Topic: SegWit yay or nay? come vote here. - page 8. (Read 7400 times)

you do understand segwit right??

you understand that although when confirmed in a block old nodes dont fully validate the tx. but instead blindly look passed it..('compatible backwards' cough cough)
BUT before confirmation because it appears as signatureless tx (anyonecanspend) old nodes can cause issues.

this is why 0.14(the implementation with p2wpkh and p2wsh key generation wallets) wont be released before activation.

and then after activation, 0.14 wont connect with non-segwit nodes for relaying unconfirmed transactions to avoid the silly things that happen at unconfirmed relay level.
they could connect to old nodes and just relay old transactions. but lets be honest segwit-node users wont bother doing all the setting changes to mix and match tx's. so will just connect to segwit nodes to make things simple

yes after tx are passed by segwit nodes to a segwit accepting pool, they will then relay block data out to all nodes new and old.. but due to the unconfirmed tx relay part. segwit will divide the network at unconfirmed tx relay level

segwit done as non network consensus node activation is going to cause issues.. but core wont tell you about this until after its activated as a strongarm motive for everyone to jump onboard at a rapid pace to join their nodes. or be left ignored. (changing the network)

technically its all the 'same network' (due to all nodes connecting to a pool), but the nodes become more biased to only communicate with their own kind. where it becomes more work for a pool to send out 2 different variants of a block. --witness



again core will try to advertise the need to get nodes to upgrade to gain more connections and be more part of their side of the network (although in their half truth twisting of words is one network)

this is why it should have been a proper network consensus rather than a emulated consensus of just the pools, so that by being a full network consensus before pools, allows the nodes to be ready and fully compatible rather than just SPV compatible to segwit

as you can see by segwits own guide. if not upgrading they want you to set up another node to 'filter' your unupgraded node through a segwit node (facepalm) when sending old tx's but you wont receive new tx's. it also allows segwit nodes to be the controller of what becomes a 'valid block' or not. rather than the old node doing independent checks

https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/10/27/segwit-upgrade-guide/

I voted no, simply because I'm not even sure how would this turn in the long run. The implementation might be a-ok, but seeing that votes on this matter could only be voiced using nodes (which is more or less 5000 as of today) is kinda concerning and might divide the network's interest.
If it benefits the protocol, the network and the community in the long run, I would vote yes, but as for now I don't really see how would this lead us into something better "community-wise."

There is no point in discussing SegWit in its current state as it lately became clear that miners won't support this update.Something must change for SegWit to become real alternative.
We have miners agenda, Blockstream agenda, community agenda, Roger Ver with bitcoin unlimited etc. Simple users like me who want so have better bitcoin are confused and dazed by all this mess.

I'll vote later, but I suggested this before and I know the newbies army can easily manipulate the results and wish there was a way to count only full members+ votes.
I'd go with whatever is best for bitcoin and it's future of course miner's profit is one of the important priorities, we should see what will keep the community united and even stronger than before.
If activating the way they intend to do is going to cause 2 different sides as to dividing the whole system and community then a big NO.
If doing so will alter the purpose and meaning of "open source" "publicly distributed" and "decentralization" in any possible way a big NO.
If not doing so is going to favor individuals all over the world and wont slow down and cripple the network then YES, meaning NO to segwit.

i disagree. it is not a civil war unless we make it one.

currently we are waiting for the miners to decide on the acceptance or denial of SegWit (the proposal they are signalling- BIP141 IIRC)

and users have only nodes to voice their opinion and there are only ~5000 nodes and lot more users. so i want to know out of the 929828 members on bitcointalk and ~2 million daily visits and more other places how many want, don't want or even have no idea about BIP141

and as i said in OP, this the results will just be results.

(so far 126 times read and only 7 votes!)

there could be a lot of people that want both or undecided because people are stupidly dividing the communiity by thinking consensus should be ignored and it should only be a one or other decision..

your pool is just going to be a biased civil war whos on whos side vote. rather than a community consensus open choice.

I think i'll keep it simple as is. and for YES i mean, the current proposal anything other than that means you vote NO and can explain here in the comments.

---

shared on reddit too.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/5pb2sd/vote_on_bitcointalk_segwit_yay_or_nay/?ref=share&ref_source=link

put in another option.

"yes but only with real consensus onchain scaling beyond the one time boost"

This should be interesting.

I personally have never seen anyone asking the community or the bitcoin users what they think about Segregated Witness. (apart from Nodes, and Hashrate i have never seen any other way.)

so here is an opportunity to anonymously vote. obviously this is just for curiosity purposes and the result are just results.

please don't randomly vote.
if you don't know what SegWit is or don't know whether you should want it or not, then Vote for 3rd option I don't know
Vote Yes if you know what it is and want it to be activated.
Vote No if you know what it is and don't want it.