Topic: SegWit (26.8%) vs Bitcoin Unlimited (32.2%) - page 5. (Read 8430 times)

Then why are you so frightened of the truth about Segwit keys?

Like I said, 6-8 weeks is all it would take to move all 14 million outputs, and not all will move straight away anyway, so it will take less than that. No-one will want the old P2PKH & P2SH keys, as they'll be more expensive to spend from once you get your money. Regular business will switch to providing Segwit keys very quickly. So there's very little to worry yourself about

In a month or so, a majority of outputs will be moved to Segwit keys already. No need to worry about Sigops attacks, the exact same attack is possible now, as it's limited to 1MB now and after Segwit. Spamming with old keys won't really work, miners will happily accept higher fees for old keys, or reject old keys (they can make more money if they choose to confirm transactions that fill the whole 4MB limit). Nothing forces miners to accept spammy or attack transactions, as you can see by how much spam gets kicked out of miner's mempools right now.


You're all a bunch of worriers here, you just need the correct information to set your hearts at rest We'll be able to enjoy the ~2MB blocks that Segwit keys will initially yield after only a few weeks, those are the facts.

basic maths already done of 2 months(if everyone moved at same time).
but as CB said due to normal transactions wanting their space too . it will be more than 2 months.

oh. and need we forget malicious spam attackers WILL stick with native keys. after all why would they give up their weapon and disarm themselves

Must be https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.18140189

You haven't thought through the implications, there's no need to scare yourself.

At 46 million outputs, that's probably around 300 B each (some will be using compressed keys, others uncompressed keys, others multisig). That's roughly 13 GB of transactions in total. At 1MB blocks, it takes 13,000 blocks to move them all across. That's only around 6-8 weeks.

Not everyone will move (Satoshi's coins may never move, for instance). And everyday commerce isn't going to hold that back; I'll be giving out Segwit addresses for people to pay me, for instance. The shift to Segwit keys can and will be folded into everyday use, there's not much incentive to continue to use the legacy keys, so people will stop providing them for others to use.


So, you're scaring yourself unnecessarily. I think the price action might be getting to your nerves, calm down.

Thanks. I think this has been explained several times in several threads already, but I suppose some people either do not read what they are not willing to read, or they do not understand how to explain why it is not the case.

be honeest, if you dont know, just try not to act lik you know.

the reason they havnt added the ability. is the risk of an 'anyoncanspend' attack if segwit keys were used prior to activation.
the delay of weeks is to ensure enough segwit blocks are produced to avoid deactivating. and also to get the native nodes reset as downstream by banning the upstream nodes to ensure other attacks cant be played out


46million unspent outputs

That makes little sense Dwarf.

BU comes with no guarantees about larger blocks, it simply moves the shouting from the forums onto the network. Guess what? Wildly diverging opinions will be expressed, and that can only be resolved with forking into separate chains, which is what BU more or less does guarantee. You'll get bigger blocks. And several forked BU coins with which to use them. And an exchange rate to reflect that volatility.



Segwit literally does guarantee larger blocks, it's a defined 4MB hard limit. But because it upholds consensus instead of making it easy to break, there is no added risk of forking along blocksize lines.



It's true that the Bitcoin Core wallet doesn't support Segwit keys out of the box right now. That's because the Core devs want to use the initial few weeks after activation to continue testing, and to make sure that a large enough proportion of regular nodes are ready to accept the new, bigger blocks.



What makes you think that?

Not doing anything does not solve the block problem either. Over 16m BTC are held on native keys, so segwit doesn't even solve the solution in the near term.
We are talking years of effective 1MB blocks even if segwit gets approved.

learn consensus.

oh did you know that segwit at activation bans certain nodes from being upstream and bans certain blocks that are not in a segwit format.

its worth learning these things.

soft doesnt mean safe. soft just means node bypassed

I've run 0.13.2 or BU over the same blockchain/wallet directory without issue. I run BU to show my support for the need for larger blocksizes.

trying to be my very unbiased

no point running v0.14
... unless you want to do tests on testnet. as thats the only way to really play with segwit.

if you want a node just for normal usage on bitcoins mainnet, no point running v0.14

and lets say sgwit activated later. it does not fix anything at activation.
however WEEKS after activation core will release a version that includes the segwit wallet (yep segwit keys cannot be used in 0.13.X or 0.14).
v14 only includes native key usage on mainnet.

normally best to wait it out. for that post activation version to save you hassle of redownloading twice in x months

0.13.2 shows the 'support' if thats what your hoping. and 0.14 doesnt support any less or more the 'vote'
all im saying is if your just a normal user and not looking to do tests on testnet involving segwit. no point downloading an update now to just download again another later if your hope was to use segwit on the mainnet

One outcome is that the cold war will de-esculate and you will get exactly that.

I run a 0.13.2 Core full node with 8 outgoing and 52 incoming connections and am thinking about going to 0.14.0 soon.  I have run a BU version in the not too distant past but I really want both SegWit and BU.  I suppose I could alternate every so often but that seems cumbersome.  I could run two full nodes but I just want to run one.  Would someone build me a version which runs both SegWit and BU?  Please.

This is my take on it:

There is a phoney/cold war going on.
The phoney war is the spreading of propaganda causing the cold war which is two separated group of factions opposed to each other.

Miners can vote for their preference by signalling it in a flag in the block. Of those who are signalling these blocks, bigger block solutions have a slight edge over segwit at the moment. (BU being the vast majority of the bigger block vote solutions). There are still many pools not signalling there intentions.

But no matter what the miners vote, nothing can be implemented unless the user nodes accept it.

The vast majority of user nodes are core nodes. Bigger block nodes are mostly BU. Consider though, that a lot of users maybe uninformed and will run the latest thing from core downloaded from the bitcoin.org, and not even know BU or other node software exists. (This is probably not an unreasonable assumption, but some could easily attack this as FUD, even though BU and other nodes are not listed on the bitcoin.org site)

So with the current node distribution, segwit would get activated if miners signal 95% support. BU does not have the node support to be activated even if they signalled 95% support.

There is talk of User Activated Soft Forks as mechanism to force miners hands. This could be the trigger for all out thermonuclear bitcoin war. In this case leave your bitcoins unmoved, head for the bunker, and wait for the radiation to settle. Remember a cold war includes as an arms race, and when war breaks out arms deployment, strategy and who changes sides will determine the winner.

The winner then blames the loser for starting the war.

I have two investments; 1) non-retirement mostly in a private wallet although I do have 1 physical coin, 2) retirement (Roth IRA) in GBTC.

So, my private investment is ready for what comes.  What happens to the physical coin depends on the details when we get there.  My retirement investment in GBTC will depend on how Grayscale handles it (if I don't jump to COIN (if it becomes a reality)).

I think that if there's an issue, you can write an e-mail to Evan, who will put the right transaction on the block chain 

So still a small chance that a mining node thinks differently (e.g. has a double spend in its mempool)? In that case it would be no more secure than the zero confirmation economy, apart from you have to pay for the privilege to use it.

I think Evan's multiple masternodes have already voted for a 2MB limit increase, but they have voted to reduce the block time and implemented it first to mimic LTC. So it will have eight times the capacity. Or perhaps the 2MB vote was just a publicity stunt at the time.

Instant X is nothing else but a certification that the transaction is on the mempool. 

DASH is a copy of bitcoin, with build-in mixers, and some other fancy stuff like mem-pool confirmation.  However, DASH will not run into bitcoin's consensus problems, given that it is centralized, with the devs owning a very large portion of the voting system that determines everything that happens in DASH.

That said, as of now, until the DASH devs decide otherwise, DASH has 4 times more block room than bitcoin, as it runs 4 times faster.