Topic: Why must be SEGWIT ? (Read 969 times)

SegWit2x seeks to upgrade bitcoin. It would enact the long-proposed code optimization (SegWit), which alters how some data is stored on the network.

Understanding the ins and outs of the proposal from here can be challenging. While technical, the proposal is also political and philosophical (and some would argue, personal).

Segwit is making the limit of bitcoin core increase . So basiclly after every segwit, bitcoins are becoming more and more better. That's why Segwit are necressary.

Because the current bitcoin blockchain has been blocked. So people have to come up with solutions, but the core team has been so slow to make up its mind that BCH drew everyone's attention.

SEGWIT this ... Become a major basic road, for various other developments that become the basic recipe .... as follows such as lightning network, sidechain, and many others.

Theymos is a liar and manipulator. He is a major party to blame for the attacks bitcoin have had to deal with and the constraint of the block size. No one should ever take a single word he says seriously. His goal is to kill bitcoin and give it to the bankers to use for a settlement system. We must support https://www.bitcoinabc.org/ if we want to keep Satoshis vision alive!

Segwit is a poisonous add on to bitcoin which will destroy it. Segwit and Core must be stopped. Support BitcoinABC and bring back Satoshis vision! https://www.bitcoinabc.org/

UASF (on August 1st) is extremely likely to cause a chain split.  It will cause a chain split if it doesn't have >50% hash rate support, and economic support would basically choose which side is dominant after that.

Also note that it's very unlikely for two chains to be relevant for a long time - the chances are that as long as you hold your coins safely in a wallet where you control the private keys, it won't be too difficult for you to just wait a little while and then start spending when there's a clear winner.

You should read theymos' post about this.

With out SEGWIT also the functionality of the Bitcoin will work. So no worries about the 1'st August and SEGWIT.
Enjoy the Bitcoin functionality.  

Although quite fearful, segwit is actually there as an option to make everything about bitcoin much better. So no worries actually when it comes to long term effects and advantages.

Some analyst predicted Bitcoin to go beyond $10,000 to $100,000 someday . Everyday thousands of people are joining the crypto currency wagon. But in my opinion, Bitcoin cannot go beyond to a higher ground if the BTC blockchain has so many limitation. Bitcoin must undergo the segwit update to give us a fast, and powerful bitcoin transaction, just like LITECOIN.

because there is no other better option than segwit for scaling, for now, there is the block extention, but it's heavily untested and it's an unknown territory

segwit is tested and is the best compromise, until better option come out

The transition to Segwit2x is good. I see it as an update and therefore support this idea. The fact that not all miners supported the transition to Segwit2x I have absolutely no scares. Originally intended that the transaction should be conducted by the user and if the miners will not accept the transfer they will simply be excluded from the process, and their places will be replaced by users.

Seems like you, and many other people, especially newcomers, are very worried about every price drop, and try to figure out the cause of changes. First, you should always keep in mind that cryptocurrencies are very volatile, they can rise and fall by dozens percents per day, so if you own some Bitcoins and altcoins, you are always at risk of losing some money due to drops. This is the risk you take for a chance of getting profits from price rises, and if you are not ready to take this risk, better not trade at all.

I believe everything should have an improvement. The only thing constant is change and if you do not want to change, those who end up accepting that change may overtake you. We have seen the likes of this in so many companies (don't need to start mentioning them), but one thing is with or without segwit, we all don't know what may be the outcome of bitcoin tomorrow but at least with it, there is hope!

i guess one of the main reasons might be the block size limitations. And even without segwit btc would continue working as it is working now. The prices will decrease till 1st August because of the instability that it has created around. Let's wait and watch, and may the majority win and stay with only one coin

For months, even probably years, we have been fighting each other, so I think anything that gets a consensus is acceptable at this point. At least I hope that way people will stop seeing Bitcoin governance as childish.

Also, it will enable us to fit more transactions in each block, and to this point we really need it.

this percentages are different on different proposals! (you may want to double check the following numbers)
SegWit is at >95%
Segwit2x is at >80%
BU some people say 75% but i think it doesn't have any.

and support is not just the hashrate, they are signalling on blocks. the overwhelming support is everyone who is involved with bitcoin. miners, developers, users, nodes, economy, ...
you can see examples of some of them here: https://coin.dance/poli

ı was just tryıng to say. 2 maın coın wıll be a desaster for cryto world. what wıll exchanges do ıf ıt happens. lıke ether and etc. eveyrbody was thıngkıng no body wıll support etc but all exchanges supported ıt.


and ı wonder why all but all alt doıng down even thıs shıt ones wıth 0,01 volume.

There were quite a lot of spam attacks lately. Those made Bitcoin transaction get slow (most of them because of not understanding how tx fee works) and expensive.
An upgrade is needed to overcome that. Here SegWit and BU are the main competitors.

Then it looks like there's a chance to make Bitcoin become a currency after all. Something safe to transfer, fast, not very expensive to transfer and not a "bank money".
Bitcoin always dreamed of that, but until now it was just a dream. SegWit is a first step to achieve that.

Because bullshit.  
Segwit contains some relatively good ideas, but they are not necessary.  Bitcoin contains conceptual and technical choices which are less than optimal, and segwit can improve somewhat on them.

So, somehow, segwit is some technical improvement of some aspects of bitcoin technicalities for more sophisticated uses of bitcoin that aren't really used much today.  The MAIN reason for segwit is that core wants to push changes, and wants to push the lightning off-chain payment system.    Core has been selling a lot of bogus reasons of why segwit is the solution to scaling.

The two main bogus reasons are:
- we cannot afford hard forks, that would be too dangerous, and simply changing *one single parameter* in the existing software, namely the block size limit, is technically a hard fork.  Hard forks are not dangerous if they are consensual, ethereum has done many of them, monero has done many of them.  A hard fork where a single parameter is simply changed wouldn't have been a great deal, but core made a great deal out of it, to be able to push segwit as a sole solution to the silly block restriction.  They do this by allowing (in segwit) "out-of-accounted-blocksize data" (the so-called witness data), and hence allow more ACTUAL data per block than is accounted for (there's only a part of the actual data that goes "into the block", but that block is depending on out-of-block data that gives the full story of the transactions).

- we need small blocks so that there are many voluntary full nodes that "keep bitcoin decentralized".  That's probably the biggest bogus reason.  Full nodes don't decentralize anything as they have no voting power in any consensus decision (on purpose replaced by proof of work by Satoshi, to *avoid* possible sybil attacks on the number of full nodes running and voting). Full nodes only INFORM their owners. But moreover, a true full node would need just as much network and storage and computing effort to verify the "out-of-block data" too, as if these data were included into the block.  Having a block of 1 MB (so, respecting the official limit and no hard fork), with next to that, 3 MB of "out of block" transaction data related to the "fingerprint" in the block, is just as cumbersome to process than old-fashioned 4 MB blocks: the amount of data transiting and processing is the same.  The excuse "but you don't NEED to verify this out-of-block data if you take the fingerprinting for granted", is exactly the same reason that one can use to use a LIGHT WALLET, where you don't NEED the full blocks, but just the chain of headers, and the branches of the Merkle trees that concern your transactions.

Finally, once segwit has augmented the effective block size to 4 MB even though it makes believe old nodes that it doesn't need more than 1 MB and hence is not technically a hard fork (old nodes don't understand zilch of segwit, but accept the ununderstandable blocks because they look like funny but legal transactions to them), there is no further block size increase possible EVER without, finally, the dreaded hard fork of changing a single parameter.

So 20 years from now, bitcoin will STILL run on a room of 4 MB per 10 minutes even if at that point, 3 GB blocks would not be any problem.  These 4 MB every 10 minutes, which is all you can ever extract out of soft forks in bitcoin (which is what segwit is doing), will by FAR not be sufficient to be able to guarantee any settlements of a large Lightning Network that would run on top of segwit, if ever.

In other words, the soft-forking dogma will restrict bitcoin for ever, and doesn't solve any long-term scaling issues.  It will even render off-chain lightning network applications DANGEROUS if ever they pick on because settlement cannot be guaranteed.

Without the soft forking dogma, just increasing the block size would have solved the issues since long ; there's nothing to be won to not do this, whether one wants segwit for technical reasons or not, whether one would like to experiment with off-chain payments or not.  In any case, this has no influence on the decentralization of the consensus decision within bitcoin, which is as of now, pure proof of work, and is not much decentralized already.