Segwit Adoption. I looked at some data, and we are not there yet.

Karartma1

legendary

Activity: 2310

Merit: 1422

Quote from: LoyceV on September 01, 2021, 05:19:30 AM

Quote from: Karartma1 on September 01, 2021, 04:44:59 AM

On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).

I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

That goes beyond any sane and logical risk management approach. Maybe I'm a black sheep here but I've never used them and knowing what I know now I'm more than happy to have never entrusted them with my precious satoshis.

Quote

I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.

On this, if they're to become compliant in several jurisdictions that needs to change as well.

n0nce

hero member

Activity: 882

Merit: 5814

not your keys, not your coins!

Quote from: LoyceV on September 01, 2021, 05:19:30 AM

Quote from: Karartma1 on September 01, 2021, 04:44:59 AM

On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).

I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.

Damnnn that's a biig potential point of failure man. Quite happy that I ~~don't~~ didn't ever keep funds on exchanges (tbh don't use those anymore nowadays).... Their opsec must be super tight with so much power in 1 private key.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: Karartma1 on September 01, 2021, 04:44:59 AM

On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).

I don't get why they pay withdrawals from an addy holding Bitcoin worth 1.1 billion dollars. They even make several transactions per block nowadays. I'm curious how they sign the transactions offline, how many employees have access, and how they prevent huge mistakes from happening.

I can only think of one reason to dump all funds on one pile: it's a very large coinjoin pool, and makes it very easy to hide your transaction history from the outside world.

Karartma1

legendary

Activity: 2310

Merit: 1422

Quote from: LoyceV on August 31, 2021, 04:44:41 AM

Quote from: Karartma1 on August 31, 2021, 04:06:14 AM

The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.

The additional fees for their own massive wallet are negligible compared to the fees on consolidating deposits. Address 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s has more than a million transactions, and almost 15 million Bitcoin went through it. Binance still pays 100 sat/vbyte for withdrawals, even though they could get away with 90 to 99% less. They're simply too rich and charge users too much for withdrawals to care about fees. And they want to keep withdrawal fees high to promote their own centralized shitcoin: they want users to withdraw made-up tokens instead of real Bitcoins. Low fees and smaller transaction sizes don't align with their (financial) interests.

This was the simplest answer, in fact.
On a different note, it makes no sense also from a very simple security point of view. I'm no expert but I feel like I need to make 100% sure every time I make a BTC transaction since I'm exposing the private keys to sign the tx (yet they perform million of txs).
As you said, the simple answer is that they don't care and by doing that they promote their useless binance coin and blockchain.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: Karartma1 on August 31, 2021, 04:06:14 AM

The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.

The additional fees for their own massive wallet are negligible compared to the fees on consolidating deposits. Address 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s has more than a million transactions, and almost 15 million Bitcoin went through it. Binance still pays 100 sat/vbyte for withdrawals, even though they could get away with 90 to 99% less. They're simply too rich and charge users too much for withdrawals to care about fees. And they want to keep withdrawal fees high to promote their own centralized shitcoin: they want users to withdraw made-up tokens instead of real Bitcoins. Low fees and smaller transaction sizes don't align with their (financial) interests.

Karartma1

legendary

Activity: 2310

Merit: 1422

The simplest reason regarding the fact that Binance is not full segwit is, in my humble opinion, also the most realistic one. We're talking about an address that's probably a good old cold storage and since our friends at Binance are comfortable with that system they decided not to change the process.
To me this seems to be the real motivation.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: tranthidung on August 31, 2021, 02:19:23 AM

What exchange involves in that growth?

Is it Binance? Segwit adoption support was announced in December 2020
Support does not enough and it takes time for people to be aware of Segwit advantages and adapt to Segwit transactions. So I feel reasonable (5 months from Dec 2020 to May 2021) to see this adaptation and signifcant growth)

Probably not. An overwhelming majority of Binance transactions are still legacy. Their hot wallet is here: 1NDyJtNTjmwk5xPNhjgAMu4HDHigtobu1s. You can see that a huge bulk of consolidations all originate from v1 Bitcoin addresses. Default, CMIIW is still legacy addresses and you can toggle between those and which most people probably won't because it doesn't benefit them. I'll probably assume that Binance has nothing to do with this but rather because of the drop in TX volume recently, then you're seeing lesser of the groups of people who are not concerned about using Segwit.

tranthidung

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 3858

Farewell o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: tranthidung on August 25, 2021, 06:20:43 AM

More impressively, this growth is opposite with the decreases from 1- and 3-address since January 2021, especially since May 2021. It means, Bech32-address actually takes over 1- and 3-address types. Its growth does not only come from the bigger adoption of Bitcoin

PlanB discovered the same growth of Segwit adoption.

Quote

bitcoin fees (blue line) are low since this summer. This is not because of low transactions (low demand for blockspace), but because a large exchange (I will not say who) finally implemented segwit transactions. Segwit adoption (yellow line) is now ~80%. Expect fees to stay low.

The x-axis label does not show specific months but from the chart of PlanB, I guess the growth occurs around May or June 2021. That matches my findings above.

What exchange involves in that growth?

Is it Binance? Segwit adoption support was announced in December 2020
Support does not enough and it takes time for people to be aware of Segwit advantages and adapt to Segwit transactions. So I feel reasonable (5 months from Dec 2020 to May 2021) to see this adaptation and signifcant growth)

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3071

note that if you're simply counting the 3- addresses (without waiting for them to be spent from), there is no way of knowing whether they're segwit addresses or some other type of script.

with 3- addresses, the spend script is concealed until spending time, from which point the BTC is no longer stored at that address anyway.

tranthidung

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 3858

Farewell o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: LoyceV on August 25, 2021, 07:32:15 AM

It didn't help: can you make the line 1 pixel in width?

I am not familiar with it. I looks a little better if I narrow down the window to 2018 - 2021

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: tranthidung on August 25, 2021, 07:26:56 AM

Ok, there you go

It didn't help: can you make the line 1 pixel in width?

tranthidung

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 3858

Farewell o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: LoyceV on August 25, 2021, 07:06:47 AM

The orange ("1-address") bars aren't visible for the last couple of months. Can you improve this, for instance by using a line instead of bars in the graph?

Ok, there you go

Quote

The good news is: Segwit is now really taking over native addresses!

Segwit is on its way to really take over native 2 other types. It's just the beginning.

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: tranthidung on August 25, 2021, 06:20:43 AM

Time series

The orange ("1-address") bars aren't visible for the last couple of months. Can you improve this, for instance by using a line instead of bars in the graph?

The good news is: Segwit is now really taking over native addresses!

tranthidung

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 3858

Farewell o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: LoyceV on August 23, 2021, 04:43:19 AM

Update: My "outputs" data is complete again (133 GB), and I'm now counting daily transactions.
Results when it's ready: loyce.club/other/daily_transaction_data2.txt.

Thank you LoyceV for your time to update the dataset.

It's my update, after one year.

Data source: https://loyce.club/other/daily_transaction_data2.txt
The Bech32-address count grows very well since January 2021. You can see this growth on both time-series charts or box plots.
Box plots: the median --vertical line inside box -- in December 2020 is less than 150,000 but since January 2021, it has never been below 150,000, very good growth.
The Bech32-address value has similar growth. Its median (10^12) grows from about 22 in December 2020 to almost above 30 in 8 months of 2021.
More impressively, this growth is opposite with the decreases from 1- and 3-address since January 2021, especially since May 2021. It means, Bech32-address actually takes over 1- and 3-address types. Its growth does not only come from the bigger adoption of Bitcoin
For 2018 - 2019 analytics, check them there

Time series

Address count

Address value (10^12)

LoyceV

legendary

Activity: 3290

Merit: 16489

Thick-Skinned Gang Leader and Golden Feather 2021

Quote from: tranthidung on August 22, 2021, 10:19:22 PM

Would you mind sharing how did you process that original dataset in order to retrieve another one for Segwit adoption, please.

I had to search for what exactly I did. The good news is I found back the script I used.
The bad news: I used "outputs" from Bitcoin block data (550 GB): inputs, outputs and transactions, but my VPS provider disappeared months ago, so it's not up to date and not easily available either. I have an (outdated) backup on a computer that's currently powered off.

Update: My "outputs" data is complete again (133 GB), and I'm now counting daily transactions.
Results when it's ready: loyce.club/other/daily_transaction_data2.txt.

tranthidung

legendary

Activity: 2170

Merit: 3858

Farewell o_e_l_e_o

Quote from: LoyceV on October 22, 2020, 05:21:38 AM

I made a summary per day already. I can create one per block, but it takes some time so I'll only do it if someone's going to use it.

Hi LoyceV,

I download the dataset from there https://loyce.club/blockdata/blockdata.txt.gz. There is no variable for address types in the dataset.

Would you mind sharing how did you process that original dataset in order to retrieve another one for Segwit adoption, please.

https://loyce.club/other/daily_transaction_data.txt
It's almost one year since the last update. I would prefer to update the analysis for Segwit adoption

bitmover

legendary

Activity: 2212

Merit: 5622

Non-custodial BTC Wallet

Quote from: Kakmakr on November 13, 2020, 07:18:10 AM

I have to be honest with you, many of my friends have bitcoins gifted to them on Paper wallets (Legacy addresses) that would most probably never be shifted to SegWit addresses. These people do not see the need to do that and those coins are stored for long-term (Cold Storage) and not daily use, so they see no benefit in doing this now.

Your Friends coins are not considered in the last statistics, as we are considering only recent transactions.
I agree with you and your friends:they shouldn't move their coins if they do not need.

Kakmakr

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 1957

Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform

I have to be honest with you, many of my friends have bitcoins gifted to them on Paper wallets (Legacy addresses) that would most probably never be shifted to SegWit addresses. These people do not see the need to do that and those coins are stored for long-term (Cold Storage) and not daily use, so they see no benefit in doing this now.

A lot of these people are not Bitcoin enthusiasts like myself, so for them to do this ...is a huge risk. I offered to help with this, but they say there is no immediate need to do this. I agree with them from their perspective... Why mess with something that is working and that are secure.

It would be different if they planned to use those coins frequently ... because tx's would be confirmed much quicker and also much cheaper. Wink

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 10504

Quote from: OcTradism on October 30, 2020, 09:16:42 AM

Electrum wallet uses a different standard and you can not apply the guide.

it is not a different standard, it is the same thing that has been used forever with just changing the first byte (recovery byte) to a different value. when verifying signatures you don't even have to pay attention to that byte if you wish to (it is just a helper).
the "standard" is also outlined in BIP-137 which is a very old one too.

OcTradism

hero member

Activity: 1722

Merit: 801

Quote from: NotATether on October 30, 2020, 08:51:40 AM

For example the other day I made a signed message from a segwit address in Electrum to give to someone, but none of the online message tools would verify the signature, they all said it was invalid because it turns out they only support legacy addresses.

You can check this topic and try to verify your message (Segwit address and not in Electrum walelt) with Brainwallet. With few steps to convert address and you can verify it with Brainwallet.

How to verify SegWit signature with Brainwallet ?

Electrum wallet uses a different standard and you can not apply the guide. Message that is signed by Segwit address in Electrum wallet can only be verified by Electrum wallet. About possibility to Sign messages in Segwit address in future

Topic: Segwit Adoption. I looked at some data, and we are not there yet. (Read 1211 times)