[deleted]
Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
21–30 of 72 posts
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#22Where do I sign up for the fight club?
Pick your side:
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
Segwit is an complicated and large code change that fundamentally alters the bitcoin protocol to solve a problem that can instead be fixed by adding: if (blocknumber > 500000) maxblocksize = 8000000;
But isn't that just a temporary workaround? And it doesn't address the other issues SegWit tries to solve, like allowing "instantaneous" transactions? How can Bitcoin ever hope to become a mainstream currency if you have to way dozens of minutes for your transaction to be validated? I also see that some people worry that using bigger and bigger block sizes could end up "concentrating the mining power in the hands of…
Make it unlimited then, or grow dynamically based on historical block sizes, there's lots of options. The original limit was only added as an anti-spam measure back when anyone could mine blocks.
I would rather the core developers focus on the current capacity problems and deal with use cases like instant transactions at another time. Make bitcoin work as it's supposed to and let the community decide on adding features later - don't try to push them both together.
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
But isn't that just a temporary workaround? And it doesn't address the other issues SegWit tries to solve, like allowing "instantaneous" transactions? How can Bitcoin ever hope to become a mainstream currency if you have to way dozens of minutes for your transaction to be validated? I also see that some people worry that using bigger and bigger block sizes could end up "concentrating the mining power in the hands of…
Make it unlimited then, or grow dynamically based on historical block sizes, there's lots of options. The original limit was only added as an anti-spam measure back when anyone could mine blocks. I would rather the core developers focus on the current capacity problems and deal with use cases like instant transactions at another time. Make bitcoin work as it's supposed to and let the community decide on adding featur…
That's fair. I thank you and out_of_protocol, it was a lot more more informative than all of my bitcoin forum reading earlier...
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#25Earlier quoted context omitted.
Segwit is an complicated and large code change that fundamentally alters the bitcoin protocol to solve a problem that can instead be fixed by adding: if (blocknumber > 500000) maxblocksize = 8000000;
But isn't that just a temporary workaround? And it doesn't address the other issues SegWit tries to solve, like allowing "instantaneous" transactions? How can Bitcoin ever hope to become a mainstream currency if you have to way dozens of minutes for your transaction to be validated? I also see that some people worry that using bigger and bigger block sizes could end up "concentrating the mining power in the hands of…
I don't see how segwit helps here (how it does "instantaneous" stuff?), more like other way around: by ensuring small block side it grants perma-queue and therefore confirmation delays
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#26Warning for those who are not following this debate closely: This is an incredibly polarizing discussion. Approach all comments and articles posted about this subject carefully. Though I'd like to try and provide a summary for people who don't know what's going on. Bitcoin desperately needs to scale to handle higher transaction demand. It can take multiple hours for transactions to be confirmed, and due to the demand…
An additional wrench thrown into the mix is the fact that the Ethereum and Ripple developers/owners have a lot to gain by trying to make sure Bitcoin is unable to scale. It doesn't take much effort (since the miners are already hesitant about agreeing to some update) to sabotage the whole situation.
It's quite possible that they're funding both sides of the debate to make sure none of them generates a super-majority.
It's also quite possible that Bitcoin developers who were once heavily invested in Bitcoin have already switched to Ethereum, and now are actively sabotaging it.
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an external observer in all of this and I was reading some discussion about this earlier, could you explain your position to those like me who aren't very familiar with this issue? From what I read segwit sounds like a reasonable solution to what seems like a very real practical issue with bitcoin today. So far all the people I've seen arguing against this change seem more interested in fueling conspiracy theorie…
Why segwit is not good: * Realistically, can not be activated (95% support level required, way more than achievable). Means we'll stuck with current 1MB forever waiting for segwit * Upon activation it does not add any benefits. Real increase in throughput will be achieved later, then all major players updated their client code, started crafting segwit transactions and moved coins to new segwit addresses. Means it del…
* It can be activated through UASF or through BIP149 which supposedly (big supposedly here) has been agreed to by a majority of miners
* It fixes transaction malleability and quadratic hashing problem. Transaction malleability is definitely a benefit upon activation. Oh... and it's also a block size increase so there is that benefit. Oh... and lightning network is basically ready. Oh... and rootstock. If the network NEEDS NEEDS NEEDS more capacity so badly, then throughput increases should happen very very quickly, because why would people wait to upgrade if the need is so incredibly dire.
* Don't even know what you're arguing here but "2MB forever" is not grounded in any sort of reality except one that people have made up.
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an external observer in all of this and I was reading some discussion about this earlier, could you explain your position to those like me who aren't very familiar with this issue? From what I read segwit sounds like a reasonable solution to what seems like a very real practical issue with bitcoin today. So far all the people I've seen arguing against this change seem more interested in fueling conspiracy theorie…
Segwit is an complicated and large code change that fundamentally alters the bitcoin protocol to solve a problem that can instead be fixed by adding: if (blocknumber > 500000) maxblocksize = 8000000;
A blocksize increase doesn't fix transaction malleability or quadratic hashing or fix covert asicboost or enable use of lightning network. Also IIRC greg maxwell has said the actual segwit code is like 2-3000 lines whereas the rest is testing.
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm an external observer in all of this and I was reading some discussion about this earlier, could you explain your position to those like me who aren't very familiar with this issue? From what I read segwit sounds like a reasonable solution to what seems like a very real practical issue with bitcoin today. So far all the people I've seen arguing against this change seem more interested in fueling conspiracy theorie…
Why segwit is not good: * Realistically, can not be activated (95% support level required, way more than achievable). Means we'll stuck with current 1MB forever waiting for segwit * Upon activation it does not add any benefits. Real increase in throughput will be achieved later, then all major players updated their client code, started crafting segwit transactions and moved coins to new segwit addresses. Means it del…
> Realistically, can not be activated (95% support level required, way more than achievable). Means we'll stuck with current 1MB forever waiting for segwit
This is not an argument against segwit, but against the method of it's activation. The rationale behind this high activation treshold is well summarized by greg maxwell [1]
> Upon activation it does not add any benefits. Real increase in throughput will be achieved later, then all major players updated their client code, started crafting segwit transactions and moved coins to new segwit addresses. Means it delays throughput increase even more
If only merchants or services who need to do lots transactions enable segwit, everyone benefits from the compressed output as there is more space on the chain for non-segwit wallets even if they don't upgrade or are aware of what segwit is
> After full adoption, throughput will be increased from 1MB/10min up to ~1.7-2MB/10min while worst-case scenario (useless, specially crafted transactions) is 4MB - miners should be prepared for it. Means "2MB forever" and "hard to increase block size because miners should be prepared for 4x load"
Miners should be prepared to give the service users want and pay for with fees. "Specially crafted transactions" included.
[1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017...
Re: Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
I occasionally dip in to r/bitcoin and am repeatedly baffled by the whole debate; both in its inscrutability and the level of (let's say) "passion" exhibited. Still I have no real clue of the issues.
meanwhile r/btc is calm and collected. I suspect r/bitcoin is targeted by certain entities seeking to instill doubt and divide the community. the network is going through its usual boring phase of doubling the block size by way of emerging consensus. around this time just before the block size jumps there's a lul in efficiency that translates into higher transaction fees. if you're a psycopathic pumper dumper it's a…
r/btc is calm and collected? Every single day I see a ridiculous tinfoil hat theory about how Segwit is just a plot by Blockstream (who they always mention is funded by BANKSTERS!!! and AXA!!!) to either stall scaling and destroy bitcoin OR (mutually incompatible) scale with lightning network which will somehow allow Blockstream to profit. Didn't have to look far to prove my point... front page when I looked for it:
https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/6eul2q/only_61_days_to...