Talk:SegWit

NPOV
Seems like an NPOV issue to say this technology is a bitcoin technology. It was depolyed on Litecoin first after all Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Crypto currencies supporting SegWit
Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia pages, so I thought that I'd make the suggestions in the talk page rather than on the SegWit page. It dawned on me the other day that CloakCoin was refactored using Litecoin's recent codebase which included segregated witness support. I'll post this on the Segregated Witness Wikipedia page as well. It seems there will need to be a place where there is a table of cryptocurrencies with Segwit and Lightning support. I'll be checking my facts, but you can see from the cloakcoin announcement (https://www.cloakcoin.com/en/news/update-2_1_0_0.html) that they have brought Litecoin's Segregated witness support.
 * Hi, it would be useful to create a table here with that content. We would need to find WP:RS for each item on the list, meaning that we could not use the cloakcoin website (as it is like a press release and not a 'reliable source' under wikipedia rules. Click on WP:RS to read more about that. But good idea, let's work on the list. Thank you! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:57, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Present tense?
SegWit's live on BTC, even if it's not universal yet; a lot of the statements in this article should be shifted from conditional to present tense. Is there someone who knows precisely which bits can reasonably be called a current thing, who could go over it? - David Gerard (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I went through to change the tense a little. Some pretty appalling sources in there as well, mostly left them alone except for one weird bitcoin core ra-ra statement with a dubious source that seemed to be useless now that segwit 2x was dead anyhow. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Controversy
I am curious why there is no 'SegWit Controversy' part in the article. Let's put aside conspiracy theories here. It was known since the SegWit introduction that there are some drawbacks. In particular: it brings a technical debt where the whole Bitcoin infrastructure needs to be upgraded to take the advantage, and the transaction throughput increase is negligible in comparison to what was the goal of the original design described by its author in the first ever public reply three days after Bitcoin introduction in 2008. I believe an encyclopedia article should describe things impartially. I call on both opponents and proponents of this particular technology who are Wikipedia enthusiasts to bring balance to this article. Igenno (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * For sure segwit is at the center of some controversy. Encourage you to find some sources and put in the content, this article is small and the subject you discussed is interesting. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Bitcoin Cash
Why did you remove the paragraph about Bitcoin Cash? @Jtbobwaysf This fork was created because some people did want a chain without SegWit enabled. This is important information that should not be left out. --Drgross317 (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You are attempting to add this political drama to this article. If you want to do that, you need WP:RS (good sources). Jtbobwaysf (talk) 07:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I am just stating facts worth to mention. In the Bitcoin Cash article it says "unhappy with bitcoin's proposed SegWit improvement plans meant to increase capacity and pushed forward alternative plans for a split which created Bitcoin Cash". --Drgross317 (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see your point. I have added it here . Thanks for suggestions, nice to wikilink to the Bitcoin Cash article from this article. Happy Editing! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:14, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose to merge SegWit2x into SegWit. Not independently notable. Џ 19:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Segwit2x was a proposal to add a block size increase a different technology that is SegWit. Not sure if they are thus related except in name. If a merge is neeeded might be more logical to merge into Bitcoin scalability problem. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well there's already a "SegWit2x" section on SegWit. Џ 02:57, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * In that case I support merge Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2018 (UTC) I oppose and rather suggest merge into Bitcoin scalability problem per comments by Roll 3d6. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * SegWit2x is also listed on Bitcoin scalability problem with other hardforks like it – it is more like them than SegWit, which is a technology it is named after but not exclusive to - Roll 3d6 (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge - there's literally one mainstream RS in SegWit2x - David Gerard (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - SegWit2x was one of many proposed hardforks of which SegWit was only one ingredient (and the least controversial one), it likely is not independently notable and should be merged into Bitcoin scalability problem instead - Roll 3d6 (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * No-one's opined on this in a few months, I'm merging to Bitcoin scalability problem. If anyone deeply objects, we can reverse and discuss it further :-) - David Gerard (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

source
here is a nice source from Financial Times on Segwit and Lightning. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)