 1000 btc is a drop in the ocean on Poloniex.

30 now ~~~~

More like 50 max

oh hai, 100 satoshi?

DGB is one of the very few time tested coins which whenever start moving upwards always bring nice ROI to all its investors and holders periodically without any worry. All these activities in cryptocurrencies will turn towards to DGB market to show us some speculation.

You have to be shitting me right? You giving bitcoins fast sync the name of digisync. What a bunch of con artists. It's like us calling header first sync GRSsync. It's not your fucking code, don't pretend it is.

Now I understand your concern here but nobody is talking about breaking anything. This is about preparing DigiByte so that it can realise its full potential and compete or indeed outperform, at least with capability if not price, all others crypto’s including precious bitcoin.
It’s interesting that the article you have presented is an argument for bitcoin supporters to support Segwit and not a fork with increased block sizes. The argument is totally based in protectionism of price of bitcoin and I’m not saying it shouldn’t be of any concern but it is flawed. Any coin that is not bitcoin is an ‘alt coin’ and this article suggests that if it is an ’alt coin’, it is shit and that I think, just doesn’t make any real sense.
Because DigiByte is only traded through bitcoin and because how traders tend to operate, DigiByte maintains a relationship closer to fiat, so at this time, this means that whatever changes DigiByte dev team do make, anything other than total catastrophic failure of the blockchain is unlikely to lead to price being pushed far below this threshold before returning to at least this relationship with fiat again. To summarise, our risk is infinitesimally small compared to many other crypto’s and especially bitcoin.
That said, I agree this should not be approached without caution and planning. There is no great urgency to rush into this and a smooth transition will deliver the best outcome for all DigiByte supporters.

What's the old saying? "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Is that it?

I think that applies in DigiBytes case. Necessary updates, and the rest left as "future ready". Be a respected leader, not a mindless follower.

As for BTC, well, they're in another situation entirely, and it looks like they're not making good decisions either. Here's a nice run-down that I think is very hard to argue against using sound logic and fundamental facts. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-19/bitcoins-fork-road

Let others make the mistakes while we keep the safe and steady high road.

Was not my intent to imply that about the whole team.

Not going to disagree with anything else that's been said but the dev team is not 'pro segwit'.

We have a more than adequate fix for tx scaling via our increased speed and block sizes. I'm Far more interested in keeping our bloat down and in on-chain smart contracts.

Only for segwit transactions

Best case scenario 4MB, and segwit saves space by removing the signature data to save KB in block space. This technically makes the coins spendable by anyone.

Segwit in itself does not do this. It's the byproduct of a malleability fix.

It finally opened the door for a much need hard fork for Bitcoin, yes. It's so bad people will now FINALLY hard fork the block size for bitcon; something Digibyte has already successfully done.
For litecoin, not so many doors.
It's already falied twice. No need to bring the failure and drama to Digibyte.

Again, Segwit is so overly complex it actually does not make sense.

I understand why jared is pro segwit, it's good for "marketing", but from a technical standpoint, its absolutely terrible.

Please read this with an open mind

http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/12/03/core-segwit-you-need-to-read-this/

What are the disadvantages of implementing it? Bloating the chain with too big blocks?

I'm inclined to agree but I think activation should happen in the region of 65% of miners. Here are some of the reasons stated by Jared on the subject.

Digi Tater, [20.03.17 14:16]
Segwit has many benefits besides simply increasing scalability

Digi Tater, [20.03.17 14:16]
it fixes the transaction malleability issue

Digi Tater, [20.03.17 14:17]
it allows for roughly 4mb worth of transactions in the same space as 1 mb takes now

Digi Tater, [20.03.17 14:17]
most importantly it allows for a future of on chain "smart" contracts on UTXO based blockchains

Digi Tater, [20.03.17 14:17]
so from an applications standpoint it opens many doors

Digi Tater, [20.03.17 14:18]
It actually makes the most sense to combine both approaches, Segwit + increased block sizes

I agree. No need for immediate activation. The fact that it's there for the future, if and when needed, is good enough for now. It's never a good idea to unnecessarily complicate things, and if it's needed for marketing purposes, "Segwit Ready" or "Segwit Capable" or something similar should get the job done, as well as implicitly saying that it isn't necessary at this time. Win-Win. :-)