Topic: Happy Anniversary, SEGWIT! (Read 1357 times)

Are you astro turfing , you sick sick bastard.  

Ah, I see you want Wind_Fury and Doomad to quit talking,
so you can be the one talking instead, kind of narcissistic on your part.

FTFY  

If a non-mining node receives a block, conforming to source code parameters , then it relays the block.
All a non-mining node does is relay nothing else.

It does no validation,
Validation only occurs when a mining nodes adds another block on the previous block,
increasing the confirmations on the transactions in the previous block.

If those 4 pools operators collude to 51% attack, then while the attack is occurring , then they will be all that matters.
* Your non-mining node never matters at any time. *
Turn it off or on and no one cares.  

You know, you're so stupid , it is a wonder you know how to breathe,

Anyone that reads what I wrote does learn, while you're post are pure bullshit indoctrination into the bitcoin fanatics fantasy club.

In your stupidity, you think that Tandy 1000 non-mining node is worth something , and it's not. 

You can't see an IOU system when it is thrown in your face.

Sad part is you seem unable to learn any way at all.  

Thing is WindFury, you lost the debate each time, you're just too stupid to comprehend it. 

But since you brought it up.

Late Bump.

Did we forget? I honestly did forget, BUT we shouldn't forget, and how the community resisted the Oligarchs, and the Mining Cartels.

Happy Anniversary Segwit! Read OP, and never be gaslighted.

please! you're as disgusting as them!

save it for the troll bukkake

I was obviously referring to the confirmation time. I don't think any newbies complaining about transaction speed are referring to propagation time.


I thought that was adequately covered by "enabling/supporting." If an implementation of Lightning relies on Segwit, e.g. to fix transaction malleability, then the choice of words was correct. Sure, we could have implemented LN long before Segwit but the UX would have been absolutely horrible. What's your point?

seems a bit vague as a statistic

https://p2sh.info has more specific headings for their charts, and their Segwit usage charts show:

• 30-40% in fees are spent on segwit transctions
• 30-40% of the bytes in a block are from segwit transctions
• 40-50% of transactions include a segwit input
• 60-90% of BTC sent is from a segwit input
• Blocks are averaging about 1.3MB as a result (peak size 2.1MB)
• Tx/day peaked at over 500,000 (a little less meaningful now more batching is happening)

It would be interesting to see how many outputs per day are being sent, that's a better yardstick than any of the previous stats (athough they're all interesting/useful)


However, the success of segwit is far from total:

• 1.8% of outputs on the blockchain are bech32 (i.e. native segwit)
• 1.7% of outputs on the blockchain are P2SH-P2WPKH (i.e. nested segwit)

so 3.5% of BTC is kept permanently in segwit addresses, although the rate at which people are putting funds in segwit  addresses is gradually speeding up (again, as seen at https://p2sh.info)

so that means that the people who send Bitcoin everyday (i.e. in commerce) are taking the opportunity to use segwit to keep their costs low. But hodlers are just sticking with their long term addresses, why move your money if it's not needed? That makes sense, when people holding Bitcoin long term need to use it, they may well take the opportunity to save on future transaction fees. If they've heard about schnorr and other fee saving upgrades (as well as privacy improvements in e.g. taproot), they have even more reason to wait until absolutely necessary before switching long-term savings into new address types


to summarize:

• Segwit dominates daily payments on the network, but not completely (~55%)
• Compressed key P2PKH (i.e. legacy addresses everyone is most familiar with) dominates dormant money that doesn't move, and it does that almost completely (~97%)

and I'm totally happy: blocks are kept small-ish because of more heavily weighted inputs still existing so abundantly. Compromise: achieved

Well, having segwit is better than no update for five long years. The debates have lasted so long on whether to do everything onchain or use layers on top of the Bitcoin blockchain instead.

Yes I am, and you are the smart one.

Newbies, listen to him.


It is important to me, and it should be important to thousands of others who run their own nodes. The nodes receive transactions, and blocks, they validate, and relay if they are valid.

You said that mining is centralized to 4 pools. Do those 4 pools' nodes are the only nodes that matter?


I believe I would see an IOU system if I see one, but you haven't showed me one.

Plus good news, Segwit is 61% of Bitcoin transactions.

"transaction speed" is two things:
* the propagation speed which is the time it takes for a tx to reach nearly all the nodes. and it only takes a couple of seconds. it is equivalent of the bank sending a money transfer to another account in another bank for example which can take a day or two.
* the confirmation time which is the time it takes for a tx to be include in a block and it is limited by the time between the blocks. and that is equivalent of your bank transfer becoming final and irreversible and that could take months.
neither of these have anything to do with SegWit though.
these are benefits of SegWit: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/

and by the way it did not enable any of the things you listed. it is supposed to make them easier otherwise all of them (LN, Schnorr,...) can happen without SegWit but harder because there are complications such as malleability. for instance Bcash has already enabled Schnorr although it has also implemented most of SegWit but it is technically without SegWit

wow. It's amazing to realize that segwit is just 2 years old and 90% of people and business I know has already moved towards segwit. We'd again need similar collective effort towards the adoption of an improved version of Lightning network. But for that we should improve the lightning network first.

No. My last post in that topic was my criticism. Kolos79 misinforms. Anything that come out of him are lies to trick the newbies, or to annoy everyone. But I'm never annoyed of anyone. I say bring it on, all the misinformation, and the gaslighting.

But read my criticism, it's the last post I made in this topic, https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.52165227


Congratulations. You are on the path to learn Bitcoin. The hard way.


Eat all the crayons you want, you're still wrong. But do continue your misinformation rampage, and get as much newbies to learn from you. Let them learn the hard way.

Segwit transactions are still on-chain Bitcoin transactions -- beyond the moderate fee savings, they are no different than standard transactions in terms of speed. The point was never to speed up on-chain transactions, which are always subject to the fee market and Bitcoin's 10-minute target block time. It was more about enabling/supporting future features -- Lightning, Schnorr signatures, sidechains, MAST smart contracts -- by adding script versioning and solving transaction malleability for Segwit transactions.

Till date am yet to understand the importance of Segwit to the blockchain. I think it is more of a hype than function and use. It is more noise than facts. Even the Segwit to Segwit transfers do not process that fast.

Bitcoin is not merely a medium of exchange, and its network can secure more than just Bitcoin transactions. Why is that a bad thing?

Users can use either token as a medium of exchange, depending on which security and UX trade offs they prefer. Why is that a bad thing?

doomad, keep kissing core devs asses. as it seems you wont stop. but when you speak with them actually ask about negative impacts of things. dont just ask for fluffy unicorn versions

gmax had a gripe with me about segwits issues in 2015, to do with the anyonecanspend. yet year later he must have realised it himself as his team he managed then done a work around.
gmax had other gripes too, but instead of factually rebutting he went down your path of just insults.
gmax has made many fails over the years, he is very opinionated and doesnt like it when negatives are mentioned. if only you knew the amount of vulnerabilities his team added to bitcoin over the years. even you would start to losen ur lips from him

but hey, i know you will just continue your insult hurling by just saying 'wrong because wrong' (lack of evidence) so i accept your standard replies as such, i just wish ud use the time better to do some actual research

anyone that actually cares about bitcoin, should not be a dev kiss ass. but instead someone that calls out issues and holds dvs to conform to a certain standard. just having a 'let the devs do as they please they dont need anyones permission' is like handing a country over to tyrants

do not reply if your going to be a core fangirl in your statements. try to use the part of the brain that cares about the network(not humans)

Which ones?  The BU devs?   

I'm guessing you didn't speak to the ones who left you negative feedback for:
or

Either way, if I hear directly from a developer that something is wrong, I'll take it under advisement.  If you tell me your contorted interpretation of what a dev supposedly told you, which likely bears no resemblance to what they actually said, I'll ignore it, because you have zero credibility.  Find a new audience, this one is booing you off the stage.

bob123.. do not get involved in LN discussions..
seriously you have no clue.
i have read the code spoke to devs, read the documentation and actually used LN. .. unlike many core fangirls that lack such research

by you even trying to think LN is bitcoin is soo flawed that when you actually do eventualy go into details about it, you will end up facepalming yourself when re-reading your old posts.

LN is a separate network.
LN pegs different coins. yep right now its litecoin, vertcoin, btc. but the list continues.
if you cannot grasp the fact that btc remains on the btc network and a peg is used.. then you need to research msats in LN and then when you find it. try finding msats in btc.. guess what... you wont find it. because the two tokens/mediums of exchange are not the same thing. btc network does not understand msats

atleast try to read code/use ln.

as for segwit, just check out the code for segwit. it says LOCKTIME.. not swaptime, not anything else to even hint that btc moves networks. it just locks btc o the btc network for a period of time. and then on the separate network that lock is used as evidence to then allow LN to create new medium of exchange called msats in the LN channels

whats next? core fangirls gonna say if btc is LN and ltc is LN the ltc must be btc.... think about it (hint: no its not)

as for bus analogy for legacy/segwit. simple

after segwit activation, buses upgraded to quadruple decker buses. now then. when a segwit family gets on, the parents(witness to childs existence) sit upstairs but the child(txdata) sits downstairs. the legacy family stay together and can only sit downstairs. the bus driver then only counts the passengers on the downstairs level and only charges them for a bus ticket.

as for schnorr. well the parents get together and nominate only one parent to get onboard the bus with the child.

those that think LN is btc.. must by default think last century bank notes are actual gold... (facepalm)
seems more people need to do independent research and drop their attachment to getting spoonfed misinterpretations from their buddies

by the way. if you do not have sole control of your assets, they are not your assets. its an old bitcoin tale but still worth people remembering when using LN. because many people including devs of LN have lost funds using it.

i personally would never want to associate a weak security service like LN with btc as it tarnishes btc.. id rather just call it a side service available to multiple networks including btc

bitcoins greatness lays in the fact that its secure. so trying to link an insecure separate network thats not even a blockchain under the same brand is actually worse then associating bitcoin with bch

You still don't understand it.. sigh..
We already had that discussion. And i explained it to you several times.

What you describe as 'btc' in your example is just an on-chain transaction, not the whole network.

The BTC network would be to get people from X to Y.
And in this case it doesn't matter whether they take the bus (on-chain) or the train (off-chain).


That's how i would explain it to a kid (i.e. to you).
In reality nothing works like that and your example is pure garbage. You can not compare network transactions to taking a bus/train.

I mean.. you keep using something like 'increasing blocksize means twice as much seats'. Well.. it works for such extremely simple things.
But what about segwit ? How would you describe segwit with busses ? Or schnorr signatures ?
Things aren't as simple as you believe them to be.

You are alone with your opinion, accept that and move on. No one cares what you think or have to say.