Quote from: brobbel on February 09, 2018, 09:24:10 AM

Quote from: thesavoyard on February 09, 2018, 09:02:49 AM

Ignoring your grammar, it diminishes your argument. A single Segwit transaction prove a network running Segwit? Your argument is dismissed because your premise doesn't support your conclusion.

And again: you are missing half the post.

The second link is a very busy segwit wallet addres with segwit transactions going on in almost every block. To add: ofcourse the first transactions are unconfirmed - you have to scroll down to see the transactions which are confirmed 1 or few blocks ago.

Thank read this post....

Quote from: DooMAD on February 08, 2018, 02:21:00 PM

Quote from: thesavoyard on February 08, 2018, 11:50:58 AM

You don't know how it works. Segwit does not change block size, they dropped 2x remember? Segwit removes the signature from the wallet's private key from the block while being processed by miners and re-adds it later at the node. That means smaller data size per transaction and more transactions per block. Some miners may still be running 2mb support or it's just a mistake if they set 1mb to be 1,000 kb, because a MB is 1024 KB. But slightly larger block size does not mean Segwit, a drastic increase in transactions per second does.

Nope, SegWit does away with blocksize and introduces blockweight. The base portion of the block is still 1mb, that's strictly 1000kb and not a byte more, while the new witness portion of the block, which can only be accessed by using SegWit, adds a further 3mb of usable space. The maximum block weight is effectively up to 4mb. Stop insisting that the average number of transactions per second suggests SegWit is not implemented, because that's a flagrant lie. It's starting to sound like you're deliberately trying to mislead people. SegWit is active. No ifs, buts or maybes. Also, prior to SegWit, there were no blocks over 1000kb. Even if a block shows 1001kb, it definitely includes SegWit transactions.

Further to that, I have received payments in my SegWit-native bech32 address. So I know beyond doubt that SegWit is active.

Ok, so let's assume you're correct. Since neither of us has a direct way to prove mining pools are running Segwit, we have to rely on observation. For you, a %5 increase in block size means Segwit is active. For me, a drop in average number of transactions per second prove it isn't.

Quote

Stop insisting that the average number of transactions per second suggests SegWit is not implemented, because that's a flagrant lie.

So, Segwit has been implemented, yet BTC scaling has not increased? It doesn't advance your argument about the viability of Bitcoin. Proof of work is simply Gen 1, the Crypto that can do what BTC was intended probably hasn't been invented. Deflation needs to be at a much slower rate than many of the currencies out there. It needs to be competitive with Visa and Mastercard in transactions per second and power consumption. Do you honestly think, after a 2-year civil war and no significant increase in efficiency, that BTC will be the one?

If BTC had a chance of achieving Satoshi's vision, I'd be behind it 100%.

I guess it's just a way of thinking. Some people are loyal to flags, some to the ideals that it represents. BTC like a flag is just a symbol.