This is an extremely nooby question however I haven't been following segwit at all until today.
If I have 'x' bitcoins in current blockchain before the fork, and the fork goes forward - will those bitcoins be worthless? Am I needing to discard them and re-purchase or mine on the new block? Or will everything carry over?
If segwit occurs what does a regular joe like me who just hodl's bitcoin for years do with his coins to ensure he can keep their value?
Topic: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! - page 12. (Read 84845 times)
May 26, 2017, 09:03:32 PM
May 25, 2017, 12:17:27 AM
It still has another 10 months to go before the activation period is up.
~5 Months. 
May 24, 2017, 11:40:55 PM
In what way has Segwit failed? It still has another 10 months to go before the activation period is up.
May 24, 2017, 10:53:09 PM
It looks likely LTC will incorporate seg witness first. That will be interesting indeed.
May 24, 2017, 05:39:19 PM
merge mine BU and SEGWIT with BTC using same distribution of coins on addresses as the starting point
May 21, 2017, 03:17:59 AM
Only problem is, Segwit adoption is not moving, and BU keeps gaining hashpower as the standoff continues...
BU is not gaining hashpower - the same pools have been advertising it for a long time now, and the backroom dealings regarding segwit are actually most likely to give fruit. I agree UASF is a threat, and I don't particularly like it myself either, however it looks like the miners are going to reluctantly come on board with their coordinated agreement. I don't like the backroom dealings either, but none of this would have been necessary if not for the hostile takeover attempt from Roger Ver. Fortunately bitcoin is bigger than one person, and Jihan Wu discovered he didn't have as much power as he thought either. Miners will argue that they agreed to a 2MB blocksize increase at the same time and when segwit gets activated and their 2MB blocksize doesn't immediately get agreed to in 12 months, they can cry foul. Perhaps that's actually a ploy on the part of the negotiators - give the miners something to complain about after segwit gets activated so they can regain some face after losing face when they backtracked after all their incredibly aggressive stance against it earlier. Fair enough. However, BU hashing surpassed Segwit months ago, and it definitely hasn't lost any ground. I see BU signalling at 41% and Thin blocks adding another 9% - that's 50% against Segwit's mere 34%! I'm sorry about the backroom deals too. That's how corporations work. The "takeover attempt" is not by Roger Ver (you must be joking!), it's by Wall Street, Silicon Valley venture money, the Chinese government, other state actors, etc. Ver is a tiny little goldfish swimming around in a tank full of sharks, whales, and giant vampire squids with blood funnels.
Segwit was never a given. Blockstream still hasn't proven that we'll all need Lightning and there is no other way forward.
May 20, 2017, 04:50:52 PM
Only problem is, Segwit adoption is not moving, and BU keeps gaining hashpower as the standoff continues...
BU is not gaining hashpower - the same pools have been advertising it for a long time now, and the backroom dealings regarding segwit are actually most likely to give fruit. I agree UASF is a threat, and I don't particularly like it myself either, however it looks like the miners are going to reluctantly come on board with their coordinated agreement. I don't like the backroom dealings either, but none of this would have been necessary if not for the hostile takeover attempt from Roger Ver. Fortunately bitcoin is bigger than one person, and Jihan Wu discovered he didn't have as much power as he thought either. Miners will argue that they agreed to a 2MB blocksize increase at the same time and when segwit gets activated and their 2MB blocksize doesn't immediately get agreed to in 12 months, they can cry foul. Perhaps that's actually a ploy on the part of the negotiators - give the miners something to complain about after segwit gets activated so they can regain some face after losing face when they backtracked after all their incredibly aggressive stance against it earlier. May 20, 2017, 11:12:33 AM
I have a question. Since segwit requires 95% of miners to upgrade. What if 20% from these are Bitcoin core enemies doesnt want to upgrade to delay the segwit upgrading of Bitcoin core? Are we going to stuck from very slow blockchain forever? Sorry If my question doesnt have any sense 
Then we won't get segwit for a while.There are movements such as the UASF (User Activated Soft Fork) movement which aims to get segwit activated without relying entirely upon the miners. Should the UASF be successful, then Segwit will be activated.
Don't conflate the blockchain with the speed of which your transactions confirming. The blockchain is not slow. Rather there are more unconfirmed transactions being made than can be included in blocks.
UASF is utter crap. It could never work, and would only cause a giant cluster-f**k on the bitcoin network. Even the Core devs have denounced the idea. UASF is mostly a straw man to scare miners into submission so they adopt Segwit. The mempool spam is likely another FUD tactic to push Segwit forward.
Only problem is, Segwit adoption is not moving, and BU keeps gaining hashpower as the standoff continues...
May 19, 2017, 08:52:02 AM
I have a question. Since segwit requires 95% of miners to upgrade. What if 20% from these are Bitcoin core enemies doesnt want to upgrade to delay the segwit upgrading of Bitcoin core? Are we going to stuck from very slow blockchain forever? Sorry If my question doesnt have any sense
Then we won't get segwit for a while.There are movements such as the UASF (User Activated Soft Fork) movement which aims to get segwit activated without relying entirely upon the miners. Should the UASF be successful, then Segwit will be activated.
Don't conflate the blockchain with the speed of which your transactions confirming. The blockchain is not slow. Rather there are more unconfirmed transactions being made than can be included in blocks.
May 18, 2017, 10:03:09 PM
I have a question. Since segwit requires 95% of miners to upgrade. What if 20% from these are Bitcoin core enemies doesnt want to upgrade to delay the segwit upgrading of Bitcoin core? Are we going to stuck from very slow blockchain forever? Sorry If my question doesnt have any sense
May 18, 2017, 03:26:29 PM
Yes. Segwit and 1 MB block means that the non-witness space of a block is 1 MB, and witness space is 3 MB, so the entire block is actually 4 MB. Segwit and 2 MB block means that non-witness space of a block is 2 MB and witness space is 6 MB so the entire block is actually 8 MB.
In this case SegWit and 2MB block won't be sustainable, 8MB total block size is too much at the moment. And to count only non-witness part doesn't make any sense, let's say SegWit and 4MB block or SegWit and 8MB block. May 18, 2017, 02:54:32 PM
I read everywhere SegWit and 1MB block or SegWit and 2MB block. But these numbers are sort of misleading for traffic estimation since there is also present a witness part?
Yes. Segwit and 1 MB block means that the non-witness space of a block is 1 MB, and witness space is 3 MB, so the entire block is actually 4 MB. Segwit and 2 MB block means that non-witness space of a block is 2 MB and witness space is 6 MB so the entire block is actually 8 MB. May 18, 2017, 02:23:33 PM
I read everywhere SegWit and 1MB block or SegWit and 2MB block. But these numbers are sort of misleading for traffic estimation since there is also present a witness part?
May 12, 2017, 01:14:47 PM
How segwit activation works?
1) Voting?
2) Yes/No
3) Locked in? (what that means)
4) activating
5) done?
Could someone explain simply segwit integration stages?
Thanks
There is no voting, there is only signalling. Signalling is not the same as voting.1) Voting?
2) Yes/No
3) Locked in? (what that means)
4) activating
5) done?
Could someone explain simply segwit integration stages?
Thanks
Segwit uses BIP 9 for deployment. After the starting date (Nov 15th 2016 for segwit), miners can signal that they are ready to enforce the segwit rules by setting a specific bit in the version numbers of their blocks. This state is known as "Started". Once at least 1916 blocks in a 2016 block difficulty retarget period have signalled for segwit, the next retarget period will be in a state called "locked in". Locked in means that it will activate once that retarget period ends. The point of this time is to let everyone know that segwit will activate and give them time to update their nodes and wallets to support segwit if they want to use its features as soon as possible. Once the locked in retarget period ends, the state changes to "Active" and the segwit rules will be active.
Thanks mate, it helped a lot.
May 12, 2017, 01:02:35 PM
How segwit activation works?
1) Voting?
2) Yes/No
3) Locked in? (what that means)
4) activating
5) done?
Could someone explain simply segwit integration stages?
Thanks
There is no voting, there is only signalling. Signalling is not the same as voting.1) Voting?
2) Yes/No
3) Locked in? (what that means)
4) activating
5) done?
Could someone explain simply segwit integration stages?
Thanks
Segwit uses BIP 9 for deployment. After the starting date (Nov 15th 2016 for segwit), miners can signal that they are ready to enforce the segwit rules by setting a specific bit in the version numbers of their blocks. This state is known as "Started". Once at least 1916 blocks in a 2016 block difficulty retarget period have signalled for segwit, the next retarget period will be in a state called "locked in". Locked in means that it will activate once that retarget period ends. The point of this time is to let everyone know that segwit will activate and give them time to update their nodes and wallets to support segwit if they want to use its features as soon as possible. Once the locked in retarget period ends, the state changes to "Active" and the segwit rules will be active.
May 12, 2017, 12:54:07 PM
How segwit activation works?
1) Voting?
2) Yes/No
3) Locked in? (what that means)
4) activating
5) done?
Could someone explain simply segwit integration stages?
Thanks
1) Voting?
2) Yes/No
3) Locked in? (what that means)
4) activating
5) done?
Could someone explain simply segwit integration stages?
Thanks
May 10, 2017, 07:26:54 AM
I think the question a lot of people want answered is if/when segwit is activated how will this change the way i use bitcoin the next day, apart from the address being different what other changes would i notice?
Would my transactions be faster and cheaper?
At present probably 95% of my transactions make it into the next block or 2 with the correct fee added so i don't see this block size debate as the mad rush problem some people in the industry are portraying it to be.
I know some people who send large transactions with many inputs a couple of times a week and the fees on those tx's add up pretty quickly but for the average user like myself there just seems to be more hype going on about this than the problem is bad, we have time and a $20 billion dollar industry should not be rushed.
Would my transactions be faster and cheaper?
At present probably 95% of my transactions make it into the next block or 2 with the correct fee added so i don't see this block size debate as the mad rush problem some people in the industry are portraying it to be.
I know some people who send large transactions with many inputs a couple of times a week and the fees on those tx's add up pretty quickly but for the average user like myself there just seems to be more hype going on about this than the problem is bad, we have time and a $20 billion dollar industry should not be rushed.
May 10, 2017, 06:30:19 AM
SegWit needs 95% of the miners to upgrade. You can look at the block version to see if the miner has updated (version is x'2000002' for SegWit). So far, I'm seeing around 1 block in 10 that has the SegWit version. So there is a long ways to go yet. I already have a SegWit transaction in the blockchain just waiting for the support to be locked in (you can create a P2SH-P2WPKH transaction but you can't spend it yet). 
May 07, 2017, 01:41:38 PM
Ok, I see I should have been more specific. Part of the deal with SegWIt is that it more easily allows for second layer solutions. I don't see the effect of these being discussed in Antonopolous' analysis.
That's not a question related to segwit then. You should look into how LN changes things, not segwit. Segwit itself does not allow for second layer solutions. It just makes implementing them much much easier. Second layer solutions like LN can still exist and function even without segwit, it is just more complicated to make secure.Well, then it is clearly relevant to anyone considering adopting SegWit.
May 07, 2017, 10:45:14 AM
Ok, I see I should have been more specific. Part of the deal with SegWIt is that it more easily allows for second layer solutions. I don't see the effect of these being discussed in Antonopolous' analysis.
That's not a question related to segwit then. You should look into how LN changes things, not segwit. Segwit itself does not allow for second layer solutions. It just makes implementing them much much easier. Second layer solutions like LN can still exist and function even without segwit, it is just more complicated to make secure. Jump to: