SegWit, are we sure about this? | Bitcointalksearch.org

mikewirth

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 250

Quote from: kiklo on November 28, 2016, 07:57:39 PM

Quote from: Lauda on November 28, 2016, 07:40:08 PM

Quote from: mikewirth on November 28, 2016, 07:35:56 PM

It does go against the main purpose. It is an alt. A bad alt.

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

Quote from: mikewirth on November 28, 2016, 07:35:56 PM

It is a radical change and unproven. It doesn't work (as a scaling solution).

It has been proven and it works (at least on Bitcoin Testnet). It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.

It is so sad to see either misinformed people continuing to spread lies, or users *sponsored by unknown actors* continuing to spread FUD and dissent. Here's a better view on the issue:

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

Just Curious.

Cool

Of course. He is just another one of the Blockstream army of idiots trying to takeover the protocol.

mikewirth

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 250

Quote from: Lauda on November 28, 2016, 07:40:08 PM

Quote from: mikewirth on November 28, 2016, 07:35:56 PM

It does go against the main purpose. It is an alt. A bad alt.

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

Yes, it is an altcoin. I don't understand how you can argue that it is not. Litecoin is more like Bitcoin than SegWit.
It is clearly an altcoin. Your shit is the FUD

Slark

legendary

Activity: 1862

Merit: 1004

Quote from: franky1 on November 17, 2016, 10:08:39 AM

Quote from: BitcoinBarrel on November 17, 2016, 09:45:57 AM

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

But situation where some bitcoins could be "lost in translation" while being send from old wallet of customer to new SegWit address on an exchange is not possible right?
Also is something could go wrong while updating HD Seed to SegWit beside exchanges being temporary out of service?

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: Lauda on November 28, 2016, 07:40:08 PM

It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.

dont oversell it.

that 1,8x old stat and the updated 2-2.1x new stat is ONLY TRUE. if 100% of people move funds away from legacy(old) keypairs and directs funds over to the new segwit compatible HD seeded keypairs, and 100% sticks with using segwit.

if not all users used segwit it WONT be close to your numbers. so dont oversell it

gribble

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 552

Quote from: Quantus on November 16, 2016, 02:51:51 AM

SegWit, are we sure about this? I'm embarrassed that I'm a little nervous. Dose Bitcointalk have any doubts or are you guys pumped for SegWit?

I am doubt too about SegWit because of the miners won't support it, they have made investment into business mining with millions real assets and they won't be manipulated by the the people who not made investment on business mining.

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

To Increase BTC Transaction Capacity all they had to do was the following.
Increase BlockSize or Decrease Blockspeed , either or both would work

Quote from: kiklo on November 24, 2016, 05:44:21 AM

BTC Transactions Congestion Problems Embarrassed

Simulation Example
each block has 1 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 4200 transactions per block with a 10 minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes [1] 10 minutes
6 Blocks * 4200 Transactions = 25200 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

BTC Transactions Congestion Solutions Grin

Simulation Example Updated with Larger BlockSize and Shorter BlockSpeed
each block has 2 MB of transactions with a theoretical Limit of 8400 transactions per block with a 2½ minute BlockSpeed , [] is a block
One Hour of Blocks
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes
[2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes [2] 2½ minutes

24 Blocks * 8400 Transactions = 201600 Maximum Theoretical Transactions per Hour

Compare Updated Simulation with Original
201600 / 25200 = 8
Updated Version can handle 8X the Transaction Capacity. Wink

Now the educated asshats that live in these forums will tell you it can't work or it is a security risk, (They are Lying!)
Real World Examples.
PoW coin LTC has a 2½ minute block time with no problems whatsoever from it.
In Fact Chinese Mining Pools are over 51% of the BTC Hash rate , and are also over 51% of the LTC Hashrate.
In Fact some alts run at a 30 second blockspeed.
Oh, they also will complain, it will affect the Block Reward and Halving Dates,
(All of that are Variables that can be modified to compensate for the changes)

If they lower the Blockspeed,
then they will have to increase the Final Supply Number of Bitcoins or allow it to get to the Final Supply Number 4X faster than it would have.

If they only increase the BlockSize ,
then the Block rewards and halving dates are not affected, and will not need modification.
But Transactions grow will be directly proportional to the increase in BlockSize.
IE: 2 MB Block only Double the Transaction Capacity
8 MB Blocks would increase by 8X also

Whole Point to SegWit is install code where the Lightening Network can be used to replace BTC Transactions with LN Transactions
LN does not use BTC as it is OFFCHAIN it is nothing more than a representative trade value of BTC / IOU for BTC.
LN=Bank

Cool

ufaiz50

hero member

Activity: 1666

Merit: 502

Quote from: BitcoinBarrel on November 17, 2016, 09:45:57 AM

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

to my knowledge segwit effects will impact the bitcoin network significantly reduce the transactional data by deleting a set of data called Witness of the traditional structure of the transaction. This is thought to reduce the likelihood of blocks reaches maximum capacity

kiklo

legendary

Activity: 1092

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lauda on November 28, 2016, 07:40:08 PM

Quote from: mikewirth on November 28, 2016, 07:35:56 PM

It does go against the main purpose. It is an alt. A bad alt.

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

Quote from: mikewirth on November 28, 2016, 07:35:56 PM

It is a radical change and unproven. It doesn't work (as a scaling solution).

It has been proven and it works (at least on Bitcoin Testnet). It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.

It is so sad to see either misinformed people continuing to spread lies, or users *sponsored by unknown actors* continuing to spread FUD and dissent. Here's a better view on the issue:

Did someone pay you to promote SegWit & LN?

Just Curious.

Cool

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Quote from: mikewirth on November 28, 2016, 07:35:56 PM

It does go against the main purpose. It is an alt. A bad alt.

No, it is not an altcoin. Stop spreading FUD.

Quote from: mikewirth on November 28, 2016, 07:35:56 PM

It is a radical change and unproven. It doesn't work (as a scaling solution).

It has been proven and it works (at least on Bitcoin Testnet). It will provide around 2-2.1x capacity based on the current usage patterns.

It is so sad to see either misinformed people continuing to spread lies, or users *sponsored by unknown actors* continuing to spread FUD and dissent. Here's a better view on the issue:

mikewirth

sr. member

Activity: 532

Merit: 250

Quote from: serjent05 on November 17, 2016, 09:43:31 PM

I agree to this, as long as it does not go against the main purpose why bitcoin is created, I think it must be pushed.

It does go against the main purpose. It is an alt. A bad alt. It is a radical change and unproven. It doesn't work (as a scaling solution).

Post your vote now. Even if you are not a miner, let the community know you are against.

serjent05

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1281

Get $2100 deposit bonuses & 60 FS

Quote from: franky1 on November 17, 2016, 10:08:39 AM

Quote from: BitcoinBarrel on November 17, 2016, 09:45:57 AM

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

also some of the RPC calls have changed so merchants will need to tweak their webserver to interpret the new RPC's and then translate them into a form that resembles the API quiries the webserver normally sends out to users. but please note some RPC's may give more info and as such some merchants may actually use the updated info from the RPC's, which means the user has to adjust to the new information.
but that all depends on the merchant and what API you are needing. best to check with the service your API calling.

there are a few other things to note. but i feel some fanboys are ready to pounce and declare segwit to be utopian perfection and that no one should worry, and simply sheep follow and obey.
so ill let them get their idolizations out the way before hinting at other issues

I think there is always an issue whenever an upgrade or some modification is made. But going back before bitcoin was adopted by merchants, it was far more difficult back then because every one is so new to bitcoin. They even undergo this kind of process when they are into adopting bitcoin and yet it was been established. I think this is just a common ground to an ever evolving or upgrading system.

Quote from: calkob on November 17, 2016, 10:29:08 AM

It sounds great and anything that can help with more transactions is a good first step, i dont think it is the final solutions tho

I agree to this, as long as it does not go against the main purpose why bitcoin is created, I think it must be pushed.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: franky1 on November 17, 2016, 10:08:39 AM

Quote from: BitcoinBarrel on November 17, 2016, 09:45:57 AM

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

also some of the RPC calls have changed so merchants will need to tweak their webserver to interpret the new RPC's and then translate them into a form that resembles the API quiries the webserver normally sends out to users. but please note some RPC's may give more info and as such some merchants may actually use the updated info from the RPC's, which means the user has to adjust to the new information.
but that all depends on the merchant and what API you are needing. best to check with the service your API calling.

there are a few other things to note. but i feel some fanboys are ready to pounce and declare segwit to be utopian perfection and that no one should worry, and simply sheep follow and obey.
so ill let them get their idolizations out the way before hinting at other issues

Remove the name calling and the insults and get to the real issue at hand. It would be fair for the people who know what is going on to answer to the issues raised because they will cause some inconvenience for the exchanges, merchants, and all the other Bitcoin based businesses. It will also be a nuisance for the users especially the people who are not updated to what is going on with Bitcoin. They might just find out one day when they cannot send or receive coins.

Maybe 5 years ago this would be acceptable. But not today because Bitcoin is getting more professional and its legitimacy relies on the fact that there should be no downtime.

calkob

hero member

Activity: 1106

Merit: 521

It sounds great and anything that can help with more transactions is a good first step, i dont think it is the final solutions tho

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: BitcoinBarrel on November 17, 2016, 09:45:57 AM

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

the final release version (not this version but the one only public after activation) will require deposit addresses to change for merchants using segwit, due to the new HD segwit compatible seed addresses.
this can affect alot of exchanges who decide to have full node status in the background and may require some maintenance downtime and informing customers of changes

also some of the RPC calls have changed so merchants will need to tweak their webserver to interpret the new RPC's and then translate them into a form that resembles the API quiries the webserver normally sends out to users. but please note some RPC's may give more info and as such some merchants may actually use the updated info from the RPC's, which means the user has to adjust to the new information.
but that all depends on the merchant and what API you are needing. best to check with the service your API calling.

there are a few other things to note. but i feel some fanboys are ready to pounce and declare segwit to be utopian perfection and that no one should worry, and simply sheep follow and obey.
so ill let them get their idolizations out the way before hinting at other issues

BitcoinBarrel

legendary

Activity: 2062

Merit: 1035

Fill Your Barrel with Bitcoins!

Does anyone know if Segwit will cause compatibility issues with APIs and payment systems?

unamis76

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

I was just requested by my mobile client's automatic fee calculation to spend 17 cents as fee to have my transaction included in the next block. I hope OP is transacting now and is thanking for the creation of SegWit Cheesy

And we aren't even too congestioned.

Wind_FURY

legendary

Activity: 2898

Merit: 1823

Quote from: franky1 on November 16, 2016, 02:19:05 PM

Quote from: ebliever on November 16, 2016, 02:02:24 PM

Does SegWit introduce known vulnerabilities? I imagine we can loosely say "maybe" for any change, but is there a pretty concrete risk associated with its code? Or are these just residual, vague concerns despite the peer review and testing to date?

oh you do know that 0.13.1 (released) is not fully segwit active. you will be required to download yet another version when active to actually use a segwit wallet features.

and then...

changing your funds from lagacy keypairs to new HD segwit compatible seeded addresses has risks
eg exchange/merchants needing to replace everyones deposit addresses and reaudit funds

changes to RPC calls has risks

this is why i laugh when people are screaming to just run segwit on mainnet and "trust" the devs have reviewed it. though only as an altcoin (testnet/segnet) not as a bitcoin mainnet node

dont expect smart people to run it blindly. they will all do independant tests. move funds, audit funds warn customers of different deposit addresses..

in short dont expect anything to change by christmas, or expect ~4500 instead of ~2500 transaction before spring.. well lets call it summer before anything actually starts to be noticable

It should be that way. For me, I personally want it to go as slowly but surely as possible. There is no need for a rush here unless there is a Bitcoin doomsday saying that the core developers must hurry up or else Bitcoin will break. The big blockers should also have the same view and must also be willing to criticize both segwit/LN and BU/big block implementation from an objective point of view.

Speaking of the Bitcoin doomsday, did Mike Hearn mention that unless Bitcoin hard fork's to XT, it will die by this time in his time frame? I was lurking this forum at that time so I am not sure.

franky1

legendary

Activity: 4424

Merit: 4794

Quote from: deisik on November 16, 2016, 03:42:46 PM

Quote from: Quantus on November 16, 2016, 02:51:51 AM

SegWit, are we sure about this? I'm embarrassed that I'm a little nervous. Dose Bitcointalk have any doubts or are you guys pumped for SegWit?

As I got it from from the SegWit benefits (namely, from he part which I don't feel completely lost at), this update allows new nodes to raise the block size limit to about 4 MB (now it is 1 MB). If I'm not mistaken, larger blocks allow to accommodate more transactions, most likely 4 times the amount as of now.

you got it wrong..
thats 4mb of data.. not 4x transactions.

the baseblock is still 1mb... and still limits capacity..

which if utilising segwit converts to about a maximum expectation of about 1.8mb of complete transaction data at best.

expect the average ~2500 transactions per block now. to be ATBEST ~4500 transactions.

the 4mb total weight is 1mb base and 3mb separate section(partly used by segwit signatures(the 0.8mb accounted for in the underline above))
the rest of the 2.2mb empty buffer space which core are allowing is not for more transactions. but other mundane data and features later on.

later on when new features are added.
it will still be ~4500 transactions but room to include payment codes and mundane data in that transaction.
eg
legacy 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value - signature = total 1mb of 1mb for 2500tx
segwit 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 0.8mb -Witnesstxid - signature = total 1.8mb of 4mb for 4500tx
future 1mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 0.8mb -Witnesstxid - signature... 2.2mb otherfeatures = total total 4mb of 4mb for 4500tx

you wont see the red (baseblock) change to allow more than 1mb.

though many would wish for:
segwit 2mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 1.5mb -Witnesstxid - signature = total 3.5mb of 4mb for 9000tx
future 2mb= txid - inputs - outputs - value... 1.5mb -Witnesstxid - signature... 0.5mb otherfeatures = total total 4mb of 4mb for 9000tx

but that would require core to join a logical consensus and not back out and prevent that.. with something like 'we paid for the consensus round table to discuss possible bips, we organised who gets to attend. we even called it consensus, but when we turned up we pretended to just be janitors that cant code a solution so that after the agreement we didnt have to do what had been agreed at the consensus discussion'

European Central Bank

legendary

Activity: 1288

Merit: 1087

100 or so developers are surely gonna know more than i ever will about what's best for bitcoin. considering what's at stake these days then they must be very confident. i guess no upgrade is 100% impregnable but sometimes you need to take a step up whatever.

deisik

legendary

Activity: 3514

Merit: 1280

English ⬄ Russian Translation Services

Quote from: Quantus on November 16, 2016, 02:51:51 AM

SegWit, are we sure about this? I'm embarrassed that I'm a little nervous. Dose Bitcointalk have any doubts or are you guys pumped for SegWit?

As I got it from from the SegWit benefits (namely, from the part which I don't feel completely lost at), this update allows new nodes to raise the block size limit to about 4 MB (now it is 1 MB). If I'm not mistaken, larger blocks allow to accommodate more transactions, most likely 4 times the amount as of now. This has double benefit. First, it increases the network capacity to process more transactions and, second, the amount of miners fees will increase proportionately with the number of transactions when Bitcoin adoption eventually scales up...

There are probably other benefits associated with raising the block size limit

Topic: SegWit, are we sure about this? (Read 1575 times)