Quote from: blockchainmines on November 13, 2016, 07:28:40 PM

So has this pool upgraded to SegWits? I think this is a total BS solution to the congestion problem. This is allowing third party companies like lightning network to come in and start creating off chain transactions which are taking away from our transaction fees/rewards. So we do all the work in mining yet they get an path to make a ton of money on bitcoin transactions without creating any kind of mining infrastructure which costs all of us a lot of money. For some of us this is our livelihood. Unless I am misunderstanding SegWits and lightning network which I do not think I am, this is going to screw us the miners in the end. Every time bitcoin halves the transaction fees become more and more of player. SegWits will take this away from us and we will start to see most of our rewards right at or under 12.5 after the .9% fee is taken out. I think if you wants faster transactions, then you just have to pay a higher transaction fee. Sorry, but I don't work for UNICEF and in my case this is my livelihood so I am firmly against how they are handling this. I would rather see a change in the code the allows for larger blocks and keep everything on chain.

So what does everyone else think? Am I misunderstanding this or do I have it right?

Yeah this is basically what I've posted before

... and it would seem there's another increase in the list of segwit hidden size increases that supposedly don't exist according to the bitcoin devs ...

Every coinbase transaction that includes segwit will be quite a bit bigger.
Some bitcoin dev submitted a segwit change to ckpool ... that crashes ckdb for someone else running ckdb (not for me) coz ckdb has a 256 hex byte size limit for coinbase2 in the database.
Of course the bitcoin dev submitted code change didn't provide any changes for ckdb ... I'll do that properly today at some time I guess.

I guess more bitcoin devs don't understand the increases that segwit causes ... gmaxwell doesn't understand how databases work when he falsely claims there's no per-transaction storage increase.
Now the coinbase transaction is bigger also.

In ckpool/ckdb we have a structure called the workinfo, that's the break down of the common data required for all stratum work sent to miners.
One part of that is what we call coinbase2 - it's got a limit of 256 hex bytes.
Since 1-Mar this year, in all work, coinbase2 has been 196 hex bytes.
segwit has put coinbase2 over 256 hex bytes - more than 30% bigger ...

Really the biggest problem with segwit and sidechains is that people wont realise that no one should use it.
What it really will allow is for people to create altcoins and tie them 'loosely' to bitcoin and thus claim they are part of bitcoin.
I can assure you the next flood of scam altcoins will be once segwit and sidechains become available.

However, the reality would actually be that no company who would want their own altcoin would make any sense to make it a sidechain.

As an example I gave before, if starbucks wanted their own coin to use at starbucks, it would only make sense for it to be a standalone altcoin.
You buy starbuckcoins at a fixed $ vs coin rate so starbucks knows that the variations of the price of bitcoin do not mean they are suddenly gaining or losing money out of their control. They'd set a fixed price for $ vs their starbuckscoin and know what amount of starbuckcoins are out there and what they are worth (and would control the amount of them available themselves)

Bitcoin is the ultimate version of insider trading where people with bitcoins can affect the price of bitcoins and of course there's no control over that - which is also, of course, how bitcoin should be