Topic: NOT Upgrading to SegWit who's with me?! - page 3. (Read 7217 times)

1) It is broken. TX malleability is a existing vulnerability. I don't expect you to be aware of this though.
2) If we follow that 'phrase', the same can be said for increasing the block size limit.
2.1) The same can be said for anything proposed by Classic (FlexTrans) & BU (random 'improvements').

I'm not going to waste my time explaining what the actual purpose of Segwit is with someone who isn't interested in the facts

You keep talking about facts of which none are ever presented. Can you please list your facts below as to why SegWit is necessary?

Have you ever heard the phrase "If it ain't broke don't fix it?"

Obvious canard, Barrel. You're trolling, desperately

a) Bitcoin's been changed dozens and dozens of times before, hence version 13.1. If it had stayed the same as Satoshi's version 0.1, it wouldn't exist now, 0.1 had too many very serious problems


b) Segwit has nothing to do with changing any aspect of how quickly transactions confirm


I'm not going to waste my time explaining what the actually purpose of Segwit is with someone who isn't interested in the facts

I've heard a lot of responses from SegWit supporters but no real hard evidence at why Bitcoin needs to be changed. I've been using Bitcoin every day for nearly 4 years now. My original Bitcoin QT client hasn't been upgraded for years. I have sent and received thousands of transactions with many different addresses, online wallets, QT, etc.

Bitcoin has worked so well, I don't understand the issue?!

SO WHAT if it takes 10-30 minutes for a confirmation? It takes days/weeks to get paid by the bank.

I have been sending the recommended fee of 0.0001 for years until recently when blocks started slowing down. Now I send 0.00015 (OMG 15 cents!) and my payments are confirmed under 30 minutes every time, usually 15 minutes.

I've said it before, LEAVE BITCOIN ALONE.

If it's obsolete, then let a better Alt coin take over. That's free market.

It's NOT WORTH THE RISK of changing Bitcoin, and potentially RUINING a perfectly good crypto-currency. All because you are too lazy to wait 30 minutes for a confirmation. 

2.1mb IF 100% of people made 100% segwit versioned transactions compared to legacy transactions.
so 2.1mb is the best possibility. not the realistic expectation

its also funny that lauda has quietened down on the linear/quadratics debate now that i think he knows that an LN settlement is just a 2in 2out transaction. thus the amount of sigops is small and not an issue especially when an update to the libsecp256k1 brought a 5x efficiency gain.

lastly. LN relies on dual signing. so parties can check and double check the contents of a tx before signing to see if its able to malleate. thus by signing, the other party cannot then make another tx because it requires dual signatures. thus malleability is not an issue. they would refuse to sign a tx if it were showing the signs that the first tx was malleated.

im also laughing how core and their fanboys want to offset LN into the litenode category and then offer third parties to 'outsource' (paid to manage) the mainnet server connection to LN. where the manager has control to deploy revoke codes. and take a fee, impose a penalty
um hello. delayed spendability(AKA 3-5 banking day fund maturity/spendability (CLTV)) revoke codes (chargebacks (CSV)) and middleman management paid service(outsourced monitoring)...

LN has its utility but lets not kid ourselves. its just a 'banking' service that should be voluntary on the side.. not to be pushed as the end/only solution for bitcoin.

LN is not a permission-less, open, trustless system.
dual signatures = permissioned
outsourced monitoring = trust required

atleast be honest with yourself and sell LN on its real merits for the certain niches where it would be useful(exchanges, faucets, adsense, gambling). rather then overselling LN as the ultimate solution for everyone, while hiding its limitations and issues that will make it impractical for some people that actually dont want middlemen and locked funds managed with excess fee's/penalties, chargebacks and settlement delays.

LN is being pushed not for the benefit of bitcoin. but for the benefit of blockstream becoming the outsourced managers so that they can claim fee's and penalties to repay their investors.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network/

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5eqm2b/can_ln_work_without_segwit/

 

FYI:
LN will introduce fractional reserve banking into BTC using Offchain Transactions. 

No. As I've outlined in the previous post, people are tired of refuting stuff like this over and over again (my points weren't directed at the article). I'm certain that this was written by Garzik (and/or Zander), even though there's no indication of an author. You can find some of the rebuttal here: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/5ijtzv/flextransvssegwit_by_tom_zander_of_bitcoin_classic/

While I'm not entirely sure about Tumblebit, I'm fairly positive that LN can be implemented without Segwit. Segwit just makes LN easier and more efficient to implement.

If we ever fail to implement SegWit , does it mean that there is no chance for Lightning Network and TumbleBit[1] to be implemented as well or they don't need each other?

[1] https://github.com/BUSEC/TumbleBit

Understood. No apologies necessary.


Has it changed so much that your rebuttal points no linger have anything to do with the paper's content? I see nothing therein about Garzik, nor are your two quotes to be found anywhere therein.

Perhaps you meant to link elsewhere?

Apologies for the late response. This time of the year there is a lot of work to be done in several aspects. Here's the article: https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html . Keep in mind that it has been updated at least once to correct some obvious mistakes that it had.

Node support is not counted towards activation, but rather 95% of the last 2016 blocks (+1 more period). However, node support over a long time period is a decent metric. The current Segwit node support is over 43% (counting the 0.13.99 nodes as well)[1].

---

[1] - https://bitnodes.21.co/nodes/

No problem if i have to missing out on bug fixes, do you know why the segwit is still not be activated yet?
Because as you said just 40% of peoples moved to  0.13.1, and it is not enough.

I'd love to. Can you provide a link?

Who are these people? Can you point to any? Is it possible your 'extensive research' somehow missed what the 'Unlimited' in 'Bitcoin Unlimited' actually means?

I'm still waiting for you to support this claim with a link to AA stating such.

Thanks

(Not that it _really_ matters, when there are 'experts' on both sides of this debate, but it would be nice if you were actually able to back up this claim that you have been repeating)

Very costly? You must be quite impoverished. Sorry for your state. Quite surprised by this, actually, given your status as a long-term bitcoiner.


That is categorically, unmitigatedly false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Internet_connection_speeds

Last year's figures show not a single country that has an average internet bandwidth limit as low as you claim. Not one. Even the absolute lowest listed average bandwidth is 50% greater than your claimed figure. There may be some unlisted country that has an average rate as low as you claim, but they will of necessity be inconsequential to decentralization anyway.

Further, 1MB/s is well in excess of the rate needed to operate a meaningfully-connected full node. As is 200KB/s (your 1/5 figure).


Seems the world's internet infrastructure already got a whole lot more robust while you weren't paying attention.


Have been. Several on one physical machine, actually. No, I don't understand your point of view.


In your statement that you do run a full node, you implicitly admit that this has not happened to you. Why are you fearmongering?


If your commitment to your games is greater than your commitment to Bitcoin, then Bitcoin does not need your help.


Nope. Don't understand your point of view at all. Maybe if you restate your concerns in some manner that makes sense?


Calling on government to fix some issue peripheral to Bitcoin seems like a very odd thing to do. Would it not make more sense to figure out some way to create a higher bandwidth connection for all within your geographic community? That is, if bandwidth is an actual barrier to your running a full node - a case which you have not yet made convincingly.

Now, there are valid reasons to resist the adoption of The SegWit Omnibus Changeset (i.e., Core 0.13.1 et. seq.). However, bandwidth concerns may be the weakest argument you could possibly make. We have sufficient bandwidth to maintain decentralization - be it bigger blocks though The SegWit Omnibus Changeset, or bigger blocks through a simple bump of maxblocksize.

Ugh I thought this was supposed to be up and running but I can see that people are holding back at this point. I really don't see any negatives to segwit and I've looked it over a lot.

If you don't like blockstream and that's the reason you aren't upgrading then you are a petty fool. I don't like the government but I sure as hell still use their money.

segwit in its current form will not activate
there is a bigger chance of bitcoin unlimited being adopted unless blockstream core
are willing to make some concession to raise their artificially imposed  1mb blocksize cap

I'm with activating SegWit but I don't see it being activated honestly , at least not in the next few months. Looking at the charts[1][2] and how It's stable in 24-25% range for almost three weeks now make It very difficult to believe that It will get activated , I don't see what could change the miners mind to start supporting it at the moment.


[1] https://coin.dance/blocks
[2] https://blockchain.info/charts/bip-9-segwit

Nobody claimed that it can be easily undone (or at least I hope so).

There is no better alternative.

It seems that someone managed to spread the false idea that Segwit would be so much better with a HF. Guess what? It wouldn't, and the code change would almost be trivial.