Will SegWit be enough to reduce fees? - page 2.

Stedsm

legendary

Activity: 3052

Merit: 1273

Quote from: HeRetiK on February 21, 2018, 09:58:09 AM

Quote from: Colorblind on February 21, 2018, 09:16:55 AM

Keep in mind that Lightning network is just first step of Bitcoin scalability solution. After Lightning Network will pass through excessive testing and prove it's robustness and usefulness I expect Bitcoin block size will be further raised to account for raising demand.

Raising Bitcoin block size is one possible option.

If that would have been the alternative, people would be considering the use of BCH instead of BTC.

Quote from: HeRetiK on February 21, 2018, 09:58:09 AM

Alternatively we have concepts like this, that could vastly improve Lightning Networks scalability:
https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf

Then there's Schnorr signatures, that could increase transaction throughput by another 25% without increasing block size:
https://medium.com/@SDWouters/why-schnorr-signatures-will-help-solve-2-of-bitcoins-biggest-problems-today-9b7718e7861c

So there's still a lot of improvements that can be implemented before BTC needs to resort to a blocksize increase.

LN is one of the most difficult concepts to be obtained yet as the development is still ongoing. But it will prove to be one of the cheapest ways to get our transactions done in a matter of flash! I believe that scalability issues will still be there, but SegWit has maintained the mempool in an awesome way compared to previous days, and I will undoubtedly compare those days to have spam attacks to block the mempool with less-fee transactions so that higher fee would be paid. This looks like getting serene after the hubbub that made the miners listen to what the community wanted.

Samarkand

sr. member

Activity: 658

Merit: 282

Quote from: cellard on February 21, 2018, 10:36:32 AM

...

But don't discard the spam factor: Roger and Jihad will be back spamming the network during the next bull run for the ATH once again, to make things worse. Hopefully with segwit they will just end up lose money for nothing.
...

Given the fact that their previous spam attacks didn´t have the desired effect and Bitcoin
Cash hasn´t gained any popularity I doubt that they will try a similar attack again.

There is just no reason for them to waste lots of money - even though they get back a
share of the transaction fees that a spam attack costs - if even a congested Bitcoin
blockchain didn´t cause people to switch to using Bitcoin Cash.

Therefore I don´t think that we will see a spam attack of this proportions again.

Colorblind

member

Activity: 392

Merit: 41

This text is irrelevant

Quote from: HeRetiK on February 21, 2018, 09:58:09 AM

Quote from: Colorblind on February 21, 2018, 09:16:55 AM

Keep in mind that Lightning network is just first step of Bitcoin scalability solution. After Lightning Network will pass through excessive testing and prove it's robustness and usefulness I expect Bitcoin block size will be further raised to account for raising demand.

Raising Bitcoin block size is one possible option.

Alternatively we have concepts like this, that could vastly improve Lightning Networks scalability:
https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf

Then there's Schnorr signatures, that could increase transaction throughput by another 25% without increasing block size:
https://medium.com/@SDWouters/why-schnorr-signatures-will-help-solve-2-of-bitcoins-biggest-problems-today-9b7718e7861c

So there's still a lot of improvements that can be implemented before BTC needs to resort to a blocksize increase.

Indeed raising block size is a viable and logical option but my point it's not the only one. In fact I can't really understand seeming opposition between raising block size and Lightning network because those measures don't really in any opposition. Neither of those solution won't be crippled by implementation of other so I don't see why people keep fighting over what is best. The only reason why (my oppinion) LN should be implemented before block size increase is because LN is reversible, optional addition to network, where BlockSize change is irreversible.

Also Schnorr signatures would be a bliss in my opinion. Probably won't solve scaling but will improve performance greatly. Sadly I don't see how it can be implemented while maintaining backwards compatibility.

buwaytress

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 3684

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: cellard on February 21, 2018, 10:36:32 AM

But don't discard the spam factor: Roger and Jihad will be back spamming the network during the next bull run for the ATH once again, to make things worse. Hopefully with segwit they will just end up lose money for nothing.

Actually, I think there could be a case of serious lack of support for another round of sustained spam factor. Roger and co doesn't seem to any longer include Jihan's support, if his pinned Tweet exhorting BCH supporters to stop the fighting and hate would suggest (this came up shortly after Segwit2x was dropped).

BCH itself will be wondering if they need to any longer carry out those deliberate overload attempts: they've already got their own fork to bolster on one hand, but on the other, if they let off now, it's further evidence that they were, indeed, the ones behind all the network spam of 2016/17.

ABCbits

legendary

Activity: 2870

Merit: 7490

Crypto Swap Exchange

For now, yes and it's been proved by the fact we can use lowest possible fees (1 satoshi/byte or 0.02$ for normal TX) and get confirmation with good speed.

But no worry since other solutions such as LN will coming soon and other solutions such as MAST, Schnorr signatures/MuSig & other which can reduce transaction size and increase privacy on some conditions.
Also, i'm sure the community will agree to raise block size/weight once there's proof that majority users still can run full nodes even after increasing block size/weight, especially it will be needed if we want to see bitcoin ready for mass adoption.

Kprawn

legendary

Activity: 1904

Merit: 1074

I think we will have a different situation, going into the next Bullrun. The MemPool is basically empty at the moment and

Coinbase is rumoured to have finalized the implementation of SegWit. {We saw 2MB blocks with SegWit, so it will alleviate

some of the scaling problems that we had.} We also have loads of LN channels added lately and they might handle some of

the smaller transactions. Cheesy

... Oh, it is also a bit more expensive to spam SegWit. Grin

cellard

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1252

Most of the transactions during bull runs in which people see bitcoin on the national television news and FOMO to the nearest exchange (Coinbase, which is where all the noobs go) so now that Coinbase will have segwit support, and other big exchanges like Bitfinex are already ready for segwit. I guess we will need to watch and see how it goes.

But don't discard the spam factor: Roger and Jihad will be back spamming the network during the next bull run for the ATH once again, to make things worse. Hopefully with segwit they will just end up lose money for nothing.

By next year we should have lightning network pretty established as well. We are about to hit 1000 nodes already.

HeRetiK

legendary

Activity: 3122

Merit: 2178

Playgram - The Telegram Casino

Quote from: Colorblind on February 21, 2018, 09:16:55 AM

Keep in mind that Lightning network is just first step of Bitcoin scalability solution. After Lightning Network will pass through excessive testing and prove it's robustness and usefulness I expect Bitcoin block size will be further raised to account for raising demand.

Raising Bitcoin block size is one possible option.

Alternatively we have concepts like this, that could vastly improve Lightning Networks scalability:
https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7cba96/Scalable_Funding_Of_Blockchain_Micropayment_Networks%20(1).pdf

Then there's Schnorr signatures, that could increase transaction throughput by another 25% without increasing block size:
https://medium.com/@SDWouters/why-schnorr-signatures-will-help-solve-2-of-bitcoins-biggest-problems-today-9b7718e7861c

So there's still a lot of improvements that can be implemented before BTC needs to resort to a blocksize increase.

Colorblind

member

Activity: 392

Merit: 41

This text is irrelevant

Quote from: Useacoin on February 21, 2018, 08:55:26 AM

Bitcoin fees have been quite a problem and even though it's not that bad at the moment. However, the bitcoin network gets overloaded again during next bull run, fees will rise again. If bitcoin truly becomes mainstream will SegWit be enough to keep fees down? I know the lightning network is coming, but that only fixes payments after you have funded a channel. If bitcoin truly becomes mainstream all over the world, an obscure amount of new channels will have to be funded through the bitcoin network all the time. Thoughts?

You are asking quite complicated question in itself.

Will adopting segwit solve scalability problem - definetly NO.
Will it reduce fees - yes. However keep in mind main purpose of segwit was not in reducing fees, but rather in solving bitcoin transaction malleability problem https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_malleability . Fixing this problem is a necessary step to implement lightning network https://lightning.network/ that suppose to solve scalability. But SegWit itself (without lightning) won't be enough to keep low fees if Bitcoin goes mainstream.

However in today's scale, adoption of SegWit will likely to have massive impact on the fees (there is an opinion that if Coinbase alone will adopt SegWit fees will drop because Coinbase uses ancient method of sending transactions that puts huge load on the network https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/coinbase-is-the-reason-why-we-have-high-fees-2738284 )

Keep in mind that Lightning network is just first step of Bitcoin scalability solution. After Lightning Network will pass through excessive testing and prove it's robustness and usefulness I expect Bitcoin block size will be further raised to account for raising demand.

Fees won't go anywhere but I'm sure that community, driven by need of expanding and growth of BTC will make sure network is functional and affordable for those who want to use it.

Useacoin

newbie

Activity: 93

Merit: 0

Bitcoin fees have been quite a problem and even though it's not that bad at the moment. However, the bitcoin network gets overloaded again during next bull run, fees will rise again. If bitcoin truly becomes mainstream will SegWit be enough to keep fees down? I know the lightning network is coming, but that only fixes payments after you have funded a channel. If bitcoin truly becomes mainstream all over the world, an obscure amount of new channels will have to be funded through the bitcoin network all the time. Thoughts?

Topic: Will SegWit be enough to reduce fees? - page 2. (Read 536 times)