I laso dont know why segwit is really necessary because of this possible bitcoin crash why did they do this what is purposes of this ?
They want to dumo bitcoin? I dont know the reason why segwit try to split bitcoin I hope it will not happen because many people doubt.
Topic: Is segwit really necessary? (Read 1397 times)
I think my problem with this is simple. Feels like bitcoin is riding coat tails rather than implementing its own optimized solution. Hell your credit card dose t clear in 10 minutes it just trusts the card and catches the mistake latter. If it works and you fix the time problem kudos, I'd have a roll back plan too. Guess the point I'm making is that this may Make bit coin smarter, but it doesn't make it stronger, and all things are best in balance IMO..
Wow,thanks Meuh6879.This is a pretty informative infographic.
I think that a lot people hate Segiwt because:
1.They think that Segwit will centralize bitcoin.
2.They think that Segwit will create double spending issues.
I`m not sure that those two statements are correct.
Anyway,most of the bitcoin users hate Segwit because they don`t know anything about it.
Segwit is a solution introduced by the Bitcoin development team for miners which includes soft fork. Some of the advantages of segwit are:-I think that a lot people hate Segiwt because:
1.They think that Segwit will centralize bitcoin.
2.They think that Segwit will create double spending issues.
I`m not sure that those two statements are correct.
Anyway,most of the bitcoin users hate Segwit because they don`t know anything about it.
-> It solves a problem called transaction malleability, which tries to confuse the system by allowing same transaction to appear with different transaction IDs.
->This fix will allow the use of bitcoin for more advanced transaction types, such as a payment channel network called the lightning network, which aims to dramatically increase Bitcoin’s scalability, allowing for instant, cheap and safe transactions.
->It also gives an immediate effective block size increase, and does it through a soft fork. This is why the development community rather start with SegWit as a solution to the current network congestion, and then consider if and how to implement further solutions.
1.They think that Segwit will centralize bitcoin.
2.They think that Segwit will create double spending issues.
2.They think that Segwit will create double spending issues.
That is pure FUD coming from r/btc.
Segwit is already being used in many altcoins and one of them is a major one, Litecoin. Have any double spends happened since the activation of segwit? No.
Segwit is perfectly safe. Definitely safer than anything Roger suggests.
Thanks for the specific information you gave it really helps lot and it clarifies the thing I am confused of, and the things I don't know because at the time it is announced, I only know that the bitcoin will be split in two and if it will be done by the 1st of August the blockchain transactions will become faster, that's all I know but right now I understand it clearly because of the specific information you shared. Thank you.
Sucker/Shill alert. Nice sales pitch tho.
Still, that "poster" is so full of shit, like this part:
Quote
Did you know? MtGox CEO blamed "transaction malleability" for the $1 billion hack of their website.
What the poster forgot to tell you was MtGox CEO had been lying his ass off and was charged with fraud.
LOL, wrapping bullshit with pretty pictures doesn't make it true.
Quote
https://np.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/6ndfut/buttcoin_is_decentralized_in_5_nodes/dk9c27f/
Core/Blockstream/Greg Maxwell explained. Great post by JStfolfi (np.reddit.com)
submitted 6 days ago by jonald_fyookball
jstolfi 160 points 6 days ago*
SegWit is another messy imbroglio that resulted from that pile of lies. The "malleability bug" is a flaw of the protocol that lets a third party make cosmetic changes to a transaction ("malleate" it), as it is on its way to the miners, without changing its actual effect.
The malleability bug (MLB) does not bother anyone at present, actually. Its only serious consequence is that it may break chains of unconfirmed transactions, Say, Alice issues T1 to pay Bob and then immediately issues T2 that spends the return change of T1 to pay Carol. If a hacker (or Bob, or Alice) then malleates T1 to T1m, and gets T1m confirmed instead of T1, then T2 will fail.
However, Alice should not be doing those chained unconfirmed transactions anyway, because T1 could fail to be confirmed for several other reasons -- especially if there is a backlog.[//b]
On the other hand, the LN depends on chains of the so-called bidirectional payment channels, and these essentially depend on chained unconfirmed transactions. Thus, given the (false but politically necessary) claim that the LN is ready to be deployed, fixing the MB became a urgent goal for Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream/Greg Maxwell explained. Great post by JStfolfi (np.reddit.com)
submitted 6 days ago by jonald_fyookball
jstolfi 160 points 6 days ago*
SegWit is another messy imbroglio that resulted from that pile of lies. The "malleability bug" is a flaw of the protocol that lets a third party make cosmetic changes to a transaction ("malleate" it), as it is on its way to the miners, without changing its actual effect.
The malleability bug (MLB) does not bother anyone at present, actually. Its only serious consequence is that it may break chains of unconfirmed transactions, Say, Alice issues T1 to pay Bob and then immediately issues T2 that spends the return change of T1 to pay Carol. If a hacker (or Bob, or Alice) then malleates T1 to T1m, and gets T1m confirmed instead of T1, then T2 will fail.
However, Alice should not be doing those chained unconfirmed transactions anyway, because T1 could fail to be confirmed for several other reasons -- especially if there is a backlog.[//b]
On the other hand, the LN depends on chains of the so-called bidirectional payment channels, and these essentially depend on chained unconfirmed transactions. Thus, given the (false but politically necessary) claim that the LN is ready to be deployed, fixing the MB became a urgent goal for Blockstream.
I dont think it was absolutely necessary but there's a need to evolve so that Bitcoin can better itself and SEGWIT seems the way to improve on what we already have. The transaction times where getting ridiculous and because of that. So where the fees. Hopefully that changes once SEGWIT is implemented successfully.
There is still a lot of apprehension and doubts regarding the SegWit. But it is not possible to maintain the status quo any longer. The transactions were getting delayed, in some cases by as much as three to four days. The altcoins (especially Ethereum and Litecoin) were making the most out of this situation and leaching off the users. Just hope that the situation will change for the better now...
I don't pretend to know all of the intricacies of the bitcoin protocol. But one thing for sure is that any step forward or any innovation forward that would help bitcoin become faster, more efficient and cheap should be encouraged.
I have to admit I don't know much about the programming that runs the block chain. However I do know about the concept of overload. The main challenge to bitcoin at this time is that it it's too slow for point to point sales it's fine for online transactions, but you can't take five minutes to clear a coke a cola or a coffe. Why hasn't a bitcoin Devi managed to alllow smaller players to strictly seek transaction fees without going after the main coins. Either that or even a carbon copy of bitcoin that is fungeble on a processing level. Btc2.0 priced lower but transactions rewards default to 2.0 chain after 60 seconds or something like that. Is this even possible?
Fees are a part of the money that miners get in exchange for their service finding blocks. It's not really easy to code something where block fees are given to people looking only for fees since that also requires finding a block to receive said Bitcoin, so they just perform the same action as miners. But you're suggesting a sort of double-confirmation for a block? Maybe it could work if people wanted that to be coded but there's a really low chance it would go through, since it would just double the mining investing and the "small players" would get beat out by larger players moving hardware. Wow,thanks Meuh6879.This is a pretty informative infographic.
I think that a lot people hate Segiwt because:
1.They think that Segwit will centralize bitcoin.
2.They think that Segwit will create double spending issues.
I`m not sure that those two statements are correct.
Anyway,most of the bitcoin users hate Segwit because they don`t know anything about it.
It is really WOW and explained so short and easy. I just have a question which wasn't uncovered in this presentation: Will transaction fees going to be lower or SegWit will not change a thing in this point? I think that a lot people hate Segiwt because:
1.They think that Segwit will centralize bitcoin.
2.They think that Segwit will create double spending issues.
I`m not sure that those two statements are correct.
Anyway,most of the bitcoin users hate Segwit because they don`t know anything about it.
Thank you Meuh6879.
That is way too cool and really an easy way to understand it.
Somehow I was shocked with some of the information but it is the truth.
This should be shared with others to make them understand it more and not let their brains be blank of what will happen.
Again, thanks. Thumbs up to that infographic. It is really cool.
That is way too cool and really an easy way to understand it.
Somehow I was shocked with some of the information but it is the truth.
This should be shared with others to make them understand it more and not let their brains be blank of what will happen.
Again, thanks. Thumbs up to that infographic. It is really cool.
Some people love segwit, so let`s sell em.
If you just need tooooo many argument, toooooo many shil posts, tooooo many ranting ....
This must be really good in the end. - I really hope since I want to stay a bitcoin maximalist.
This must be really good in the end. - I really hope since I want to stay a bitcoin maximalist.
Although many say segwit is not a priority, but many say also that segwit is also needed to make the bitcoin better again. So do not doubt the usual, which will make you more brilliant in the features of bitcoins
There is nothing wrong with segwit itself but there are still many group of people who want to take over bitcoin development and are constantly involved in spreading different fuds about bitcoin. In my personal view segwit is important for better development of bitcoin network.
Update bitcoin is a natural and predictable. Without this it is impossible to fully use that currency to trade. Each of us wants to. I think that the panic of trying to inflate the speculators. True connoisseurs of bitcoin should welcome such changes.
Jump to: