So the problem of the miners is that segwit won't change the block size, or at least the right to change will remain at the devs. But segwit helps by reducing the size of transactions so more transaction can be included in a block. Right?
No. Segwit actually redefines the block size as block weight and this will increase the block size. The actual size of the block data that your node downloads will be larger. In terms of the current transaction and block definitions, then yes, it reduces the size of the transaction and thus more transactions can fit in a block. 
Topic: Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin! - page 20. (Read 84845 times)
February 07, 2017, 03:19:28 PM
February 07, 2017, 02:56:41 PM
So the problem of the miners is that segwit won't change the block size, or at least the right to change will remain at the devs. But segwit helps by reducing the size of transactions so more transaction can be included in a block. Right?
Shouldn't it be easier to just vote for segwit to enhance the development of BTC and than later argue about block size?
Shouldn't it be easier to just vote for segwit to enhance the development of BTC and than later argue about block size?
February 07, 2017, 09:10:57 AM
but why most miners refuse to use it? It is 3 months after SegWit released, but only 20% miners agree to switch in SegWit mode, what is wrong? What do they think?
A lot of the problems seem to stem from miscommunication and lack of communication between developers and miners. It seems that some miners have taken a grudge against the developers (all of them in general) for not consulting them when devising scaling solutions.I really appreciate this acknowledgement of the problem. I would still love to hear what, if anything, is being done to remedy the situation.
Also, as I see segwit as a stepping stone towards a solid second layer solution, and part of the resistance in the community against segwit is due to this fact, could someone please give me an insight into the changes in incentives we'll see with such a solution?
I gather that tx's and fees will flow differently. Is there a clear view on how things like decentralization and fee structure will change?
Also, are there some less known positives with such a solution?
February 06, 2017, 09:58:08 PM
Or maybe its because the developers keep trying to find ways to not share any additional revenue with the miners while increasing the data storage the pools will need and pitting conventional pools against SPV-(EMPTY BLOCK)-miners in china for conformations/propagation time.
February 06, 2017, 09:54:15 PM
I assume that SegWit is so perfect, but why most miners refuse to use it? It is 3 months after SegWit released, but only 20% miners agree to switch in SegWit mode, what is wrong? What do they think?
Miners agree on enabling segwit and mostly malleability fix IF the Core client also remove the the current block size limit.They aren't enabling it because segwit leaves the block size limit in the hand of the devs of Core, and miners don't trust them and their promises anymore.
So, the Bitcoin Unlimited team is trying to give miners what they've requested. (and also segwit fixes)
February 06, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
I assume that SegWit is so perfect,
That's a bad assumption to make. No software is perfect, no solution to scaling will be perfect.but why most miners refuse to use it? It is 3 months after SegWit released, but only 20% miners agree to switch in SegWit mode, what is wrong? What do they think?
A lot of the problems seem to stem from miscommunication and lack of communication between developers and miners. It seems that some miners have taken a grudge against the developers (all of them in general) for not consulting them when devising scaling solutions. February 06, 2017, 09:13:13 PM
I assume that SegWit is so perfect, but why most miners refuse to use it? It is 3 months after SegWit released, but only 20% miners agree to switch in SegWit mode, what is wrong? What do they think?
February 06, 2017, 07:11:38 PM
Anyone have a site in which we can see the amount of miners / people that have moved to helping to activate Segwit? It'd be nice to actually see this in some graph form.
Hoping for the activation of Segwit though.
This may be helpful: https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/ Hoping for the activation of Segwit though.
February 06, 2017, 06:59:28 PM
Anyone have a site in which we can see the amount of miners / people that have moved to helping to activate Segwit? It'd be nice to actually see this in some graph form.
Hoping for the activation of Segwit though.
Is this what you are looking for:Hoping for the activation of Segwit though.
http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
February 06, 2017, 06:57:41 PM
Anyone have a site in which we can see the amount of miners / people that have moved to helping to activate Segwit? It'd be nice to actually see this in some graph form.
Hoping for the activation of Segwit though.
Hoping for the activation of Segwit though.
February 06, 2017, 05:20:05 PM
Hi
I have a wallet software ( https://github.com/limpbrains/django-cc ) built on top of the bitcoind. It allows you to create multiply wallets and handle their balances separately.
It uses api calls, such as gettransaction, sendmany, getblockhash, listsinceblock and some other.
Will output of api change ?
How do you think, will segwit break something for me, or not ?
You do need a further research to understand how the api change ? It depend on the usefulness. I have a wallet software ( https://github.com/limpbrains/django-cc ) built on top of the bitcoind. It allows you to create multiply wallets and handle their balances separately.
It uses api calls, such as gettransaction, sendmany, getblockhash, listsinceblock and some other.
Will output of api change ?
How do you think, will segwit break something for me, or not ?
February 05, 2017, 12:05:57 PM
Hi
I have a wallet software ( https://github.com/limpbrains/django-cc ) built on top of the bitcoind. It allows you to create multiply wallets and handle their balances separately.
It uses api calls, such as gettransaction, sendmany, getblockhash, listsinceblock and some other.
Will output of api change ?
How do you think, will segwit break something for me, or not ?
I have a wallet software ( https://github.com/limpbrains/django-cc ) built on top of the bitcoind. It allows you to create multiply wallets and handle their balances separately.
It uses api calls, such as gettransaction, sendmany, getblockhash, listsinceblock and some other.
Will output of api change ?
How do you think, will segwit break something for me, or not ?
February 01, 2017, 02:14:27 PM
62% of listening nodes are signaling segwit support right now.
a) How does non-mining node signal anything? b) Who cares?
The miners will have support of the 5% of nodes that is signaling BU support.
How do you think the network will work with 5% node support?
February 01, 2017, 06:51:49 AM
Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.
Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.It's not a failure to keep a working system when there is no consensus (on how) to change that system.
Well, that's very zen of you. The question will soon have to be : working as what?
Already it's no good for micro tx's. Soon (if we're lucky) it won't be working in any meaningful way as digital cash. What's left then?
Some will say it will be the perfect digital gold then. To me it sounds more like a distributed decentralized pyramid scheme.
I hope your position isn't representative for the whole of core. I hope some in core see this as something more than an act of deep meditation.
ehh even satoshi advised against bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin xt, bitcoin classic etc.. hardfork attempts here in the forum, he predicted the ETH/ETC incident and knew this can happen with bitcoin if someone is stupid enough to hard fork and have bitcoin divided into two chains.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1611
I'd hate to argue with Craig through a third party about this, but the "eth/etc incident" was just that. Eth still lives and thrives and another shitcoin was born. But I thought the whole point of doing segwit as a softfork was that this wouldn't happen even with a much lower threshold?
January 30, 2017, 09:59:36 AM
Hmm well I've started reading the arguments of the Bitcoin Unlimited project, and they are simple and concise. As painful as it is, I may start running their software. I feel it's the only way I can send the message to the core devs to
That isn't the message you send me by running it.Quote
Segwit, only 25% have adopted it!
62% of listening nodes are signaling segwit support right now.According to https://bitcoincore.org/en/segwit_adoption/, 25% of mining capacity supports Segwit, it's my understanding that percentage of listening nodes is not relevant to the soft fork adoption threshold?
January 29, 2017, 08:33:22 AM
Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.
Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.It's not a failure to keep a working system when there is no consensus (on how) to change that system.
Well, that's very zen of you. The question will soon have to be : working as what?
Already it's no good for micro tx's. Soon (if we're lucky) it won't be working in any meaningful way as digital cash. What's left then?
Some will say it will be the perfect digital gold then. To me it sounds more like a distributed decentralized pyramid scheme.
I hope your position isn't representative for the whole of core. I hope some in core see this as something more than an act of deep meditation.
ehh even satoshi advised against bitcoin unlimited, bitcoin xt, bitcoin classic etc.. hardfork attempts here in the forum, he predicted the ETH/ETC incident and knew this can happen with bitcoin if someone is stupid enough to hard fork and have bitcoin divided into two chains.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1611
January 28, 2017, 07:20:48 PM
Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.
Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.
Affirmative! to put it in better perspective, maybe the word "classic" is the better sample of it although wasn't related to scaling but it serves as an example, if the system is divided that what happens, subtracting strength from one and the other, and as some people think, maybe this would end up undermining credibility BTC, I am not very sure but I think that up to now only a 50-60 consensus has been reached despite the fact that considerable time has already passed, if that's the case, the balance will not tip anywhere yet, in any possible scenario, it is better to be prepared so as not to surprise the effects that might arise, therefore it is better to remain attentive to the evolution that mainly requires the scalability of BTC, what is clear is that in case of not achieving consensus there will be two networks less secure and one of them safer, that in the worst case.
January 27, 2017, 02:49:52 AM
Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.
Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.It's not a failure to keep a working system when there is no consensus (on how) to change that system.
Well, that's very zen of you. The question will soon have to be : working as what?
Already it's no good for micro tx's. Soon (if we're lucky) it won't be working in any meaningful way as digital cash. What's left then?
Some will say it will be the perfect digital gold then. To me it sounds more like a distributed decentralized pyramid scheme.
I hope your position isn't representative for the whole of core. I hope some in core see this as something more than an act of deep meditation.
January 27, 2017, 01:57:15 AM
Also, can someone explain why the segwit softfork would need 95%. What's the point with that? Why not 75% or 65% even? Sry if this has been explained before.
Because the idea is to have an evolution of the existing system and not create an additional system.It's not a failure to keep a working system when there is no consensus (on how) to change that system.
January 26, 2017, 08:15:14 PM
Is TumbleBit implemenntationn based on SegWit? In other words, TumbleBit can be implemented after SegWit activation, is it correct?
Jump to: