![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article SegWit, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
I propose to merge SegWit2x into SegWit. Not independently notable. Џ 19:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
here [2] is a nice source from Financial Times on Segwit and Lightning. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 01:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | WARNING: ACTIVE COMMUNITY SANCTIONS The article SegWit, along with other pages relating to blockchain and cryptocurrencies, is designated by the community as a contentious topic. The current restrictions are:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be sanctioned.
|
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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.
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 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)
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)
I propose to merge SegWit2x into SegWit. Not independently notable. Џ 19:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
here [2] is a nice source from Financial Times on Segwit and Lightning. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 01:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)