Ah, thank you very much.
Now i'm getting it.
Topic: Why isn't SegWit activ yet (Read 627 times)
What i meant is why isn't the next miner making a SegWit-Block now. He could segreagate the signatures and making space for 4 times more transactions (and earn the fees). That is the idea of SegWit and it seems compatible with the actual rules. Nobody would reject this block. Isn't this the whole point of a softfork in comparison with a hardfork?
The point is that clients that operate with the new rules won't accept old blocks. So they won't mine on a chain with an old block that is incompatible with the new rules.
While I appreciate your descriptions, I think OP is just confused with SW's acclaimed downward compatibility as a soft fork, wondering why people should wait for reaching a majority of 90% or 80% when their software is cool with older blocks mined in the old fashion way either before or after they start using it.
The trick is, after SW is being launched both old and new clients can work properly with each other, right, but there is one major and very important exception: The old clients can't validate segregated witness transactions, they assume these transactions always being valid.
Now suppose we get a brand new, fraudulent SW transaction in the mempool, that tries to steal coins from a wallet without access to its private key. This is what happens in next few hours:
The SW, upgraded nodes will reject it immediately and keep including healthy transactions in their blocks but If a majority or a significant portion of the network have not yet upgraded, they may validate the malicious transaction by including it in their blocks, and if it happens to be one of these old nodes's chance to pass the difficulty test, they will transmit it to their peers as their mined block ...
It leads to a chain split in the worst case or abandoning of the immature SW nodes enforcing them to back-off and use the old version, in the best scenario.
On the other hand if the old nodes are a very small minority, they will just find some of their mined blocks becoming orphan but do not react improperly, they just keep mining. In this way, the migration path will be as smooth as possible and with less pain and casualties, this is why we need such high levels of support.
What i meant is why isn't the next miner making a SegWit-Block now. He could segreagate the signatures and making space for 4 times more transactions (and earn the fees). That is the idea of SegWit and it seems compatible with the actual rules. Nobody would reject this block. Isn't this the whole point of a softfork in comparison with a hardfork?
The point is that clients that operate with the new rules won't accept old blocks. So they won't mine on a chain with an old block that is incompatible with the new rules.
That's why the 95% threshold was introduced. Otherwise - in a "chaotic" Segwit adoption like you describe - we would have a lot of orphaning of blocks mined by old clients until a supermajority follows the new rules. In an UASF scenario, it is exactly that what could happen - but that's also the reason why many people oppose UASF if it isn't announced a lot of time in advance.
Does anyone think bitcoin will hard fork/split and if so why?
Bitcoin will not split and the reason is greed.
BIP 148 and SegWit2x will bring us SegWit and thats enough for now. In 6 month wenn the blocksizeincrease is sheduled the SegWit2x supportes will cry that it was a promise and thats it. Whitout the Core-Developers or the economics there won't be a increase and both are against it. The miners alone have no power.
Does anyone think bitcoin will hard fork/split and if so why?
What i meant is why isn't the next miner making a SegWit-Block now. He could segreagate the signatures and making space for 4 times more transactions (and earn the fees). That is the idea of SegWit and it seems compatible with the actual rules. Nobody would reject this block. Isn't this the whole point of a softfork in comparison with a hardfork?
95% represents the majority, It could've been lower If they wanted to I believe. It's unlikely that SegWit will get activated that way. We are left with two options currently: UASF or SegWit2X, whatever comes first. https://coin.dance/blocks
SegWit2X was meant to be activated at 80% which we already reached, but I believe It's not fully tested and according to a blog post I read on BTCC, It should take placeon 31th June. If activation doesn't happen until 1st august, we will find ourselves with UASF.
As for why some people are with or against it, I can't tell you for sure. The way I see it, some people want to control bitcoin.
SegWit2X was meant to be activated at 80% which we already reached, but I believe It's not fully tested and according to a blog post I read on BTCC, It should take placeon 31th June. If activation doesn't happen until 1st august, we will find ourselves with UASF.
As for why some people are with or against it, I can't tell you for sure. The way I see it, some people want to control bitcoin.
I think that i have understand Segwit, but something is still missing.
As i understand is that SegWit is conform with todays rules. That's the reason why it is only a softfork. Every Client would accept a SegWit-Block as valid. So why the 95% ?
Why isn't the next miner making a SegWit-Block and earn more fees, because he can integrate more transactions?
I know the miners (except for jihan wu) aren't dumb. They would make it if it were possible. So what am i missing? Can some help me understand?
As i understand is that SegWit is conform with todays rules. That's the reason why it is only a softfork. Every Client would accept a SegWit-Block as valid. So why the 95% ?
Why isn't the next miner making a SegWit-Block and earn more fees, because he can integrate more transactions?
I know the miners (except for jihan wu) aren't dumb. They would make it if it were possible. So what am i missing? Can some help me understand?
Jump to: