Topic: NOT Upgrading to SegWit who's with me?! - page 4. (Read 7217 times)

segwit cannot be easily undone and there is a danger that funds in segwit addreses could be spendable by anyone (stolen)
if segwit has to be rolled back

hopefully the litecoin experiment can be used as a working testnet while a better solution is developed

if we have to use segwit ,give everyone plenty of warning and do it via HF in combination with a blocksize increase

I think the majority of the people do not even want to bother trying to refute such stuff anymore. The problem is that biased people keep spewing up articles with either completely misleading information, half-truths and whatnot in an attempt to completely undermine Segwit. Just read through the recent article on the Bitcoin Classic (Segwit vs. Flexible Transactions) and you will see (it has been mentioned on #bitcoin-core-dev). Some aren't sure whether Garzik truly believes some of the nonsense that was written on there.

Here is a small example:
They use outdated date to make it seem like Segwit brings only a little improvement for a 'lot of complexity'. Latest transaction pattern usage review shows that we can expect around 2.1 MB.
Segwit can be undone with a hard fork, just like any other soft fork. Surely it won't be simple very simple due to the Segwit UTXO, but it will not lead to a catastrophic loss of funds (exaggerating).

---

I'm too tired to even attempt to refute anything technical or economical, and there are surely people that are better fit to do this. You could ask on IRC in #Bitcoin (you may get lucky).

---

The idea of a free-market block size limit is also absurd as it gets. If anything has been shown in the Bitcoin world, it is that markets behave irrationally. Bitcoin was never intended to have a free market block size limit as per Satoshi (who they seem to quote only when and in a context that suits themselves).

Litecoin will do segwit anyway so people may decide to wait and see that result first

While I'm still curious to see SegWit in action to find out if the scaling claims prove to be accurate, there have been some fairly strongly worded warnings doing the rounds online.  Anyone care to refute or debunk?  Or is there a thread about that article elsewhere on the board that I've missed?



Incorrect.  Users should weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves if they should update or not, no matter what anyone else says or does.  It's the users who determine the code that governs the network.  Consensus is not simply a herd mentality.  That would be something altogether different.

not really when you account for zombie nodes that cant fully understand the new txs  ........
and the blocksize  gains are exaggerated because they only work if everyone moves into segwit
and all txs are segwit txs (and everyone isnt onboard ......yet)
the signature data is also  bloated compared to a simpler solution like a 4mb block or a dynamic blocksize
that starts at 1.1MB and rise slowly  as btc grows .......

LN can be incorporated into a larger /dynamic block without segwit if it is deemed to carry too much technical debt into the future

Isn't a soft fork the better option for all concerned? Or am I missing anything?

From the looks of things the  miners wont take segwit in its current state ,if it came with a larger block and implemented via HF then that would be a differnt story but jihan wu and some of the influential people in china are holding out for a better solution and i think its wise to take the larger block and HF segwit if a compromise has to be made .....

just keep gimping along son ,this game is  best left for the big boys 

You should update your Bitcoin Core software to 0.13.1 no matter what miners do. Already 40%+ of people moved to 0.13.1, if you don't you are missing out on bug fixes and so on. Also it shows miners how most people want Segwit. It's a matter of time miners become reasonable and do the right thing (that is, to activate segwit).

I am waiting until the miners upgrading to segwit, but i am doubt about that the miners will be upgrading to segwit.
They think the segwit will make bitcoin be controled by government or someone out there.
It is one of many reasons why the segwit not be activated yet.

You must have an interesting lifestyle considering shes dead ......

another troubled teenage gimp living with his parents no doubt 

I travel around a lot, and in the eastern world, 512 kbps to 2mbps are common maximum speeds.

Those who live in western countries have come to take it for granted... South korea is an exception...

Your mom's house you should really call her more often.

Segwit is the only decent solution.

Purists want to keep 1 MB blocks = Madness if bitcoin has a future outside of an investment

Some want a one time increase = band-aid

Some want unlimited blocks = Insane propagation times, blocks of several hunded megabytes if transaction volume approaches that of visa and mastercard - Madness

Segwit = Best solution to the problem, allowing bi directional payment channels, for those who don't like it they can still use the main chain without doing so and it is a soft fork unlike any of the other solutions! I am someone who heavily researches world conspiracies and finds my own truth in the matter and rejects bullcrap, and after doing much digging and hours of reading and research on different areas, I feel the core developers do have the best solution in my opinion if it is to be used as a currency.

There are a lot of places in the developed world where you may live in an area that doesn't give you access to very fast internet. In any case, if you raise the blocksize to 2MB, then so what? it's going to get filled fast, probably it wouldn't even take a year. What then? do we keep raising it as soon as we hit the blocks being filled?

Also in case you didn't know, all Core dev want to raise the blocksize (except one) and all experts including Andreas Antonopoulos agree that Segwit should be activated before attempting any blocksize raises, so you can thank the anti Segwit crew for the lack of scaling and innovation.

where do you live with your 5GB cap ??

1) This has nothing to do with system resources! Its about the cost of a persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of blocks, It's about bandwidth.

2) Running a client with bandwidth limiters is not a solution for people who can't even afford a 1MB/s sustained up/down connection. The average American has a 5GB up/down cap. So the average american can only run a full node for about 1 week (your #s) per month before hitting their bandwidth cap.  

3) No the world dose not have faster internet then 1mb/s now. Only around 40% of the world's population, 80% in America have any internet access at all. Even in America the average is 4mb/s down half a mb up with a 5GB combined upload and download Bandwidth cap. Thats what most Americans are forced to accept.  

4) I don't give a flying fuck what Satoshi wanted or thought would happen nor should anyone else. He had one really great idea and he ran with it but he was not omnipotent, he was not the son of God, he had no fucking idea how any of this would all play out.

You must be doing something wrong, a node is very light on system resources once you get the chain fully synced

I use Bitcoin Unlimited client and it uses xThin block technology so only uploads about 500-700mb a day

Also, most of the world has faster Internet than 1mb/s now
Satoshi never wanted every user to run a node anyways.... But I agree more people should run them in places they can afford it...

Obviously not Africa where people can't even afford to  eat will or should be expected to run a full node to use btc....

If the block stays at 1MB everyone will be shoehorned onto LN whether they want to be or not
the space in the 1mb block will become so expensive that only businesses like coinbase etc can afford to use it.

This is my fear.

My thinking is this, Storage of the blockchain is cheap but persistent 24/7 connection/transmission of the data to more then 8 peers is very costly. Most of the worlds population is restricted to 1MB download and 1/5 of that in upload speeds. Latency is high.

For Bitcoin's long term security we must remain at all times decentralized. With the highest possible number of full nodes. If we are to be truly beyond the reach of any form of government control we must be able to run our own hardware with our own code at our own homes and do it at low latency and low cost.

Right now the greatest cost to a full node operator/host is bandwidth not storage. When you hear someone say "blocks are to big" they are not complaining about storage!

We must make sacrifices. Until the World Wide Internet's infrastructure is more universally robust and low cost we must micro manage block size to the best of our ability to minimize spam and incentivize a robust mining community.


For these reasons I do not support SegWit or any update that moves transactions off chain because they reduce the incentive to grow the block size in the long term and reduces income/incentive to the mining community. It adds a great deal of complexity to the system and reduces security to the end users of these side chains.

In time the internet will become more robust and vastly cheaper then it is today. When that time comes we can increase the block size accommodating more micro transactions at lower fees but until then we must be willing to make sacrifices.

It is better to suffer these higher fees and reduced capabilities now then to sell out to this blatant corporate take over.

These side-chains will be run by private companies and banks (don't forget the banks) under the the control of their host governments at reduced security. I do not trust my Government, the banks or private corporations, so why should I trust these side-chains run by them? I would never use them myself so how can I support something I would never use or recommend to other people? I can't and I won't.  

And this is why I won't be upgrading my full node.

I beg all readers of this post to run a full node from your home for one month 24/7 too fully understand my point of view. Watch in horror as your ISP disconnects you from the internet without any warning for violating some obscure clause in your contract or charges you over $200 dollars for going over your bandwidth cap. See how hard it is to download files, play online games, use VOIP or watch Netflix with a full node running on your home network. Then and only then will you fully understand my point of view. And then call your government representatives and demand better internet.