11 ms·

Poll Finds 70% of Bitcoin Users Prefer Segwit for Scaling

47 points by imissmyjuno 9y ago

lemonte 9y ago
Hardly surprising considering the other proposals! Bitcoin Unlimited is a joke.
out_of_protocol 9y ago
Actually 30%, see https://coin.dance/blocks https://coin.dance/blocks And 40% for Bitcoin Unlimited (Emergent Consensus)
- strathmeyer 9y ago
  No, that's what the banks want, the users wants something else.
  - JustinAiken 9y ago
    No, that's what users that only post in the unbelievably censored r/bitcoin want, and what Blockstream wants. For those of us users that want bitcoin to work as intended, instead of being artificially crippled to push second layer solutions, Segwit is terrible.
    - lemonte 9y ago
      Please can you elaborate on your concerns with Segwit ?
    - simias 9y ago
      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 theories than actually explaining why it would be a bad move (and I get this vibe from your post as well). So what's your position exactly? That the current issues with transfer fees and the long term usability of bitcoin are overstated? That they're real problems but it's too early for this push? That the solution is not the right one? But if not, which one?
      - r1ch 9y ago
        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;
        simias 9y ago
        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 a few miners" but since that already seems to be the case I'm not sure it's a very good counter argument.
        r1ch 9y ago
        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.
        simias 9y ago
        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...
        xorcist 9y ago
        An unbounded block size would bring about a number of attacks. Denial of service attacks would be trivial. There's a reason Satoshi put a limit there in the first place.
        9y ago
    - tlrobinson 9y ago
      I don't read r/bitcoin regularly. I think we need both a block size increase and SegWit (or something like it) It's pretty obvious to me that linearly scaling solutions like simply increasing the block size are not sufficient to achieve global mainstream adoption (at least without further centralizing mining), much less the sort of machine-to-machine / micropayment revolution that a scalable cryptocurrency could unlock.
      - JustinAiken 9y ago
        > I think we need both a block size increase and SegWit (or something like it) Yes - the former now (or last year!) to resolve the massive backlog as new adopters come in. We later need something to enable greater scale than blocksize alone, but not yet; other cryptos like Ethererum are able to handle a much higher transaction throughput. When the time comes when something like SegWit IS needed, FlexTrans is a much better solution.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  Miner signalling != user preference
  - needs 9y ago
    bitcoin users != coinjournal.net readers
Analemma_ 9y ago
To people entering this comment section: if you're not totally caught up on this debate and only have a passing interest in Bitcoin-- leave now, there's nothing for you here. This thread is going to be a lot of sound and fury from the two sides of the civil war, and little else.
- nicky0 9y ago
  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.
  - simias 9y ago
    I'm guessing that many of the people who participate in these communities have a significant number of bitcoins to their names. Given the current trading price of BTCs many of them are probably virtual millionaires. All that could go poof if the coin were to collapse. Not really surprising that they would be very passionate about these issues.
    - nicky0 9y ago
      That may be part of it, but if it were purely about wealth they could surely just sell some of those holdings right now and become actual millionaires.
  - gfody 9y ago
    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 good time to scream that the sky is falling as loud as you can.
    - Zarath 9y ago
jswny 9y ago
Oh boy another incoming Bitcoin proposal civil war in the comments section. I can't wait until nullc gets here. Why is it so hard to have a non-censored, rational discussion about this topic without it becoming some ridiculous flame war every time?
- darawk 9y ago
  To be fair, I think this is the same Bitcoin proposal civil war that happens each time :). There's only really the one ultra-contentious issue.
- Analemma_ 9y ago
  > Why is it so hard to have a non-censored, rational discussion about this topic without it becoming some ridiculous flame war every time? Because each side thinks they are acting selflessly in the best interests of Bitcoin with sound technical reasoning, while the other side has sinister ulterior motives. Bitcoin scaling debates (like most political debates) are riddled with assumptions of bad faith. What really makes it complicated is that, to some extent, both sides are right: there really are people on each side who stand to profit greatly from their proposal winning and thus have their finger on the scale. Of course, each side only notices these people when they belong to the other camp.
kbaker 9y ago
Warning 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, fees are high ($2-3 per transaction for fast confirmation.) A technical approach (SegWit) was proposed and implemented by the Bitcoin developers in order to improve transaction capacity a couple years ago. This also brings along a number of innovations which can help implement what is termed 'Layer 2' solutions to happen inside Bitcoin, instead of using an altcoin like Litecoin or Ethereum. Think of this enabling a Visa-like entity to provide instant settlement services denominated in BTC, and secured by the Bitcoin blockchain. However, this upgrade is very contentious with the miners who are entrusted with securing the blockchain against attackers. Bitcoin mining now is a professional enterprise where major players need to be located in places with cheap ASIC production and cheap electricity to have any hope of making a profit. In some cases, they see these new layer 2 solutions as reducing their transaction fees, which are becoming a large percentage of their profits. Instead, they have been proposing just a larger base block size limit, which will solve the transaction backlog and send the fees to the miners, but then not make progress moving forward with what users and developers want, which is increased innovation. In addition, the larger block size is seen as increasing centralization of mining since only larger providers will be able to deal with the extra data rates (since there is an advantage to having quick transfers of newly created blocks when mining.) Since Bitcoin is decentralized, anyone can run any software. There are mechanisms in place for miners to 'vote' with their hashpower/mining rate to agree on software changes, then after enough support, the mechanism activates. This is the easiest way to make sure global upgrades happen smoothly and in a coordinated fashion. However, users are becoming desperate and are looking for other ways to make these innovations happen without needing support from the miners. Unfortunately the Internet and echo chambers have destroyed the hope of meaningful discussion about this topic. Please, HN commenters, do not bring in Reddit-level comments here... Provide sources and a balanced view, and please be respectful.
- fragsworth 9y ago
  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.
SurrealSoul 9y ago
Where do I sign up for the fight club?
- kbaker 9y ago
  Pick your side: http://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin http://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin http://www.reddit.com/r/btc http://www.reddit.com/r/btc
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
seanwilson 9y ago
Not completely on topic but...what would happen if one of these new features came out and somebody found a security flaw in it? For example a buffer overflow that you could use to crash miners? If all the clients are running the same client software and crashing them all can have serious financial implications I can't help but feel it's only a matter of time unless I'm missing something about how miners work.
- Zarath 9y ago
  This is why it's important that it's well tested. Segwit is activated on multiple coins already and is being tested in the real world as we speak. Alternative options such as EC (which uses Xthin blocks) have already proven to have multiple vulnerabilities and there are many instances of large scale crashing of nodes. Of course the miners that are signaling for this option aren't actually using the software (it's not at all stable, they don't actually want EC and are just using it to stall for higher fees) so they were not affected by the crash, if they were 40% of the hashpower would have gone offline which is a pretty big deal.
bbcbasic 9y ago
What's a typical btc txn fee nowadays?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- thefalcon 9y ago
  About $2.32 according to http://www.bitcoinrollercoaster.com/ http://www.bitcoinrollercoaster.com/
  - bbcbasic 9y ago
    Wow. I managed to send some coin: $5 for 17c fee recently.
andrewmcwatters 9y ago
I have no horse in this race. I don't own any BTC. What I find fascinating about Bitcoin is how completely unapproachable it is. All of this technical bullshit is too much for a layperson, let alone an uninterested developer. If you want normal people to use this as a meaningful currency, the currency has to just work. So far Bitcoin has proven to me over and over again that it just doesn't work. What the fuck is "Emergent Consensus" or "Segregated Witness" or any of this? From the perspective of a regular person, I just don't care. I don't see why anyone else should, either. Why is one Bitcoin worth more than thousands of units of the strongest currencies in the world?
- solotronics 9y ago
  this is the point where you leave the decision making up to those that fully understand. Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean its not useful. Do you know exactly how the internet works? probably not. Do most people understand exactly how dollars come into creation? no. Are these things valuable? yes.
- Rmilb 9y ago
  As a lay person they shouldn't care unless it solves a problem they have. It is only too much for a layperson until bitcoin is a good answer for the problem they have. From women in Saudi Arabia who cannot own bank accounts, to the people of Argentina and Venezuela who are desperate to move their wealth into another asset, bitcoin still offers them an answer despite its great volatility. One bitcoin is worth more than the current world reserve currency because the market demands it. Even if it is mostly speculators with cheap money that flows from all of the central banks printing it and offering negative interest rates.

47 points by imissmyjuno 9y ago

Hardly surprising considering the other proposals! Bitcoin Unlimited is a joke.

Actually 30%, see https://coin.dance/blocks https://coin.dance/blocks And 40% for Bitcoin Unlimited (Emergent Consensus)

strathmeyer 9y ago
No, that's what the banks want, the users wants something else.
- JustinAiken 9y ago
  No, that's what users that only post in the unbelievably censored r/bitcoin want, and what Blockstream wants. For those of us users that want bitcoin to work as intended, instead of being artificially crippled to push second layer solutions, Segwit is terrible.
  - lemonte 9y ago
    Please can you elaborate on your concerns with Segwit ?
  - simias 9y ago
    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 theories than actually explaining why it would be a bad move (and I get this vibe from your post as well). So what's your position exactly? That the current issues with transfer fees and the long term usability of bitcoin are overstated? That they're real problems but it's too early for this push? That the solution is not the right one? But if not, which one?
    - r1ch 9y ago
      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;
      - simias 9y ago
        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 a few miners" but since that already seems to be the case I'm not sure it's a very good counter argument.
        r1ch 9y ago
        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.
        simias 9y ago
        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...
        xorcist 9y ago
        An unbounded block size would bring about a number of attacks. Denial of service attacks would be trivial. There's a reason Satoshi put a limit there in the first place.
        9y ago
  - tlrobinson 9y ago
    I don't read r/bitcoin regularly. I think we need both a block size increase and SegWit (or something like it) It's pretty obvious to me that linearly scaling solutions like simply increasing the block size are not sufficient to achieve global mainstream adoption (at least without further centralizing mining), much less the sort of machine-to-machine / micropayment revolution that a scalable cryptocurrency could unlock.
    - JustinAiken 9y ago
      > I think we need both a block size increase and SegWit (or something like it) Yes - the former now (or last year!) to resolve the massive backlog as new adopters come in. We later need something to enable greater scale than blocksize alone, but not yet; other cryptos like Ethererum are able to handle a much higher transaction throughput. When the time comes when something like SegWit IS needed, FlexTrans is a much better solution.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
clarkmoody 9y ago
Miner signalling != user preference
- needs 9y ago
  bitcoin users != coinjournal.net readers

Analemma_ 9y ago

To people entering this comment section: if you're not totally caught up on this debate and only have a passing interest in Bitcoin-- leave now, there's nothing for you here. This thread is going to be a lot of sound and fury from the two sides of the civil war, and little else.

nicky0 9y ago
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.
- simias 9y ago
  I'm guessing that many of the people who participate in these communities have a significant number of bitcoins to their names. Given the current trading price of BTCs many of them are probably virtual millionaires. All that could go poof if the coin were to collapse. Not really surprising that they would be very passionate about these issues.
  - nicky0 9y ago
    That may be part of it, but if it were purely about wealth they could surely just sell some of those holdings right now and become actual millionaires.
- gfody 9y ago
  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 good time to scream that the sky is falling as loud as you can.
  - Zarath 9y ago

jswny 9y ago

Oh boy another incoming Bitcoin proposal civil war in the comments section. I can't wait until nullc gets here. Why is it so hard to have a non-censored, rational discussion about this topic without it becoming some ridiculous flame war every time?

darawk 9y ago
To be fair, I think this is the same Bitcoin proposal civil war that happens each time :). There's only really the one ultra-contentious issue.
Analemma_ 9y ago
> Why is it so hard to have a non-censored, rational discussion about this topic without it becoming some ridiculous flame war every time? Because each side thinks they are acting selflessly in the best interests of Bitcoin with sound technical reasoning, while the other side has sinister ulterior motives. Bitcoin scaling debates (like most political debates) are riddled with assumptions of bad faith. What really makes it complicated is that, to some extent, both sides are right: there really are people on each side who stand to profit greatly from their proposal winning and thus have their finger on the scale. Of course, each side only notices these people when they belong to the other camp.

kbaker 9y ago

Warning 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, fees are high ($2-3 per transaction for fast confirmation.) A technical approach (SegWit) was proposed and implemented by the Bitcoin developers in order to improve transaction capacity a couple years ago. This also brings along a number of innovations which can help implement what is termed 'Layer 2' solutions to happen inside Bitcoin, instead of using an altcoin like Litecoin or Ethereum. Think of this enabling a Visa-like entity to provide instant settlement services denominated in BTC, and secured by the Bitcoin blockchain. However, this upgrade is very contentious with the miners who are entrusted with securing the blockchain against attackers. Bitcoin mining now is a professional enterprise where major players need to be located in places with cheap ASIC production and cheap electricity to have any hope of making a profit. In some cases, they see these new layer 2 solutions as reducing their transaction fees, which are becoming a large percentage of their profits. Instead, they have been proposing just a larger base block size limit, which will solve the transaction backlog and send the fees to the miners, but then not make progress moving forward with what users and developers want, which is increased innovation. In addition, the larger block size is seen as increasing centralization of mining since only larger providers will be able to deal with the extra data rates (since there is an advantage to having quick transfers of newly created blocks when mining.) Since Bitcoin is decentralized, anyone can run any software. There are mechanisms in place for miners to 'vote' with their hashpower/mining rate to agree on software changes, then after enough support, the mechanism activates. This is the easiest way to make sure global upgrades happen smoothly and in a coordinated fashion. However, users are becoming desperate and are looking for other ways to make these innovations happen without needing support from the miners. Unfortunately the Internet and echo chambers have destroyed the hope of meaningful discussion about this topic. Please, HN commenters, do not bring in Reddit-level comments here... Provide sources and a balanced view, and please be respectful.

fragsworth 9y ago
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.

SurrealSoul 9y ago

Where do I sign up for the fight club?

kbaker 9y ago
Pick your side: http://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin http://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoin http://www.reddit.com/r/btc http://www.reddit.com/r/btc

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

seanwilson 9y ago

Not completely on topic but...what would happen if one of these new features came out and somebody found a security flaw in it? For example a buffer overflow that you could use to crash miners? If all the clients are running the same client software and crashing them all can have serious financial implications I can't help but feel it's only a matter of time unless I'm missing something about how miners work.

Zarath 9y ago
This is why it's important that it's well tested. Segwit is activated on multiple coins already and is being tested in the real world as we speak. Alternative options such as EC (which uses Xthin blocks) have already proven to have multiple vulnerabilities and there are many instances of large scale crashing of nodes. Of course the miners that are signaling for this option aren't actually using the software (it's not at all stable, they don't actually want EC and are just using it to stall for higher fees) so they were not affected by the crash, if they were 40% of the hashpower would have gone offline which is a pretty big deal.

bbcbasic 9y ago

What's a typical btc txn fee nowadays?

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
thefalcon 9y ago
About $2.32 according to http://www.bitcoinrollercoaster.com/ http://www.bitcoinrollercoaster.com/
- bbcbasic 9y ago
  Wow. I managed to send some coin: $5 for 17c fee recently.

andrewmcwatters 9y ago

I have no horse in this race. I don't own any BTC. What I find fascinating about Bitcoin is how completely unapproachable it is. All of this technical bullshit is too much for a layperson, let alone an uninterested developer. If you want normal people to use this as a meaningful currency, the currency has to just work. So far Bitcoin has proven to me over and over again that it just doesn't work. What the fuck is "Emergent Consensus" or "Segregated Witness" or any of this? From the perspective of a regular person, I just don't care. I don't see why anyone else should, either. Why is one Bitcoin worth more than thousands of units of the strongest currencies in the world?

solotronics 9y ago
this is the point where you leave the decision making up to those that fully understand. Just because you don't understand how something works doesn't mean its not useful. Do you know exactly how the internet works? probably not. Do most people understand exactly how dollars come into creation? no. Are these things valuable? yes.
Rmilb 9y ago
As a lay person they shouldn't care unless it solves a problem they have. It is only too much for a layperson until bitcoin is a good answer for the problem they have. From women in Saudi Arabia who cannot own bank accounts, to the people of Argentina and Venezuela who are desperate to move their wealth into another asset, bitcoin still offers them an answer despite its great volatility. One bitcoin is worth more than the current world reserve currency because the market demands it. Even if it is mostly speculators with cheap money that flows from all of the central banks printing it and offering negative interest rates.