/biz/ - Business & Finance

[Anonymous No.16508359]

apologize

[Anonymous No.16508375]

[Anonymous No.16508392]

Imagine thinking SegWit Coin (BTC) is Bitcoin just because 'they' managed to nab a three letter ticker symbol. Then when Satoshi returns to tell people they're being scammed, they crucify HIM as the scammer. It is literally a rerun of the story of Jesus. It is peak stupidity and peak evil. Don't go down in history as a Judas, join the side which bring light and honesty to the world.
Nour

[Anonymous No.16508403]

>>16508392
get we'll know 1.1.2020 huh

[Anonymous No.16508490]

>>16508392
also if BSV is p2p cash it shouldn't be worth 1.2k

[Anonymous No.16508511]

>>16508490
ok

[Anonymous No.16508604]

the only good thing about SegWit is how the logo looks.
worst thing that happened to bitcoin, added a ton of unnecessary complexity and caused the whole community to break apart.

[Anonymous No.16508615]

>>16508359
what's wrong with segwit? can someone explain the negative ways?

[Anonymous No.16508643]

>>16508615
What SegWit does is move the input scripts in a block and allows those that are exactly the same to be stackable. These are placed after the end of the block. This is why non-SegWit nodes were compatible with SegWit nodes, they simply ignore this new part after the block and only see the original 1MB block with missing input scripts (and get unverifiable transactions in their blockchain). SegWit came to be from an exploit: That nodes accept blocks with txs that have empty input scripts.

This same 1 MB block could be up to 4 MB on disk for SegWit-enabled nodes, which allows them to store up to 2 times (realistically 1.7 times) more transactions per block if 100% transactions are SegWit (40% of the network use SegWit today, source https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/segwit-usage?orgId=1 ). The increased number of tx varies because space saved depends on the tx structure. That's right, Core preferred a complicated solution that increased bandwidth requirements and HDD requirements up to 4 times while only increasing tx/s by about 1.7 to 2 times instead of just increasing the max block size to 4 MB for 4 times tx gain. I know it's confusing but yes, they really have over 1 MB blocks on core today. See https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Weight_units#Misconceptions where it says:

>The maximum size of a block in bytes is nearly equal in number to the maximum amount of block weight units, so 4M weight units allows a block of almost 4M bytes (4MB). This is not a somehow "made-up" size; the maximum block size is really almost 4MB on-disk and over-the-wire. However, this maximum can only be reached if the block is full of very weirdly-formatted transactions, so it should not usually be seen.

[Anonymous No.16508648]

>>16508643
This dude made an good video that explains SegWit and block structure: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBAG2Jp4bg (not sure if 100% correct in those visual illustrations. first four minutes are most relevant)

It's linked from this article, which contains a lot more technical info: https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179

Jimmy Song writes to explain block weight here: https://medium.com/@jimmysong/understanding-segwit-block-size-fd901b87c9d4

Here's a list of a billion articles discussing the concerns (problems) with SegWit: https://medium.com/@SegWit/segwit-resources-6b7432b42b1e

Interesting post on reddit by /u/crockscream on how legacy bitcoin is no longer bitcoin thanks to SegWit: https://old.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/8y3yj5/how_segwit_decapitated_bitcoin_and_how_bitcoin/

Another reddit post by /u/jstolfi talking about why SegWit probably came to be: https://old.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/6ndfut/buttcoin_is_decentralized_in_5_nodes/dk9c27f/

[Anonymous No.16508652]

>>16508648
There are some ulterior motives in SegWit. Instead of changing a few lines of code they opted for a super complicated system that breaks the chain of signatures for older nodes. Notice that the post linked to above (the one by /u/jstolfi) claim max 1.7 times (70%) increase from SegWit instead of the theoretical 2 times (based on typical usage).

+ Bonus video: https://youtu.be/By0w43NQdiY?t=1248 Amaury Séchet revealing how much SegWit destroys ASIC boost (several core supporters claim that this is why Jihan Wu supported BCH, because "SegWit ruined ASIC boost"). Spoiler: SegWit does almost nothing to limit ASIC boost.

+ Another bonus video: https://youtu.be/A9m8mzqxN5Q?t=1320 Trace Mayer laughs at Jihan Wu, says "segwit and 2x are not mingled together...its just not going to work that way", contradicting the 2017 New York agreement (anybody know if Trace Mayer owns weusecoins.com btw? I've not found certain proof that he does)

Conclusion: There's really no point in trying to understand SegWit and "block weight". With Bitcoin Cash or SV we can put that garbage in the past.

[Anonymous No.16508670]

>>16508643
does this only happen with non-segwit nodes or non-segwit address type? would it be a problem if everyone used segwit?

[Anonymous No.16508735]

>>16508670
if all nodes use SegWit they should store the history, if that's what you're asking. but they could trim it if they want to

there's a fatal flaw in SegWit. here's Peter Rizun's concern when no miner checks or saves the witness data: https://youtu.be/hO176mdSTG0
basically the risk is no miner will check or save the witness data