[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 20 KB, 914x1260, 1492640835816.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2593669 No.2593669 [Reply] [Original]

So can somebody explain to me what segwit entails?
how about the LN?
and what's the 2x?
and why miners want different things, and what do they want?
and should I have my crypto into BTC before august 1st, or other altcoins?

>> No.2593747

>>2593669
This is /biz/ we don't care about technology and innovation

>> No.2593774
File: 204 KB, 853x1280, 1497368846748.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2593774

Bumping for interest

>> No.2593779

>>2593747
I care about what will happen to bitcoin, is segwit or LN going to improve bitcoin?
most people complain about transaction fees and transaction times
other people complain that it's hard to get BTC or cash out
if those things get solved, then the price will skyrocket.
But /biz/ might also know why my money would be safer in BTC or in altcoins when all this happens.

>> No.2593882

>>2593669
Good questions. You won't get any answers here.

>> No.2593912

>>2593882
:(

>> No.2593929

>>2593779
Segwit will help transactions get processed faster, but it won't decrease transaction fees

>> No.2593937

>>2593669
Segwit is a change that bitcoin code. It does not need a new block chain to take a effect. It just changes the code with in bitcoin so more transactions gets into a block. So fees will go down. The next two question forces the miners to change there mining programs to segwit. Unlimited changes bitcoin complete it will be a hard fork. Meaning this will be a new coin with different code. Has not been tested and the creators are not trusted. Hard fork will not happen segwit will happen on aug 1

>> No.2593961

>>2593929
but people pay higher transactions because if you pay a small transaction fee your transaction doesn't really go through.

And how much faster will they be?

See? even this guy says so:
>>2593937

So all that will happen in aug 1st is that segwit will happen (faster BTC transactions, which means cheaper transaction fees), and that's all?

Also, really, how fast will transactions be with segwit?

>> No.2593967

sunk my life savings into bitcoin at $2630. I have faith it will go up post aug 1.

>> No.2593988

>>2593961
How fast? I don't know we will have see.

>> No.2594035

>>2593961
Just look at litecoin before and after it activated segwit and the corresponding transaction fees

https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/litecoin-transactionfees.html

>> No.2594069

>>2594035
After reading a bit, it seems that the speed change can't really be interpolated.
LTC blocks are not full, so speed wouldn't change as much. But the good thing is that things didn't crash and the code is working.

>> No.2594410

>>2593937
>segwit will happen on aug 1st
How certain is this?

>> No.2594706

>>2593669
>tech illiterate retards ITT are the ones pouring money into crypto

>So can somebody explain to me what segwit entails?
Segwit changes the way transactions are stored. Alone it will provide a small increase to transaction capacity (less than 50%) but its real benefit is allowing easier building of 2nd-layer solutions on top of the raw protocol.

>how about the LN?
LN is one of those 2nd-layer solutions. LN allows for central "hubs" to facilitate instant, trustless transactions between users without needing to record each transaction in the blockchain. LN is not without a lot of downsides but it's among the only long-term scaling solution currently proposed.

>and why miners want different things, and what do they want?
Many community members believe Segwit introduces unnecessary complexity and LN will create more problems than it seeks to solve. For them, scaling should be achieved by simply allowing bigger blocks. This would allow more transactions to be processed per block and would speed up transaction confirmations and reduce fees (because supply and demand). This change would require a HF which carries some inherent risk while Segwit can be implemented as a SF. Bigger blocks also make running a full node more difficult and so create centralization pressure and the long-term viability of this solution is questionable.

>and what's the 2x?
Segwit2x is a "compromise" proposal which is essentially: give us Segwit (so we can start developing LN) and we'll give you x2 the blocksize.

In the short term you'll see faster transactions/lower fees because of the doubled blocksize (and the 50% bonus from Segwit). The effects of LN and whether it's even viable won't come until year/s down the line.

>and should I have my crypto into BTC before august 1st, or other altcoins?
All the above is already factored into the price, nobody knows.

>> No.2594812

>>2593669
It means that they'll implement technology to keep track of every transaction and send that information directly to the government.

>SEgregated Government WITness

>> No.2594905

>>2594706
thank you for such a good explanation.

>> No.2595307
File: 78 KB, 1364x748, 8ch pol - Hostile Bitcoin Upgrade.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2595307

"Unless support decreases very soon, Bitcoin will be in the hands of the Bilderberg Group."
-- 8ch

Is it true?

>> No.2595420

>>2595307
No, you fucking retard. Which seems more likely:

> da joos
> developers make some cool tech upgrades, but miners like money and so don't want emptier blocks/2nd-layer solns

>> No.2595436

https://t.me/pumpstars

>> No.2595509

In simple terms : segwit increase block size which allows more transactions to be processed per block. (Less unconfirmed transactions when a block is mined). If you pay minimum or no fee it'll still be determined by the nodes if they want to pick it up and transmit it <- that's a blockchain issue people talk about rarely.
BU wants to allow miners (especially the top miners) the flexibility to choose the block sizes. Sounds good in theory, but they could purposefully/accidentally choose small blocks to conjest network.
Honestly stick to btc core, let BU establish itself first. The two main things BTC has is store of value and as a means to trade with alts. BU will be BTC as a store of value, but exchanges won't pair it to alts so that demand won't be there (at first, if ever)

>> No.2596020

>>2595509
>Sounds good in theory, but they could purposefully/accidentally choose small blocks to conjest network.

They can already mine empty blocks if they wanted to "congest the network". Miners want to process transactions and they want to collect transaction fees. The real issue with BU is the potential for unchecked block size growth leading to monopolies on mining and network centralization.

>> No.2596095

Right now blockchain sizes are capped at 1mb. demand for bitcoin transactions now exceed that space, so fees are skyrocketing. Segwit offers a solution by increasing the size to 2mb, but that's a permanent cap and can't be changed. A lot of people don't want segwit because the 2mb limit is going to be a hardcap on bitcoin's growth.

>> No.2596270

>>2596095
Segwit offers less than 50% increase and that's just a side-effect. The real motivation for Segwit is fixing transaction malleability.

It's not a permanent cap anymore than the current 1mb limit is a permanent cap. In fact, the blocksize can be changed independently of Segwit's implementation: see Segwit2x

Segwit itself has few downsides. It's resisted mostly because it's step 1 in Core's scaling road map and people are skeptical of Core's scaling road map.

A lot of people would rather pursue dynamic block size (like BU) instead of going down the Segwit/LN route. In reality you could do Segwit + BU but rejecting Segwit makes a political statement against Core.

>> No.2596376

>>2594706
Legend

>> No.2596414

>>2595420
The whole point is that we have the blockchain with trusted transactions. 2nd-layer homosexuality won't fly.

>> No.2596420

bitcoin is actually a shitcoin. but it was first.