Topic: Segwit or Segregated witness (Read 318 times)

transaction per block does not matter either. this year we started seeing a lot of big services such as exchanges batch transactions which means less number of transactions will be in blocks because of the size of the tx they are sending.
what matters most is capacity and SegWit has increased capacity and by that it helped scaling bitcoin. it may not be as efficient as a hard fork to increase block size from 1 to 4 but you can not deny the fact that it has increased the capacity.

cost per transaction doesn't matter either because whether bitcoin was scaled with SegWit to 4 MB or with a hard fork to 4 MB neither of them can change anything about vulnerability of bitcoin to spam attacks which increase the fees. and what we had in 2017 was 80% spam attack 20% increased adoption!

I said "transactions per block", which has been steadily increasing since June. If you want to widen the timescale to 2 years, they are flat at worst.

https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions-per-block?timespan=2years

Don't know why you'd redirect attention to a graph of total transactions. That's not the same thing as transactions per block.


Again, you've redirected to a graph that shows "cost per transaction" which is not the same thing as transaction fee. Regardless, cost per transaction is the same as June-July 2017, when the price of BTC was $2400 - $2800... So in terms of BTC the cost per transaction is actually _lower_ than it was a year and a half ago.

segwit doesnt scale..
you cant re-segwit a segwit, so segwit does not scale

the 4mb is not 4x tx count either.

what people need to realise is that in 2014-2015 people were complaining that transactions were moving above 5cents a tx. thus creating a barrier for DOZENS of countries
segwit does not offer a discount. what it does do is scale factor *4 the price of non segwit..
basically inflating normal transactions to make segwit appear cheaper. but even segwits "cheaper" tx are still more expensive than the 2014-2015 demand for a solution

...
as for the whole baseblock space the whole point of the 1mb limit was about limiting hard drive growth to 52gb a year.. now that rule has been bypassed. that rule should be removed. and allow actual full 4mb room for both segwit and legacy utility.

and here is the funny part. back in 2009. 1mb was said to allow 7tx/s (4200tx a block)
at time of posting 250,000 transactions a day /144 blocks a day average under 1800tx a block


IF segwit got rid of the witness scale factor would lead to:
fee's for everyone is cheap
4mb true space for everyone. (upto 16000tx a block)
without the fake byte count of the baseblock. people can know the actual bytes are actual bytes that sit on hard drive.
oh and next.. dont say that segwits actual feature was that it solved malleability. it disabled one method of malleability. but cores adding new opcodes and new ways to malleate again.. thus more of a temporary disabling of malleation rather than a fix/solution

[1] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/n-transactions?timespan=2years
[2] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time?timespan=2years
[3] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/cost-per-transaction?timespan=4years

i still find it funny that people are over promising, over promoting utopia. when stats and real utility shows the truth
what people need to realise is that people on this forum has already bit the bitcoin fever and got the interest, to have found this forum. they dont need more ass kissing over promotion. they want facts. this includes the REALITY which can be bad.
those thinking utopian promises and kissing ass over promoting is a good ethical thing. are just after fake temporary fame. not sustainable growth via people knowing the REALITY of what is happening

Technology and technology platforms are the core of any Altcoin, but this is of little interest to investors. Bitcoin accepts support from Segwit to solve Bitcoin's problems. Bitcoin has a very fast Block Rating, but when it supported, I believe this issue will resolve.

Alright, thank you!

There are no real advantages to using legacy addresses over Segwit addresses. They are both compatible with one another and they work just the same. The only real difference for end users is that using legacy transactions costs more.

That's great info. This mean bitcoinwallet that supports segwit is a better option. My wallet also supports legacy transaction, what's the advantage with it compared to segwit?

For cheaper fees. Since witness data is propagated and stored outside traditional blocks, the transaction size you pay for is smaller than with legacy transactions. Compare these two transactions, both with one input and two outputs:

https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/7771cbe247c8674cf83feaccbd71eeb10df819d42e36b964806cb268ec54b858
https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC/tx/270afefbb653b051a3ba3bf0964c47c7c72517e7dee124827aa8345ce6361392

Users migrating to Segwit can also free up legacy block space for those who haven't upgraded. Everyone benefits from it.

This make sense to me, thanks for clarifying. But the point here is, in whatever way it works it still causes the transaction cheaper and faster. As for me who is a newbie who doesn't understand the whole thing about blockchain, the idea that segwit is more advantage is enough for me to choose what kind of wallet I'll be choosing.

sometimes people oversimplify some concepts to a point where it becomes wrong!

in this case SegWit does NOT reduce transaction size or transaction speed.
in fact SegWit transaction size is a tiny bit bigger. what it does is that it increases capacity by changing the way transactions are stored in the blockchain. it moves the "witness" which is the signature to another place which helps with backward compatibility while increasing the capacity of blocks.
you pay a lower fee on a SegWit tx not because the tx is smaller but because of  this change and the way virtual size is calculated.

as for transaction speed, it is decided based on time between blocks which is a fixed time (10 min on average) and that is not changing with SegWit.

Bingo. Sounds like you get it. It just shaves off a bit of information from each transaction that was determined to be non-crucial to the continued functioning of the blockchain. While segwit definitely helps bitcoin scale a little bit, its actually pretty limited in this regard, which is why things like mass adoption of the Lightning Network will be required if bitcoin wants to compete with something like Visa.

I've red from Hodler wallet article that  it changes the way in which information is stored on the blockchain, it allows for a reduced transaction size, and therefore also reduced fee and increased transaction speed. To put it as simple as it gets. This means that wallet such as that which supports SegWit addresses enables bitcoin users to make cheaper and faster transactions which I think the best thing about it.

But it already did.

Transactions per block = increasing
Median confirmation time = decreasing
Average tx fee = decreasing

but it doesnt

the "technical details" of anything is hard to explain to anyone without the prior understanding of that technology! for example if i wanted to explain to you how we measure mechanical properties of materials in nano scale you wouldn't understand a thing unless you have a degree in material science...

as a regular user you don't even need that kind of deep understanding anyways. you only have to know the "how to" use bitcoin basics in order to use it.


in short because it helps with bitcoin's scaling.

The technical details of SegWit would be hard to explain to anyone without a deep comprehension of blockchain technology, and this  provided Bitcoin's development . Why it is better to choose a Bitcoin wallet that  supports segwit addresses?