Topic: Why Bitcoin Legacy Address got Replaced with Segwit (Read 448 times)

I merely mentioned information you didn't see on https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...litecoin-project:litecoin:master. That link doesn't mention anything about duration of clone/fork.

Between forking or cloning and now there are 12 Years.
Information you conveniently ommited  

FWIW Nov 18, 2020 seems to be earliest date. If you scroll down and clcik "Load more commits" few times, you'll see latest date which is May 12, 2023.

Commits on Nov 18, 2020 is what I see,
That is 3 years off.

Fork is not the technical term for a copy.

https://opensource.com/article/17/12/fork-clone-difference


Between forking or cloning and now there are 12 Years.

Fork is the technical term for a copy. If you check the source codes you can see how they have and still are simply copy pasting everything from their parent project (everything except the small parts they'd changed).
https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/compare/master...litecoin-project:litecoin:master

You seem to be unaware that LTC was a fork, Not comparable to Doge.
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/040515/what-litecoin-and-how-does-it-work.asp



An assumption is to say them may be exploitable on each network. Plus admitting that they are differeces which makes in unlikey to be exploitable. He puts all into the same bucket, no one has seen an exploit so far. Not on BTC, Nor on LTC or Doge.
Second the risks of a network 51% attacks are more things of the past when the networks were smallish.

https://www.halborn.com/blog/post/halborn-discovers-zero-day-impacting-dogecoin-and-280-networks

Legacy addresses  are safe  but take into account they are case sensitive and may include both capitals  and lowercase letters. Thus. they may  be perceived incorrectly by ear.

 Bech32 (native Segwit) addresses allow solely  lowercase letters, thus receiving them audibly (let's say in phone conversation) is less faulty.

LTC as the copy of Bitcoin and Doge as the copy of LTC, inherit the same weaknesses from the parent project. For example the vulnerability to spam attack causing network congestion or the rest of the weaknesses Bitcoin has.

Additionally the copycoins always change something that introduces additional weaknesses and in some cases even serious vulnerabilities. For example Dogecoin being a PoW and not popular at the same time made it vulnerable to 51% attacks. That is on top of numerous other critical and exploitable vulnerabilities that have been found when someone bothers reviewing their codes.

Recent months, spam attacks are from Ordinals Inscriptions with no practical value and those people who minted BRC 20 tokens even over paid a lot for transaction fee with belief that their Inscriptions have some values that will be higher than transaction fees they overpaid.

In the past there are other attacks on Bitcoin network and mempools that cause transaction fees were expensive too. The most famous is Bitcoin Cash, Roger Ver team attacks in 2017 with hope that they will be able to convince Bitcoin users to move to Bitcoin Cash shit blockchain. Bigger block size, since 2017, their blockchain has slowly become dead with lower hashrates.

Block size: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/size-btc-bch.html#alltime
Hash rate: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/hashrate-btc-bch.html#alltime

The reason why we're seeing people making this statement is because they never understand that no matter how scalable a cryptocurrency is, it will experience network congestion when it reach it maximum usage.
What I don't understand is what the people that's using BRC-20/ordinal inscriptions to spam the BTC network sees in the project that wont survive the next bear market.

Please be so kind and point to a source, I would like to know if that claim is true.
Litecoin being flawed, on what data you base your statement?

Bitcoin's network congestion is not because of "small transactions" it is because of an ongoing spam attack that is self sustaining by providing an incentive to the attack participants in a scam market where they gamble on the spam transactions they create.

Not to mention that flawed copies of bitcoin like LTC and Doge have the same problem, the only reason why they aren't being spammed right now is because they aren't being used in real world to create the incentive for attackers to perform such an attack in such a scale.

It depends on how you look at it. You can compare it with a piece of technology we all use - smartphones. Big companies have their flagships. Those are the most expensive phones with the best build quality, hardware, software etc. But they also have many experimental models where they test out different new features, hardware, software combinations, etc. Phones made of cheaper materials for those not willing to pay for a flagship.

If the tech they are experimenting with isn't producing the results they expected, too bad. It will stay with one of those cheaper models. That's Litecoin for you.
If it works and creates additional benefits, it will be added to the set of features on the next flagship. That's Bitcoin.

which is why I push for btc to not go after small value transactions.

Just set lowest send at 0.0001 btc with minimum fee at 0.00001

all small blockage btc sends would be encouraged to move to LTC or Doge.

BTC blockchain clog is over and done with.

I find it remarkable that Litecoin seems to be the forerunner for features Bitcoin implements after seing if it works out or not.
Litecoin not being the Silver rather being the platinium.

https://robots.net/fintech/when-does-segwit-activate-on-litecoin

Segwit has a lighter byte weight, therefore lower fees.
Legacy is still fine but being the original it's a heavier byte weight.
In the last couple years some major exchanges have switched to segwit/ms.

I'm rephrasing the stuff  Charles-Tim and hosseinimr93 have already said (they are both correct), but i tried to make it a bit "simpler"...

My simplification is a bit "over the top", some aspects are oversimplified, but i'm trying to give an ELI13 explanation here

The bitcoin network re-adjusts the difficulty every 2016 blocks to make sure that, on average, one block gets found every 10 minutes. That's about ~6 blocks per hour. It doesn't matter if the hashrate climbs or plummets, the network re-adjusts every ~2 weeks to make sure that on average ~6 blocks are found per hour.

A block can only contain 1 Mb of transaction data, NOT including the witness data of a segwit transaction... A block can contain up to 4 Mb of data, but the first Mb is the "actual" transaction data, and the other 3 Mb is only witness data of segwit transaction. This means that only ~6 Mb of "actual" transaction data (not including witness data) can be added to the blockchain each hour. This is also the reason that, when the mempool is overflowing as it is now, a miner has a choice to optimize the block he/she is trying to solve... He/she can make any combination of unconfirmed transaction he/she wishes.

When people use legacy addresses, the complete transaction has to fit into the first Mb of the block. When people use segwit addresses, only a part of the transaction has to fit into the first Mb, and a big chunk of the transaction data can fit in the "extra" 3Mb. The first Mb is the actual bottleneck, a miner cares less about the witness data since he has 3Mb of blockspace to store said data.

Any transaction has a number of inputs (with a value) and a number of outputs (with a value). A miner solving a block can send the block reward to himself, but he can also add the sum of all the values of all inputs of all transactions in his block minus the sum of all the values of all the outputs of all transactions in his block to said block reward... SOOOOO for a miner, if there are plenty of transactions in the mempool to pick from, it's financially beneficial to add transactions with the highest fee per byte of transaction data (since the total size of the block is a limiting factor). Since a segwit transaction NOT including the witness data is much smaller than a legacy transaction, it needs less fee in order to become interesting for a miner to be added to the block he/she is trying to solve.

As soon as you get this, it's time to look at taproot

Do not be confused to make wrong conclusion after reading.

Let us assume the mempool fee rate needed for high priority now is 31 sat/vbye.

If you use a fee rate of 20 sat/vbyte and the fee rate for high priority remained to be over 31 sat/vbyte for a long time, your transaction can not be confirmed. You transaction will be confirmed if the fee rate is reduced to or lower than 20 sat/vbyte.

If you use 35 sat/vbyte or higher as your transaction fee, and the fee rate for high priority did not increase more than 34 sat/vbyte before the next block is mined, your transaction will be confirmed in the next block.

Fee rate is proportional to fee.

Which means higher fee can actually make your transaction to be confirmed faster, if comparing it with low fee that is too low to get the transaction confirmed as fast as high fee.

Miners include transaction with higher fee rate into a block and it will be confirmed, leaving the lower fee rate aside until the mempool to become less congested.

Yes, Charles-Tim is right.

No.
Bitcoin blocks are mined at the rate of 1 per ∼ 10 minutes on average.
If the fee you pay for your transaction is high enough, your transaction can be included in the next block. Whether you use legacy address or segwit address, you can't get confirmation before the next block is mined.

Actually that does not happen in practice because the miners just fill up their blocks with more transactions (the segwit kind) in that case.

If you filled a block with only legacy address transactions then it would have less transactions than a block which had only segwit address transactions.

But in practice, miners don't care what kind of address you have as long as you pay them a high enough fee. That's the only factor that determines confirmation times.