since this topic is old and there are already enough discussion on this matter i am going to lock the topic for now (it was bumped after 2 months!).
you can also see a similar and more complete version of this POLL here:
SegWit, Unlimited, both, neither, etc
Topic: SegWit yay or nay? come vote here. (Read 7400 times)
At this point if your voting no your ether a shill or a fool.
Clearly, I vote yes. SegWit is actually the best way to get out of both the Bitcoin Unlimited crisis and the low velocity of the network caused by attacks from Bitcoin Unlimited. I once show a nice and interesting scheme explaining SegWit, but I do not remember who posted it and what it described exactly, beside objects in a box. Seeing it immediatly ot me onboard !
75% people voted "want SegWit", which is not a surprise at all. SegWit is the trend, after its implementation, bitcoin can be more faster and flexible, big block size with softfork means no big hazard to bitcoin, including no price dump. IMO SegWit will be implemented within 3 months.
No big hazard - yes, because the same coins would not be able to be spent twice and the blockchain will not face hard fork. However, this is just a temporary solution, as far as I understand.Bitcoin being faster - no. As the signature will be in the extended block, it will take more time to become confirmed and even the price of transaction fee is likely to grow.
Nevertheless, I vote for Segwit, because at least it will save btc from some big problems and will give time to come up with something better.
75% people voted "want SegWit", which is not a surprise at all. SegWit is the trend, after its implementation, bitcoin can be more faster and flexible, big block size with softfork means no big hazard to bitcoin, including no price dump. IMO SegWit will be implemented within 3 months.
If you know the technical benefits of Segwit then you will obviously vote for a Yes. Importantly "Malleability Fixes" should have been done long ago, But still, there are people/hackers who maleate with the transactions. Another valuable benefit is increase in the Block size increase. Segwit will give a brighter future to Bitcoin for sure.
Then how do you explain the fact , No one has voted for it over the initial 30%. hmmm?
https://coin.dance/blocks
Explicit Mining Pool Support by Proposal
SegWit 23.1%
Bitcoin Unlimited 22.2%
8 MB Blocks 8.1%
Looks like unlimited is catching up .
Probably Pass it in the next month or so.
Man, you BTC guys take forever to make a decision, it is like watching a train wreck in slow motion.
75% people voted "want SegWit", which is not a surprise at all. SegWit is the trend, after its implementation, bitcoin can be more faster and flexible, big block size with softfork means no big hazard to bitcoin, including no price dump. IMO SegWit will be implemented within 3 months.
If you know the technical benefits of Segwit then you will obviously vote for a Yes. Importantly "Malleability Fixes" should have been done long ago, But still, there are people/hackers who maleate with the transactions. Another valuable benefit is increase in the Block size increase. Segwit will give a brighter future to Bitcoin for sure.
Are LTC blocks full now? What is the motivation for LTC users/nodes/miners to adopt LTCSegwit? How will the LTC experience apply to BTC?
I didn't check, but I highly doubt that they are. You seem to forget that the added capacity of Segwit is a side-bonus and not the main goal of that improvement. You should look into the list of benefits that it provides again.oh and if you were around in 2013 and remember the mega orphan chain due to the levelDB bug..
guess who caused it..
yep SIPA. the guy you trust to offer sgwit, and implement it without nodes being ready...
couldnt even sort out a database 4 years ago
In other words: BU developers are now as good as Core developers were 4 years ago, if not worse? guess who caused it..
yep SIPA. the guy you trust to offer sgwit, and implement it without nodes being ready...
couldnt even sort out a database 4 years ago
Don't you mean LN Developers.
LTC has OnChain Transaction capacity to spare, and their miners have not finished voting for it , so it may fail with them too.
Segwit is a stupid idea , to move all of you Yahoos to their Offchain LN, (might as well just use a bank.)
75% people voted "want SegWit", which is not a surprise at all. SegWit is the trend, after its implementation, bitcoin can be more faster and flexible, big block size with softfork means no big hazard to bitcoin, including no price dump. IMO SegWit will be implemented within 3 months.
Point of clarification , it does not matter if the entire planet earth wanted segwit.
As long as the Chinese Mining Pools don't want it, it can't happen.
That is their advantage since they have over ~68% control of BTC, and there is literally nothing the rest of you can do about it except use a different coin.
So Cry in here all you want , China is your BTC Daddy!
Are LTC blocks full now? What is the motivation for LTC users/nodes/miners to adopt LTCSegwit? How will the LTC experience apply to BTC?
I didn't check, but I highly doubt that they are. You seem to forget that the added capacity of Segwit is a side-bonus and not the main goal of that improvement. You should look into the list of benefits that it provides again.oh and if you were around in 2013 and remember the mega orphan chain due to the levelDB bug..
guess who caused it..
yep SIPA. the guy you trust to offer sgwit, and implement it without nodes being ready...
couldnt even sort out a database 4 years ago
In other words: BU developers are now as good as Core developers were 4 years ago, if not worse? guess who caused it..
yep SIPA. the guy you trust to offer sgwit, and implement it without nodes being ready...
couldnt even sort out a database 4 years ago
75% people voted "want SegWit", which is not a surprise at all. SegWit is the trend, after its implementation, bitcoin can be more faster and flexible, big block size with softfork means no big hazard to bitcoin, including no price dump. IMO SegWit will be implemented within 3 months.
(and almost forked the network two days ago).
lol
it was a reject that was handled in 3 seconds..
Quote
2017-01-29 06:59:12 Requesting block 000000000000000000cf208f521de0424677f7a87f2f278a1042f38d159565f5
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
2017-01-29 06:59:15 ERROR: AcceptBlock: bad-blk-length, size limits failed (code 16)
core pools make rejects and orphans a few times a week that last more than 3 seconds
https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks
oh and if you were around in 2013 and remember the mega orphan chain due to the levelDB bug..
guess who caused it..
yep SIPA. the guy you trust to offer sgwit, and implement it without nodes being ready...
couldnt even sort out a database 4 years ago
by the way what would be a real mindblowing experience for you to try.
instead of thinking that bitcoin needs masters. think about consensus. where the bitcoin node network rules supreme
and devs and pools are merely helpers.. not controllers
2) Segwit has been extensively tested on the testnet. If Litecoin adopts it, then that will be the next step.
Are LTC blocks full now? What is the motivation for LTC users/nodes/miners to adopt LTCSegwit? How will the LTC experience apply to BTC?
Do it!
Just do it!
This has gone way too long, surrender, SegWit it is, lets scale this shit.
I have to confess that I do not know. That is probably one of the most importants things that happened to Bitcoin yet and I can not choose my side. That is kinda a shame 
...
...Well you know there is basicly no side to choose: There is a well tested software (Bitcoin Core 13.2) and on the other side some untested buggy something (BU 1.0.0) that could possibly fuck up bitcoin really bad (and almost forked the network two days ago).
I wouldnt consider the BU-"Team" a competitor to core. If core is so bad n shit, why BU is c'n'p all the new fixes from the core-client?
So the choise is stick to staus quo (13.0 ... which is fine aswell) or Bitcoin 13.2.
And 200 of them prob. run by Ver himself ....
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Ver is running them, but considering what happened with Bitcoin Classic it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a single entity is running a majority of those.It has zero comments.
It's easy to see that there are a number of arguments for and against SegWit.
There are very few reasonable arguments against Segwit.In fact it is difficult to know the best solution at the moment, especially for something that has never been tested.
1) There is no alternative solution.2) Segwit has been extensively tested on the testnet. If Litecoin adopts it, then that will be the next step.
Well. there is always Frankys A-B-C-D-X theory that has been debunked to hell and back. I'm sure he will re-post it again shortly.
I have to confess that I do not know. That is probably one of the most importants things that happened to Bitcoin yet and I can not choose my side. That is kinda a shame ...
... And 200 of them prob. run by Ver himself ....
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Ver is running them, but considering what happened with Bitcoin Classic it wouldn't surprise me to find out that a single entity is running a majority of those.It has zero comments.
It's easy to see that there are a number of arguments for and against SegWit.
There are very few reasonable arguments against Segwit.In fact it is difficult to know the best solution at the moment, especially for something that has never been tested.
1) There is no alternative solution.2) Segwit has been extensively tested on the testnet. If Litecoin adopts it, then that will be the next step.
It's easy to see that there are a number of arguments for and against SegWit. In fact it is difficult to know the best solution at the moment, especially for something that has never been tested.
I think the good thing about all this is that this improvement will be implemented in Litecoin, and this will allow us to know more clearly what is the best thing for Bitcoin.
I think the good thing about all this is that this improvement will be implemented in Litecoin, and this will allow us to know more clearly what is the best thing for Bitcoin.
you think that trolls that dont even run a full node and have been advertised to spam a poll.. has more meaning that the actual NODE count
now you see why im laughing
Nobody was advertised to spam this poll, now you see why im laughing
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5pb2sd/vote_on_bitcointalk_segwit_yay_or_nay/
you think that trolls that dont even run a full node and have been advertised to spam a poll.. has more meaning that the actual NODE count
now you see why im laughing
Nobody was advertised to spam this poll, otherwise it would have a much higher rating. So you're talking about node count as support, and you're laughing? Let me show you something:now you see why im laughing
My reaction:
And 200 of them prob. run by Ver himself ....
I guess the Hashrate is also fake, they are running core and signaling for BU ... No sane person, who invested millions in mining would rely on untested node software.
Jump to: