Topic: First 2 mb block was mined. You want more of this? Use Segwit enabled wallets (Read 295 times)

So you do not want the large Bitcoin services, like Blockchain.info and Coinbase  to start using Segwit to help with network congestion and to help lower the fees somehow?


Segwit plus batching is the best way. Segwit has shown to grow the block size to 2mb. I believe that is enough to reduce the unconfirmed transactions in the mempool for now.


Yes, and this should be a campaign for? Segwit usage Taadaa!

why do we need to "force" third parties to implement segwit? wasn't it sold to us on the premise of being a voluntary, opt-in upgrade? it seems to me like the problem is resolving itself. the high fee environment has essentially forced services to optimize their transactions. the cause of the recent network congestion is largely due to bad fee estimation and inefficient (non-batched) transactions by large services---not lack of segwit adoption. it's probably more important that services implement transaction batching than anything else.

if anything, i think an aggressive campaign aimed at exchanges, etc. right now will just exacerbate the already terrible situation with customer support backlogs.

This post is a great example of my argument that we need to educate the whole forum as a community. There are a lot of uninformed and misinformed people in here that have no idea what is going on.

They do not know that helping the network by increasing Segwit usage takes only a few clicks.

If we are going to make shitposts, then the least we can do is make informed shitposts.

Blockchain.info isn't really a hot wallet or web-based wallet. It provides a 12-word seed from which you can derive all your secret keys and warns against the use of imported addresses because they are not derived from the seed. And it works entirely within your browser -- they don't have access to your private keys. (If they did they would have been hacked long ago.) They don't keep your passwords. If your computer is secure and you have strong passwords (both to open and to send), require email confirmation, and use 2-factor authorization, you will be safe as it gets.  I'm not sure how Spectre or Meltdown affects the site, but even Trezor and Ledger require a level of trust of the technology. Electrum had a flaw, recently discovered. As for the fees, I'm a long-term hodler and haven't made any transfers lately, but I know that fees in general have gotten out of hand. I'm a SegWit supporter but doubt it will support a functional Lightening Network until 2020 at the very earliest.

As for Greenaddress.it, it gets mixed reviews online: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/is-greenaddressdotit-btc-wallet-safe-to-use-1923082

Life goes on, I guess. People just care about the price fluctuations of bitcoins. They don't really care about the technicalities of how to use it. As long as they know they can move bitcoins then they just use it. Though I hope in the future people use the segwit much more as it really defeats the purpose the we upgraded the bitcoin protocol.

"People don't care how it works, they only care it does" - I think it came from Watch Dogs 2, not sure, but it really fits in this situation.

I can see that OP is definitely behind the drive to get SegWit fully implemented and it is a good thing. Here is a previous thread from him, where some SegWit enabled wallets were listed. https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/which-wallets-have-segwit-enabled-2595496

Read the Disclaimer in Pooya85's post please. 

I would rather want to focus on a aggressive campaign to force popular third party wallet providers to switch to SegWit, than trying to introduce people to "unknown" alternatives. Yes, once people move away from these popular sites, they might be forced to change, but then you should provide a trustworthy alternative.

Does Gemini offer SegWit enabled wallets?

The least you could have done as a proponent of segwit enabled wallet was to have provided a link where we can create one not just the mined 2MB block. I have come across Bitcoin core and Green address (mobile wallet) being mentioned on this forum.

Wrong! If you are the sender and you have a Segwit enabled wallet, then all your transactions going out will be Segwit transactions even if the receiver is using a legacy wallet.

But if you have a legacy wallet and you are sending to a Segwit wallet, then your transactions will still be legacy transactions.

Start using a Segwit wallet. That is all you need to start using Segwit.

Are you talking about imported addresses, or Blockchain.info as a hot wallet provider? If it’s the latter, I hope you realize that any site or service that controls your private key potentially puts you at risk of not being able to retrieve your crypto when shit goes down. It’s not just a matter of how safe you think Blockchain.info is because any site can potentially be susceptible to hacks. I’m not an early adopter of Bitcoin, so I didn’t have a cold wallet for years... I also used blockchain.info as a wallet service with imported addresses. My problem was simply that I wanted to help the scaling issues and use a segwit wallet. I have made the jump to GreenAddress, and I’m amazed at the difference, especially when it comes to fees. Blockchain.info’s method of handling fees is extremely inefficient and inaccurate. There would be times where I would let them choose my fee based on a high priority, and was surprised to see a transaction with well under recommended fees... I’m talking at least HALF of what should have been paid in order to get my transaction confirmed within 2 blocks like Blockchain.info stated when initiating the transaction.

Either way, I don’t think your coins are “perfectly safe” on any hot wallet provider, as you state, even with all those security measures. Because, as I stated before, all it takes is one hacking incident for you to lose your coins.

Thanks for the input and I will look at Electrum. But what puzzles me is the hostility towards Blockchain.info. I have my coins there. If you use your own computer and not a shared, public one; and your computer has the latest anti-virus software; and if you use strong password, email authentication, a Yubikey, and a strong 'send' password, you are going to be perfectly safe. In other words, just be a prudent user with common sense. Not knocking Electrum (I've never heard of Greenaddress.it) but I consider Blockchain.info to be the standard, and clearly a lot of other people do too.

Just wish they'd hurry with the SegWit.

great news! i hope this is the new era of small fees. the high fees of the last time was not so good, but this makes me happy and satisfied.

to be honest, i was in no rush for bigger blocks, so 2MB blocks bring me no joy. i've had issues with core's resource usage in the past, to the point where it was too much hassle trying to optimize to throttle bandwidth use (to avoid throttling/overcharges from my ISP). maybe when i get fiber optic internet in my area, it'll be something i can embrace.


i'm glad to see increasing segwit adoption mainly because it's helping to alleviate network-wide fees (although optimization by big exchanges and payment processors is more important) and because of all the excitement around LN.

but small linear block size increases (like the segwit soft fork) themselves don't greatly alleviate fees nor do they greatly advance scaling. people will be a lot more excited when using LN has good GUI for end users and doesn't come with the caveat of "may lose funds, use at your own risk."

More people need to hear about this because it is a common misconception that bigger blocks will solve the problems we have at the moment. We need everybody to get on board with Segwit and everybody to be on board with Lightning Network because they are the technologies that will take care of the problems of the current ecosystem. Couple that with the fact the devs are trying to implement smaller data so that the current blocks can work goes to show we don't necessarily need bigger blocks we need side chains, layers on layers of protocols, and last but not least agreement and consensus moving forward. It is tough when Coinbase and Blockchain have the most amount of customers yet they don't adopt Segwit, and quite honestly I don't get it at all it makes no sense to me!

[/quote]

No, you use it snowflake. Blockchain is well know verified resource whereas Greenaddress.it is what? Another scam page with viruses? Prove it isn't.

I get your point in here, but you need to understand that most people in there does not even know how bitcoin works.

They all just repeat this process -> buy btc -> hold for a few days -> HOPING to be millionaires -> sell at a loss.

This is sadly, but this is real.

Most people in here is just for money purposes and they do not even know what segwit, not even know what "blocksize" means.

That's really a great news to hear.I'm too going to update my electrum wallet to use segwit address.But already it was said that to use segwit address,both the sender and receiver would have to use segwit address.So would it be possible for me to send bitcoin to localbitcoins wallet since I'm using it the most to sell my bitcoins?

That's indeed a great news. Electrum has started providing segwit support to their wallet whose address start with 3. The only challenge is the awareness. Majority of the people doesn't know about it. Even though I have seen some campaign managers have started accepting segwit address in their campaign, but I am not sure how can I transfer money from a non-segwit address to a segwit one and vice versa. Can anyone point me to a step by step tutorial?

I had a look at that block. I'm happy to see that people start using segwit type of addresses, but I have noticed strange transactions in the block, like this:
https://blockchain.info/tx/51a1fd6be3664dc3dd003f0b77343b19db952a8d35af2819d2dd2619bd43b9d5
This has several inputs from Segwit type addresses and goes to one SegWit address.
I also have noticed that the number of transactions in this block is lower than in the next (normal, not 2MB sized) block, but I think this is because of these strange transactions.
Anyway, if the 2MB blocks will be filled with normal (1 input, 1 output or similar) transactions, it will let to put more transactions into the Segwit block than into a normal block, so on the long run it will cause to shrink the mempool and the fees too.

For the sake of this thread and you, in case you are really a "newbie".

I know that most newbies use Blockchain.info as their first wallet. STOP. Use Greenaddress.it instead, it has Segwit enabled by default.

If you want a desktop wallet, use Electrum and create a Segwit wallet, but be informed that it uses the bech32 addresses, so if you want the more accepted "3 addresses" follow these instructions.

Such as?