Topic: Will segwit be activated? (Read 4443 times)

Segwit can never reach 95%, IE: DEAD, (it will never activate.)

So technically segwit is not functioning at all, since it has not yet been activated. 
Segwit is Dead.


 

Hmm,

Are you one of those frighten little girls afraid to hard fork?

An HF to increase blocksize could fix the transactions issue immediately.

Segwit is Dead, the miners are not changing their Minds.

 

FYI:
Segwit is pathetic, you are looking at only ~1.7 to 2 megabyte blocksize and that is if everyone uses segwit addresses which they won't.
A Standard HardFork with a 2 Megabyte blocksize increase would lower the transaction fees immediately.
A Standard HardFork with a 4 Megabyte blocksize increase, and BTC transaction capacity would match LTC.

Segwit is dead, that statement is unclear since we do not know it until all miners leave segwit behind. But as long as there are segwit supporters segwit will continue to function. But in my own opinion Segwit supporters should just give up since segwit cannot really be accepted by the majority of miners but by a small number or miners only.

HARDFORK..? I would prefer to go with segwit than HARDFORK. We all know that it is not an easy task to integrate and activate segwit in the blockchain and we don't have any better solution also and the situations getting worse day by day as the delay in transactions getting more and people are forced to pay more fees..

Hmm, you must have went to the same school as densuj.
Neither of you seem to able to read a chart.  



FYI:
For the Mathematically Challenged like  densuj & ASHLIUSZ .
These were the old Number, BU has increased since it was created.  

FYI2:
You wold think segwit supporters would have enough math skills to comprehend that even if Segwit receive all of the non-voting miners support,
that they would still NEVER have enough to reach 95%, it is like the segwit supporters are Stupid beyond reasoning.
Maybe if they ask a 1st grader to explain it to them , they might understand segwit is dead.

The DAO has been a blunder on epic scale, but that isn't even uncommon from BTC's history. Program code does fuckup and did on most of these crypto projects. But did that killed BTC or ETH? No, they do recover and the brave survive along with them.

"Bitcoin hasn't failed, yet" just ain't not true. Nor does anything alike some "deadline" exists. This is a new frontier, a rush of sorts, stop thinking along corporational Milestones or similar crap.

Yeah bitcoin unlimited support has decreased drastically compared to the days when segwit was under consideration. Now once again the current scenario describes that segwit is gaining power. Personally if segwit gets in right now we may get a chance of increase in price even before the ETF.

Hmm,  https://coin.dance/blocks

24.3% of the mined blocks today (144 Blocks) support BTC unlimited.
19.5% supported it for this Last week. (1000 Blocks)

You might want to brush up on your chart reading skillz, because your analysis is wrong.  


 

FYI:
Where I come from 24.3% is higher than 23%, from what reality do you come from that this is not the same.  

Bitcoin Unlimited is losing support rather quickly, albeit no one is entirely sure why this is the case. A few weeks ago, Bitcoin Unlimited support was on par to surpass SegWit numbers, yet that trend did not materialize in the end. In fact, the support has dropped from nearly 23% to 16.7%, indicating miners are slowly backing off from pools supporting Unlimited.

Yes he is a supporter of Segwit. If the miners will just propose a good solution to the problems that are happening today with regards to small blocksize and slow confirmation of transactions then everything will be fine. If there are solutions that can be used without resorting to block unlimited and Segwit then it is much better. We all just need a person with an initiative and the consensus of the miners.

Even with Litecoin Segregated Witness is failing to gain support and only 75% hash power needed to activate it, it's better to look for alternative methods that don't take fees away from miners, they will never support such implementations.

http://litecoinblockhalf.com/segwit.php

Gavin has called the Correct Answer. 

Segwit is Dead,  Long Live BTC Unlimited.

If segwit be activated bitcoin will become dangerouse for bitcoin, at least it is what I am worrying
 because segwit and lightening network would freeze onchain scaling,
 Lighting Network will cause centralization in offchain payment nodes, then the government could easily apply .

Segwit activate, LOL  

Don't count on it.  
Voting for it max out to ~30% in the 1st week it was released. (It has not Moved!)
Chinese Mining Pools have ~68% and they are refusing it.

Segwit was dead on arrival before they even released it.
All Core has done is waste everyone's time for a year.

 

FYI:  https://coin.dance/blocks
Current Score
SegWit                  22.70%
Bitcoin Unlimited    17.20%
8 MB Blocks             8.80%

?
A few trolls on this forum continuing agitating against segwit despite of any sensible reasoning. Seems, Roger Ver pays well his sheeps

Segwit will likely get activated eventually. It has a one year period to reach 95% of blocks. At seven weeks in, it has about 25% of blocks. There are ten months to go in the signaling period, so it is not over by a long shot. Anyone claiming that Segwit will 'never' activate is trying to call the game in the first inning in an attempt to make their own, less popular proposal appetive.

The alternative to Segwit, Bitcoin Unlimited, is mining even fewer blocks than Segwit. So if the Segwit solution cannot reach mining consensus, it is even less likely that the BU proposal will reach consensus.

On the non-mining front, over 45% of connectable Bitcoin nodes are already running software that supports Segwit. Less than 10% of connectable nodes are running BU.

By every measure, Segwit has a better chance of reaching consensus in the short to medium term than any alternative proposal.

If Segwit does not reach consensus, the default is still 1MB blocks and the Bitcoin network continues working as it is today for the foreseeable future. So anyone who truly wants more transactions on chain should seriously consider supporting Segwit.

but the thing is if an alt can handle XXmb and superlow fee's onchain.. then obviously cores doomsdays of not coping are foolish. so lets just make bitcoin great and not think altcoins and alternative networks are the solution


more like core will perform the intentional split.. only core devs have advocated they would do such.. no one else.


'stake-holders' lol
they have no power.

NODES and pools .. you know the actual CODE maintainers, have an affect on what direction the code takes.

accepting devs empty promises and sitting on your hand hoping some rich guy (stakeholder) pulls out his blockstream investment in the hope it stops blockstream from commercialising peoples transactions into permissioned and locked multisigs. just wont work

infact it does the oposite.. if blockstream has to spend its reserves to let an investor exit.. then blockstream has to get deeper into its commercial services to get some more funds to refill the reserves to pay the other investors.

we should not be sheep and pretend/trust other people have morals. thats the whole point of bitcoin. we should not turn it into a system requiring trust.

consensus dynamic blocks can grow when the community is ready. we dont need to 'trust' that a dev will release X or Y in Z months. because having dynamic settings, the users can be in control and consensus of the majority move things.. not devs.

accepting devs empty one time gesture(segwit) that only works if we move our funds to their new p2wpkh or their permissioned p2wsh keys. and then be left waiting a long while for the hopes they at some point offer real decentralised scalability onchain(user defined dynamic settings). instead of their rush into commercialised p2wsh managed hubs. is not the route to go.

pretending that we should stand back and do nothing for the hopes some richguy pulls out their invests is not the route either.

franky1, I understand your fears. But let's take the case Bitcoin gets LN/sidechain-dependant - another cryptocurrency inmediately could jump in and offer on-blockchain operations also for smaller payments. It could even be a Bitcoin fork (e.g. BU forking from Core intentionally). The "old" Bitcoin chain could then lose market share and the price would probably crash.

I think many stakeholders in the Bitcoin ecosystem won't allow this and will pressure eventually that a higher block size is allowed. As I've said in the other discussion we had, I would favor a relatively conservative approach, but even then we now as fast as possible need at least 1.5, if not 2 MB (in 2017).

you do know hyperledger already is the IMF/government/bank plan for their fiat2.0
many countries are already involved.
bank of America, Canada, Scotland, England, Russia, Switzerland, china, tokyo, australia, to name just a few already involved and doing alpha tests on some ledgers they have tethered together.


how to overcome it......... by not letting bitcoin become part of it. let bitcoin be the open permissionless zero barrier of entry option. dont let devs push things into permissioned services as an end goal and then sidechain(hyperledgers) as the exit route

What you said reminded me of this quote:

"If the wrong man uses the right means, the right means work in the wrong way." This Chinese saying stands in sharp contrast to our belief in the "right" method irrespective of the one who applies it. In reality, everything depends on the person & little or nothing on method. The method is merely the path, the direction taken by a man; the way he acts is the true expression of his nature ~CG Jung Alchemical Studies