📅 Original date posted:2015-12-19
📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512
On 2015/12/19 08:49, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> P2SH has been introduced for 3.5 years and only about 10% of
> bitcoin is stored this way (I can't find proportion of existing
> P2SH address). A 1-year adoption rate of 40% for segwit is clearly
> over-optimistic unless the tx fee becomes really high.
I don't think one can necessarily conflate P2SH and SegWit uptake. In
the case of P2SH, there's the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"
problem. P2PKH works just fine for an awful lot of Bitcoin users. Why
should they switch over to P2SH? In the absence of a compelling
reason, they'll probably stick to a proven solution. (You can see that
line of thinking anywhere.) Even Armory, which values security and
whiz-bang features over usability, offers P2SH but keeps it off by
default.
Meanwhile, SegWit fixes multiple problems, or at least fixes some
while also sticking a bit of gum on others. True, it'll rely on wallet
uptake. I just think wallet developers will see the value in it. The
big question, of course, is when they'll enable it by default, which
is the only way SegWit will gain serious traction. My personal,
semi-educated guess is that you'll see 3-6 months of wallet
integration and testnet tweaking, then another 3-6 months of mainnet
availability if explicitly enabled by the user, and finally the switch
being thrown for all wallet users. I'm hoping for the aggressive
timeframes. I'm expecting the conservative ones.
Is 40% optimistic? Maybe, and I'd personally like to see it enabled in
concert with a minimal block size increase. I don't think 40% within a
year of deployment is out of the realm of possibility, though.
- --
- ---
Douglas Roark
Cryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art.
https://onename.com/droark
joroark at vt.edu
PGP key ID: 26623924
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Comment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org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=696M
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Douglas Roark [ARCHIVE] /
npub12v…dqa4q
2023-06-07 17:46:54
in reply to nevent1q…64al
Author Public Key
npub12vlytlltjj7g3s227u9jtx2g8qtsu7gscynnn99k808ydr4vygcqvdqa4qPublished at
2023-06-07 17:46:54Event JSON
{
"id": "d01d16d2ac609fcc1732d0722459475e7d367a7f42a498cde432cc7000eba7ff",
"pubkey": "533e45ffeb94bc88c14af70b25994838170e7910c1273994b63bce468eac2230",
"created_at": 1686160014,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"eff3da99eac05afc36c81f61bae65cf55926e9f41385e61b8dbdb638667e713b",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"224b8c0b73bb41b6400d7bfbd35290344a2234c14cf955ece03b92ef202dc146",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"b2b39b6f2c86908d3da9f500193abd5757b21cac328f838800a48c4d557c10dd"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-12-19\n📝 Original message:-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA512\n\nOn 2015/12/19 08:49, jl2012 via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e P2SH has been introduced for 3.5 years and only about 10% of\n\u003e bitcoin is stored this way (I can't find proportion of existing\n\u003e P2SH address). A 1-year adoption rate of 40% for segwit is clearly\n\u003e over-optimistic unless the tx fee becomes really high.\n\nI don't think one can necessarily conflate P2SH and SegWit uptake. In\nthe case of P2SH, there's the \"if it ain't broke, don't fix it\"\nproblem. P2PKH works just fine for an awful lot of Bitcoin users. Why\nshould they switch over to P2SH? In the absence of a compelling\nreason, they'll probably stick to a proven solution. (You can see that\nline of thinking anywhere.) Even Armory, which values security and\nwhiz-bang features over usability, offers P2SH but keeps it off by\ndefault.\n\nMeanwhile, SegWit fixes multiple problems, or at least fixes some\nwhile also sticking a bit of gum on others. True, it'll rely on wallet\nuptake. I just think wallet developers will see the value in it. The\nbig question, of course, is when they'll enable it by default, which\nis the only way SegWit will gain serious traction. My personal,\nsemi-educated guess is that you'll see 3-6 months of wallet\nintegration and testnet tweaking, then another 3-6 months of mainnet\navailability if explicitly enabled by the user, and finally the switch\nbeing thrown for all wallet users. I'm hoping for the aggressive\ntimeframes. I'm expecting the conservative ones.\n\nIs 40% optimistic? Maybe, and I'd personally like to see it enabled in\nconcert with a minimal block size increase. I don't think 40% within a\nyear of deployment is out of the realm of possibility, though.\n\n- -- \n- ---\nDouglas Roark\nCryptocurrency, network security, travel, and art.\nhttps://onename.com/droark\njoroark at vt.edu\nPGP key ID: 26623924\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nComment: GPGTools - https://gpgtools.org\n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\nqsl9Zkg/0IsCr+JzE6Ko\n=696M\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----",
"sig": "091e9d0b67d29d87dd5175f8ad2616ab75c99d1f0f5cbdd1ef69322cec248b7acf722e4774f9ca0a107c9e2b1b41c4c4d377e960faa9205a01d61fb4a81f7452"
}