Topic: segwit criticism on medium (Read 1087 times)

segwit is about changing the blocks formation and transaction formation and network connection routing between nodes.
its about onchain stuff.

oh and its nothing about speed boosting..

segwit is being "sold" as a onchain feature that is required to make offchain features possible.
but that was the empty promise last year which people dbunked prtty quick along with other promises..

off chain features like LN dont need segwit to function

EG

segwit is the fertility treatment sold as the only way to get a women pregnant because normal sex is too messy and takes to long

Isn't segwit all about validating transactions off-chain (which is how they get the speed boost)?
Some say its on-chain, but what's your comment on that?

Do you understand what you are talking?
Or else, let us both (you and I) stop talking.

Stop talking about things you don't understand.

due to the censorship of promote X and hide a-w y,z

most of the segwit promoters dont even know how segwit works. they have not read the code and not looked beyond the 30second utopian sales pitch plasterd to the trolls on reddit

even on here for a year i have been telling the biggest loudmouth segwit supporters to atleast research read and understand before promoting and a year later they still fail to grab the basics of segwit real functions and limitations.

just because something is socially popular doesnt guarantee it will technically win.
currently segwit has 72% of their preferred voting method abstaining or objecting to it because segwits preferred voters are a bit more technically minded.
the only big supporters they got were the ones in the DCG portfolio that flagged acceptance in minutes of the poll starting date

Segwit is the best solution now, simply because it is the most heavily promoted solution to everyone.
That's why it gets the most exposure, examination and evaluation.

Clif High's solution could be very feasible and could also be the best, but it is not considered because nobody understands it.
Bear in mind Clif High is a programmer that worked for big corporations like Microsoft before.

In the end, everyone will continue to run around the mouse wheel endlessly looking for a solution that can never be found, not because there is no solution, but because they look at the wrong place.

I have no specific idea how Clif High's solution works but I am sure if he is a programmer with big MNC before and now running his own self-developed linguistic algo program Webbot for predictive analytics that have been pretty accurate so far, then his solution should be credible enough.
And consider the fact that there is no need for any alteration to the source code except just adding some short lines of new codes to do lateral processing and yet thru this Bitcoin is able to achieve infinite scalability, without segwit, without lightning, without unlimited, and without block size increase, should be very seriously considered. But unfortunately nobody does. So in the end, the woe on Bitcoin will be endless. And that's human destiny in general, not just in Bitcoin but also in many things in life.

if anyone ignores the issus and only sees an ass cheek they wish to kiss.. then they need to take a step back, not grab a pinch of salt


try reading and researching.
too many dismiss the issues of the code and simply go back to the fiat mindset of trusting people..
by then denouncing any bad issues because they trust the human behind it.

EG loads of people trusted Mr. Ponzi for years before his name became negative.

Theres no space left in the blocks.

Just take it with a pinch of salt.

When BU is winning the race, so many negative publications/comments came out.... Now when the focus turned to Segwit, I am sure this kind of criticisms will follow. Human nature!

This should be archived on the blockchain.

backup: http://archive.is/XpI8a

"This page is unavailable"

blockstream will to anything to ensure the sheep remain asleep

i wonder who begged medium to censor it

Must have been removed but heres a copy


Once only complex and unnecessary code, I have become immortalized as a brand name by my creators

Segwit Resources

Getting the inside scoop on the Segregated Witness. The truth shall set you free.

Segregated Witness: A Fork Too Far
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179

This paper first examines Segregated Witness (SW), then demonstrates how it can only fail to realize its designed purpose, how it encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt, and how it threatens the fungibility of the currency.



...



Bitcoin is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a

SW avoids an ecosystem-wide hard fork through ecosystem-wide upgrades to bitcoin transactions, blocks, addresses, scripts, full nodes, miners, wallets, explorers, libraries, and APIs. All to provide partial relief to core block pressure assuming users upgrade — 1.6M if 100% upgrade, based on current usage.

SW roll-out requires extensive software modifications just to maintain current functionality in the face of rising transaction volume. SW complicates bitcoin economics by splitting a “block” into a basket of two economic resources — core block and extended block — each with unique price incentives and (heavily intersecting) sets of actors.



...



Bitcoin Upgrade Governance, Hard Forks and Segregated Witness
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-upgrade-governance-hard-forks-and-segregated-witness-942885e0ce58

In terms of updates to production software, Segregated Witness pushes complexity up-layer, with a ripple-out impact of changes, from one team (bitcoin core) to many teams out in the ecosystem.



...



Core Segwit — Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!
http://www.wallstreettechnologist.com/2016/12/03/core-segwit-you-need-to-read-this/

Segwit cannot be rolled back because to unupgraded clients, a segwit txn looks to pay ANYONE (technically, anyone can spend the outputs). After activation, if segwit is rolled back via voluntary downgrade of a majority of miners software, then all funds locked in segwit outputs can be taken by unscrupulous miners. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, the incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows. Compare this to a block limit increase hardfork, which can be rolled back by a block limit decreasing softfork.

Segwit doesn’t actually increase the blocksize, it just counts blocksize differently giving a discount for the segregated witness data.

Segwit doesn’t actually fix malleability bug or quadratic hashing, for outputs which are not segwit outputs. Yes, this means that as long as there are non-segwit outputs in the blockchain (for instance, long untouched coins like Satoshi Nakamoto’s) these problems will still be exploitable on the network.

Presently the danger of a 51% miner collusion is just the danger that txn can be censored, or that a miner can double spend their own txn. There is nothing that a 51% cartel can do to steal your bitcoins. But if everyone was using segwit, then that [stealing] actually becomes a reality.

Segwit grows technical debt. The idea of shoehorning the merkel root of the signatures into the coinbase message is a cludge made just so that segwit could be deployed as a soft-fork. How many kludges do we want to put into the Bitcoin base layer? Are we going to make soft-forks (and thus kludges) the normal practice?



...



SegWit is not great
http://www.deadalnix.me/2016/10/17/segwit-is-not-great/

On the other hand, SegWit is essentially a hard fork disguised as a soft fork. It strips the regular block out of most meaningful information and moves it to the extension block. While software that isn’t updated to support SegWit will still accept the blockchain, it has lost all ability to actually understand and validate it.

An old wallet won’t understand if its owner is being sent money. It won’t be able able to spend it. A node is unable to validate the transactions in the blockchain as they all look valid no matter what. Overall, while SegWit can be technically qualified as a soft fork, it puts anyone who does not upgrade at risk.



...



How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin
http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/04/05/how-software-gets-bloated/

Some Bitcoin devs are considering a trick where they repurpose “anyone can spend” transactions into supporting something called segregated witnesses.

To older versions of Bitcoin software deployed in the wild, it looks like someone is throwing cash, literally, into the air in a way where anyone can grab it and make it theirs.
Except newer versions of software make sure that only the intended people catch it, if they have the right kind of signature, separated appropriately from the transaction so it can be transmitted, validated and stored, or discarded, independently.

Amazingly, the old legacy software that is difficult to change sees that money got thrown into the air and got picked up by someone, while new software knew all along that it could only have been picked up by its intended recipient.



...



How do SegWit and FlexTrans compare?
https://bitcoinclassic.com/devel/FlexTrans-vs-SegWit.html

People that receive a payment from a SegWit user will not have any progress reports of that payment unless they have a SegWit wallet. Users pay more to users that don’t have a SegWit wallet. The networked basis of money makes it a certainty that practically all people need to upgrade. And that begs the question if there really is a benefit to the SegWit solution.



...



Why We Must Oppose Core’s Segwit Soft Fork, Bitcoin Miner Jiang Zhuo’er Tells You Why!
https://medium.com/@zhangsanbtc/why-we-must-oppose-cores-segwit-soft-fork-bitcoin-miner-jiang-zhuo-er-tells-you-why-28f820d51f98

Bitcoin Core plans to implement Segwit as a soft fork, and then to forever limit the block size to a piddling 1MB, turning the blockchain into a settlement network that is hard to distinguish from SWIFT.



...



Scaling Bitcoin: Reflections from the DCG Portfolio
https://medium.com/@DCGco/scaling-bitcoin-reflections-from-the-dcg-portfolio-35b9a065b2a4

One company notes, “Last year we got on the Bitcoin Classic bandwagon out of desperation. Our stance was: Segwit sounds complex and Classic seems easy and buys us time.

Segwit has “only been tested by core devs on testnet… the main worry would be that this testing may not match what enterprises actually need on a production level”.



...



Bitcoin company CTO here. Why I oppose Segwit.
https://archive.is/5rb0e

Largely out of technical objections, and political ones also. I see Segwit as a crudely-designed kludge, and an unnecessary complication to the protocol. Open Transactions was working on a sidechain implementation years ago that didn’t require Segwit, it only required deterministic ordering of UTXOs when creating new tx, which still doesn’t have a BIP and it’s a damn shame because that was a great idea.



...



Segwit: The Poison Pill for Bitcoin
https://archive.is/3u8Ny

Direct scaling has a 1.0 marginal scaling impact. Segwit has a 0.42 marginal scaling impact. I think the miners realize this. In addition to scaling more efficiently, direct scaling also is projected to yield more fees per block, a better user experience at lower TX fees, and a higher price creating larger block reward.



...



Why soft fork is a very bad idea and should be avoided at all costs
https://archive.is/NZHqM

I was surprised by the latest announcement of Pieter that a SegWit implementation which changes pretty much everything in bitcoin can be implemented via a soft fork, where it does not require all the nodes to upgrade to be compatible.

After a bit research, this is possible because you can always give old data new meaning in a new implementation, while the old nodes simply do not know how to parse that data.

As a result, a new block will be accepted by the old nodes because they appear to be valid. But in the new implementation, they are just a small subset of the new data structure, all the transaction data is in another related block.



...



Translation Of Chinese Miner Consensus Meeting
https://blog.bitmex.com/translation-of-chinese-miner-consensus-meeting/

First, assuming Seg Wit is used by all one-signature tx, the effectiveness of it is only equivalent to a 1.6MB block size. Because of the complexity and development needed for Seg Wit, some may refuse to employ the update. Assuming 50% of tx use Seg Wit in 12 months, this is equivalent to a 1.3MB block size, which is pretty useless.

Second, Seg Wit requires a lot of manipulation of core components of Bitcoin, which carries a lot of risk. Bitmain CEO: “Currently Core devs are working overtime to catch up with the development schedule. We all know what will happen if we can’t get enough sleep and code on…”




Go to the profile of SegWit Official


SegWit Official

SegWit is short for Segregated Witness. Bitcoin's poison pill, developed by dipshits for a profit-driven company created to control #Bitcoin

They're afraid of hard forks. Insecure. And core told people for years hardforks are bad, so they can have an excuse for getting paid while doing nothing.

Page unavailable... But I also question myself: If Unlimited was a no brainer, why haven't miners backed it? Or Classic, XT, etc...

Interested in reading your link if you can fix it

Can't open.

https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e

If segwit was a no brainer why haven't miners all backed it?