Topic: Segwit is good for bitcoins (Read 1512 times)

I really can't understand why some persons where criticizing segwit technology. This has lowered BTC fee and help decongest the numbers of suck transactions in the mempool, and result in a faster confirmation time. Many major wallet have since implemented this.

Segwit is indeed another useful features and helps decongest the block capacity with added security using multiple cryptographic keys that helps scaling and improve the blockchain technology using Lightning network . I do expect to be much more convenient to use in the future because right now it needs a little a tech savvy skills in order to use it.

You digged out topic from 4 years ago to write one liner? On top of that its not related :/

I will use that opportunity to remind how Segwit was discussed in past, how it  turned out (Really great) for bitcoin in general.
Massive technical improvement. Not cleanest solution but best from which we could choose back then.

Nope. It is like corona without immunity

Core is implementing segwit through softfork, that is by lying to old nodes to realize compatibility. This brings significant technical risks and hefty tech debts.

With bottom layer data structure altered, Core wants to lie to old nodes so as to fool them into believing “nothing-has-changed”. This is just as difficult as the twisted hand in the pic above. The risks and debts behind it are so self-explanatory. We can already expect tremendous difficulty in the future development that will be based on this twisted hand.

Why Core says “SegWit almost changed every line of Bitcoin’s codes?” (They wanted to brag about the workload).

Based on the HK consensus, the segwit should have been out in Apr. and online since Jul.,why is it so late in Nov. even under the pressure from consensus and miners? Because core wanted to build a twisted hand.
segwit is bad for bitcoins

I do not believe it is all speculation from the people who are against Segwit/LN. It is also political because they have a different set of beliefs on how Bitcoin should be taken forward and has divided the community into their own camps. The people in each camp who point at each other accusing that greed and control is the primary motivation of the solution of either Segwit/LN and bigger blocks are hypocrites. Both camps each have their own self interests at hand.


I agree. I am also interested what else can be done with LN. The most interesting use case is the possibility for it to become a bridge to other blockchains.


True but it will not stop the miners from creating payment hubs. I see it as an opportunity for them to gain more power in the system.

basically the admins of this forum !

if segwit can help keep bitcoin secure and give it more of a better future then I say welcome it.  some people might thing it not good but we just have to wait and see what happens to the price of bitcoins and if it the mining community helps it grow. 

SegWit does not appreciably help with the scaling problem.  The only thing SegWit does is get the network ready to become the Blockstream Lightning Network where you have to pay a private company to use their 'sidechain channels'.   That is the only true purpose of SegWit.

SegWit is a conversion of Bitcoin to a privately owned crypto 'managed' by Blockstream.  Oh, and they are taking the name 'Bitcoin' to put on their system because they control commit access as Core developers.

Fuck those fucking fuckers.

thats not how bitcoin works, your trying too hard to make a placebo effect appear to be segwit related.

segwit is NOT letting in any extra transactions in. segwit is not activated to do that.
secondly next year when it is activated it doesnt make 4 blocks get solved in 15 minutes. or mess with the 'average' timing

segwit has nothing to do with the asic miners hashrate to make blocks

you do know that ASICS do not have a hard drive, or store the blockchain, or validate transactions.
all they literally do is SHA hash a small piece of data unrelated to your transaction.

SHA hashing in a ASIC has not changed in any way and has nothing to do with any updated node software, or transaction formation.

segwit will not do anything to the average time of solving a block.
the only difference you may notice with segwit are more transactions per block.
and the time YOUR node validates and stores a block of data.
NOT solving a block.

again nothing to do with confirmations at all.
you experienced something that is not attributed to what segwit does bt due to placebo, have deemed it to be a effect of segwit.

SegWit has yet to be accepted by the miners. I am skeptical that the 95% agreement will be reached in the one-year polling phase.

At this stage it's mostly speculation.  I don't think anyone can truly know whether Segwit (and by extension, Lightning) is good or bad for Bitcoin until we see it in action.  There are still concerns over maintaining direct access to the blockchain by individuals, so users can keep transacting directly on-chain without relying on third parties.  For those who believe the advent of this technology could result in users being forced off the chain onto more "custodial" services, then it's fair to see why they're skeptical.  To echo others, this clearly doesn't make it an altcoin, but it is potentially a significant change in ethos.  On the plus side, it is optional and, if it doesn't work as advertised, there is still the nuclear option of a hard fork away from it.  

For what it's worth, I'm interested to see Segwit and Lightning up and running so that we can all make an informed evaluation of the pros and cons.

However, I will say that (despite usage being optional) if people feel they are either being forced to transact either less frequently, or off chain, due to prohibitive costs, or if the off chain transactions start redirecting fees away from the miners and towards some newly created middlemen, causing incentives to become misaligned, then a fork would be all but inevitable in my view.  People won't support a system that doesn't support them.  Give it a chance, but not carte blanche.

Calm down, this is a debate about the Pro's and Con's of this technology. So far, I can see features in SegWit and later LN that might not be

beneficial for poor people in developing nations. If what Franki1 is saying is true, then this is definitely something we have to consider, to

prevent a barrier to entry for poor people. The alternative to dump this, also has it's down side.. { scalability problems } We can also not

just increase the Block size to try and solve this problem, because that has threats of attacks too. 

don't talk shit, of course SegWit and Lightning is Bitcoin.
Why are you so hate bitcoin? Does goverment pay you for your posts?  Or is it because Lightning is gonna kill all altcoins, and you bought a lot of this scum?

I would like to see a counter argument from the core developers or from the people who know the technical ins and outs of the Segwit and the Lightning Network. For me, everyone should be open to criticisms as long as they are contructive and informative that would benefit the community. I see some posts from people who have no clue what Segwit even is.

I see franky1's post about LN is valid. That is good for all to learn and see. What is good about the whole thing is Blockstream's implementation of LN is only 1 of several. I believe others also have their own ideas for off chain transactions which could or could not be better. At this point it is all at vaporware phase. The best time to criticize is now so that changes and improvements can still be considered.

all core need to do is simple.
dont do a miner vote and then users node adoption later for 1mb base 4mb weight(pushing segwit into activatatioon before usernodes are readily available to be full nodes)

but instead do
users node adoption vote for 2mb base 4mb weight (meaning segwit still happens but as hard fork) where nodes are readily avalable as full nodes before activation
then miners vote to activate it

then everyone is happy.

It is time for  Miners Makes Decision.
Bitmain, HaoBTC, BW, GBMiners and F2Pool plan to mine by Bitcoin Unlimited, according to Haipo Yang, ViaBTC founder and former Tencent employee, Facebook / Twitter from China, where he worked Linux-based C + +.
In combination with bitcoin.com, they represent about 60% of the hash rate of the network, making it almost a super majority in favor of Bitcoin Unlimited, the rank and long-term solution on taking the scalability chain .
A Bitmain representative in response to my request for confirmation or denial of ViaBTC's statement that they have no comment at this time. A Bitbank representative, in response to the same question, responded with a link to "a statement from members of the Bitcoin Community", which is a $ 1.2 million grant fund for the Bitcoin protocol announcement development. Other miners have not yet replied.
As far as I know, only a small number of SegWit mines support, and most pools are private or public, unlike SegWit.

segwit would be using the bitcoin network. so segwit is not an altcoin but features of it and who programmed it does rub very much against the ethos of what bitcoin is, the way it bypasses node consensus. the lack of concern of diversity, etc.
but LN is definitely a different kettle of fish.

however segwits abilities and promises are not going to be met, compared to the utopian dream plastered out last year
EG
malleability fixed. you need to ask what was the end user experience that malleability was causing in the first place.
1. double spends.... um RBF, CPFP have been added to make double spends possible... so the fix solves nothing
2. LN working.. well LN is a dual signing mechanism. so if someone wanted to create a malleated tx with higher fee, after signing the first tx.. LN wont allow it anyway because the second tx needs dual signing anyway just like the first tx did, and the peer wont sign a second tx. so malleated transactions wont even reach a block due to not having dual signatures. in short, a peer would reject a malleated tx simply by seeing their counterpart trying to make one.

EG
TX fee
its said that the tx fee will be 75% cheaper. more accurate numbers are 40% cheaper. and due to the transaction price going from 3.5cents last year to over 7cents today. its not really making transactions 'cheaper' (not below 1cent like in 2012) but still at 3cent+ which will rise quickly due to other fee war pushing mechanisms added to the new implementation

but hey. everyone will argue that using real code to fix problems of bitcoin is meaningless because soon LN, soon sidechain will save the day.. (facepalm) pushing the problem down the road and into a different direction rather then dealing with it

Based on what I've read so far it seems a lot more like SegWit is some sort of offshoot that is an attempt at making money off of a normally free (or relatively) free service. I'm not a fan of this so far and currently it looks like a lot of the alternatives I thought would be bad are becoming more and more palatable when I see things like this.

I'll see, but I am incredibly skeptical right now.