Topic: Segwit, and batching, a must in these times (Read 473 times)
Yeah, you’re right about that, but it still ends with the big cryptocurrency exchanges and companies, they are usually the ones who make the decision. We can only pressure them to do something, but they will still be the ones to decide if they want to do that or not. I am always in support of everything it takes to move cryptocurrency forward and make things to improve, and this should be implemented to make things easier and also save the cost of transactions. Sometimes I feel Bitcoin is lagging behind in some things, it’s just swimming in its glory as the first cryptocurrency.
So the support expenditure seems to be for legacy support, rather than for SegWit. I don't know though, I think the cost savings are more than worth it.
Most exchange redirect cost of transaction fee to withdrawal fees, IMO it's one of reason they don't bother support SegWit.
maybe the services which still don't support segwit are in favour of small blocks? it would be strange if not, as that's exactly what they can hope to achieve by not using segwit: smaller blocks
Looking at history where many services support bigger block (in MB), it's more likely they're too lazy or don't want spend additional money for SegWit support.
Think that would have been true in 2018/19 but I think many of these services are at best apolitical now. The ones I actually asked, and actually responded, generally say it's just too much of a hassle to reorganise wallets, and then maintain old ones in case old returning users or just careless old users insist on using old addresses get funds lost, that kind of excuse (thinking of casino admins anyway).
So the support expenditure seems to be for legacy support, rather than for SegWit. I don't know though, I think the cost savings are more than worth it.
Then again, maybe it really is just them supporting smaller blocks and they're not wanting to say it.
I agree that batching can provide some benefits,but as the article author is stating,only big organizations that are making a significant number of transactions every day will get the benefits.
Such big organizations can be only the major crypto exchange platforms and the big online crypto casinos.
If you are a small crypto trader or your cryptocurrency business is below medium-sized,implementing batching won't have a significant impact over the fees that you are paying.
Such big organizations can be only the major crypto exchange platforms and the big online crypto casinos.
If you are a small crypto trader or your cryptocurrency business is below medium-sized,implementing batching won't have a significant impact over the fees that you are paying.
Arguably, the larger companies batching their transactions does benefit everyone, because it potentially frees up space for other transactions. If an exchange had 100 separate transactions in a single block, it would take up more space than one singular batched transaction to 100 different recipients. The more efficiently the available space is utilised, the lower the fees will theoretically be to get your transaction included in that block.
Segwit, I don't know either. Foaming at the mouth telling to switch but at least some stubborn exchanges have started. Even some really old services I see at least support withdrawal to native segwit now. Baby steps.
maybe the services which still don't support segwit are in favour of small blocks? it would be strange if not, as that's exactly what they can hope to achieve by not using segwit: smaller blocks
I'm a big fan of batching myself, don't know why more people don't do it, keep trying to tell the people I work with they can easily pay their workers (including me) on a single batch transaction and save themselves some good fees. Can't remember how often we've gotten paid during peak mempool. It's not like we can't see each other's payments when the main wallet sends us individual txs anyway.
Segwit, I don't know either. Foaming at the mouth telling to switch but at least some stubborn exchanges have started. Even some really old services I see at least support withdrawal to native segwit now. Baby steps.
Segwit, I don't know either. Foaming at the mouth telling to switch but at least some stubborn exchanges have started. Even some really old services I see at least support withdrawal to native segwit now. Baby steps.
Fortunately 4x part only applies to signature part of the transaction, where you'd pay about 2x more for non-SegWit transaction.
yes, I oversimplified that. non-segwit signatures are 4x more expensive, but in a typical (1 input 2 outputs) transaction, the signature makes up less than half of the total actual size, and so it has less effect on the total weight of a transaction (only the signature's size is discounted for segwit transactions, as you say above).
4x cheaper segwit transactions are only possible for transactions with much bigger signatures (i.e. pay-to-script-hash, which in practice means multi signature addresses and other more complicated contracts), and only when compared to a non-segwit transaction with an equivalent P2SH script (i.e. the contract).
Let the users choose which businesses actually help the network, and which of their favorite services users should ask/petition to use Segwit, and batching.
I absolutely concur with this
With Segwit, everyone gets to express their preference according to what they believe is best, whether just individually or for the Bitcoin network overall.
Do you want:
- Small blocks? don't use Segwit
- Big blocks? use Segwit
But small blockers must pay 4x more for transactions that consume more weight in the blocks. Very nice compromise, IMO
From practically side, it should be
Do you want:
- Higher fees? don't use Segwit
- Lower fees? use Segwit
Fortunately 4x part only applies to signature part of the transaction, where you'd pay about 2x more for non-SegWit transaction.
Let the users choose which businesses actually help the network, and which of their favorite services users should ask/petition to use Segwit, and batching.
I absolutely concur with this
With Segwit, everyone gets to express their preference according to what they believe is best, whether just individually or for the Bitcoin network overall.
Do you want:
- Small blocks? don't use Segwit
- Big blocks? use Segwit
But small blockers must pay 4x more for transactions that consume more weight in the blocks. Very nice compromise, IMO
Do not use services provided by businesses that do not implement Segwit or batching. A lot of time has passed since Segwit has been released, and it is not a lot of development work to make the new address type work. This will force them economically to behave faster and more in the interest of users.
I believe that would be a mistake. That would turn it into another divisive, political situation again. But there must be the spread of awareness among users, especially newbies, that there are solutions, like Segwit and batching, for businesses to do to help decongest the network, and lower the fees.
Let the users choose which businesses actually help the network, and which of their favorite services users should ask/petition to use Segwit, and batching.
Do not use services provided by businesses that do not implement Segwit or batching. A lot of time has passed since Segwit has been released, and it is not a lot of development work to make the new address type work. This will force them economically to behave faster and more in the interest of users.
the auction isn't going to happen in the future, it is ongoing so there is no need to predict it just to look at what others have bid. the problem is that when someone bids $50 for example the next dude bids $100 and the next $200 while they could have won the auction with $51 just as easily.
there are lots of software out there that are doing a very poor job at fee estimation and even lots of shitty sites that are popular too that are intentionally inflating fees (eg. bitcoinfees.earn.com these bastards are currently suggesting 220 when the worst case is barely 30!!!!).
it is not rocket science!
there are lots of software out there that are doing a very poor job at fee estimation and even lots of shitty sites that are popular too that are intentionally inflating fees (eg. bitcoinfees.earn.com these bastards are currently suggesting 220 when the worst case is barely 30!!!!).
it is not rocket science!
But simply winning an auction with a lower fee will not mean anything longterm.
The problem is not the amount some people pay, the problem is the volume of transactions is growing and it has no room, the guy who bid a maximum of 50$ will still lose all his auctions, and in the end, he couldn't give a f* if he was outbid by 1$ or 1000$, on the long-run low sat/b fees will not get confirmed no matter how low others estimate the fees required, you will still be at the bottom.
Transaction batching will offer too little relief, with coinbase doing so and many others implementing it from a long time ago the gains will be minimal, even if we all switch to segwit there is only so much you can fit in the blocks, even if we double the size that will also be reached and overflow. As much I hate to admit at this point centralized services area actually taking a lot of the load from the blockchain with their off-chain transactions like coin.ph is doing.
Just telling people to check the fees or have them use wallets in which you can set those fees won't solve the problems longterm, if 20 million decide they want to send a tx now, good luck with all the batching and segwit and everything, only LN would be able to solve it.
past 3 years has proven that even when people are unhappy about bitcoin for any reason including the unreasonably high fees they will never switch to a shitcoin that is the exact copy of bitcoin with the added centralization and the lack of immutability.
Ironic isn't it? Just like the so hated USD!
The anti-Core people simply didn't look at the long-term by refusing the use of Segwit, and batching. Some of them believe their forked-shitcoin might become king, if Bitcoin was dead?
past 3 years has proven that even when people are unhappy about bitcoin for any reason including the unreasonably high fees they will never switch to a shitcoin that is the exact copy of bitcoin with the added centralization and the lack of immutability.
with 92.9% of bcash blocks having a size smaller than 300 kb it doesn't get any clearer than that. and they have been spamming bcash a lot with spam transactions, ICOs, miner spam,...
I was talking about anti-Core people who own Bitcoin services, like Roger Ver. If he HODLs Bitcoin, and if he wants to be enriched by Bitcoin, then use the protocol appropriately to help yourself, the users, AND the network.
BitPay recently announced they would implement segwit.
you know SegWit was added as a proposal many years ago and they had way too long a time to look into it. it was also activated 3 years ago so there is just no excuse for any service today to not support this old feature of bitcoin!
spending something like 6 months on a new feature is understandable due to security reasons since it may involve a lot of code refactor specially if the backend is developed poorly, but 3 years delay is just malicious.
We've already had SegWit for a while now yet freakin Blockchain.com and Binance still doesn't have them, even though Blockchain has a significant control over the wallet marketshare and Binance is a giant exchange. Smh. And Binance has the audacity to have a "beginners guide to segwit": https://academy.binance.com/blockchain/a-beginners-guide-to-segretated-witness-segwit
Roger Ver is an investor in Blockchain.com which means he's not going to make 'Corecoin' more usable if he can help it. As for Binance, they care so little about Bitcoin's nature they probably think saying 'Segwit' out loud three times when you send gets the job done.
Are Veriblock still stinking up the blockchain? They've been responsible for a huge number of transactions at various points.
Ver is also an investor in Purse and BitPay. Purse uses native segwit addresses for deposits and BitPay recently announced they would implement segwit.
The anti-Core people simply didn't look at the long-term by refusing the use of Segwit, and batching. Some of them believe their forked-shitcoin might become king, if Bitcoin was dead?
past 3 years has proven that even when people are unhappy about bitcoin for any reason including the unreasonably high fees they will never switch to a shitcoin that is the exact copy of bitcoin with the added centralization and the lack of immutability.
with 92.9% of bcash blocks having a size smaller than 300 kb it doesn't get any clearer than that. and they have been spamming bcash a lot with spam transactions, ICOs, miner spam,...
That's funny, because if he removes "Corecoin" Blockchain.com WILL LOSE 90% OF USERS.
We know that. He knows that. Which is why he will never, ever, ever make it easy for us AxaBorgCoreStream zombies while he still has some influence. The logical conclusion is that everyone deserts the services he's intentionally crippling but there appears to be little sign of that so far.
Okay, but if the "shitty sites" are popular, whose fault is that? Surely at some point, users need to take some responsibility for what they're doing. I don't see how you can create a world where sub-par services like the ones you describe don't exist. People just need to learn how to find the good ones and use those.
People are lazy and they gravitate towards brand recognition. That's what humans do and it ain't changing soon.
"It is not what Bitcoin can do for you, it is what YOU can do for Bitcoin".
The anti-Core people simply didn't look at the long-term by refusing the use of Segwit, and batching. Some of them believe their forked-shitcoin might become king, if Bitcoin was dead?
Indeed. While we're at it, let's write some software that tells you exactly how much you need to bid to win an auction before the auction has taken place, you have no idea who the other bidders are, or what their bids will be. Easy, right? 
the auction isn't going to happen in the future, it is ongoing so there is no need to predict it just to look at what others have bid.
That would only work if a block were found precisely after you submit your transaction to the network. The auction closes when a block is found.
Fee estimation requires more than just placing your transaction at the top of the queue or 1MB from the tip. It requires estimating the likelihood of finding another block within a given time, and also infers from past blocks what future users will pay. Both of those things are unpredictable on a fundamental level. Looking back at previous blocks and the mempool just provides a guesstimate.
the problem is that when someone bids $50 for example the next dude bids $100 and the next $200 while they could have won the auction with $51 just as easily.
I agree, this is a major problem.
As far as I know, almost all the services, exchanges use batch payment. Coinbase is one who didn't use batch payment but they too do batch payments. Anyway, it's good to use batch payment for its users too. Coinbase charges less fee prior to start batch payments.
While segwit is still to be accepted by a lot of services I know. They don't care because they need to modify their code to enable segwit. May be that's the reason.Hopefully, soon everyone will realize its benefit and enable that.
While segwit is still to be accepted by a lot of services I know. They don't care because they need to modify their code to enable segwit. May be that's the reason.Hopefully, soon everyone will realize its benefit and enable that.
~
That's a fair point. What more can we do to encourage people to use the clients doing a better job in that regard? And is there a constructive manner in which we can pressure the clients that currently lack in that area to improve in future?
That's a fair point. What more can we do to encourage people to use the clients doing a better job in that regard? And is there a constructive manner in which we can pressure the clients that currently lack in that area to improve in future?
we start by discouraging people from using any tool that is severely flawed. for example i have been telling people to avoid using the site i mentioned above for over a year now. good news is that many listened after they saw the flaw. that goes for any other wallets (desktop, mobile, web,...) that are doing a poor job.
next step is reaching out to developers and asking them for improvement, this could be done by creating issues on their github repository or better if we have any programming skills then we should start contributing by writing code and creating a PR instead. and obviously anything that is not open source should not even be used by anyone to begin with.
Jump to: