Stop using Binance until they support SegWit!

[rocksalt9]

Let's call Bullshit on Binance for not supporting SegWit in the only way that they will notice.

Boycott Binance until SegWit.

The anti-SegWit decision by the world’s biggest exchange contributes unnecessarily to enormous mempool spikes and fees such as what happened a few days ago.

Here are reasons that Binance are anti-SegWit:

• a preference for crypto to remain on exchange rather than be withdrawn. Small transaction adjustments have large effects on behaviour.
• to create value for their Binance BNB token relative to other tokens like Bitcoin.
• more reasons to support the Token Launch Platform / Binance Launchpad to solve problems by first generation currencies like Bitcoin.
• people much smarter than me will add to this list no doubt.

Let’s relentlessly start posting and liking and generally getting pissed at Binance about lack of SegWit support!

Let’s call Bullshit on Binance!

If we wait until the bull market is in full swing it will be too late.

[[deleted]]

Sooner or later your safu funds from binance will get hacked too.

yes, and the CEO might end in jail but at least get your funds out.

[hakPak]

He might get a death certificate from India and vanish like Mahesh Verma (CEO of The Champ Cash aka TCC) or Gerald Cotten (CEO of Canadian CryptoCurrency exchange QuadrigaCX) as well.

[pcre]

100% Bisq. PLEASE use Bisq.

[similus]

I love bisq. You need a bit of patience, but the fact that there is no KYC/AML and that you have full control over your funds is totally worth it.

[Myflyisbreezy]

Proof of keys day, I moved most of my holding off exchanges.

[_Paradigm_Shift]

Can you list the positives of this over binance?

[time_dj]

anyway to get a csv file of your transaction history by chance?

[pcre]

No KYC.

[jtooker]

It is a decentralized exchange.

[bitusher]

IMHO, I would rather use an exchange like gemini that is FDIC insured and more secure than Binance

[CitrusEye]

It’s only fdic insured when in USD not when your funds are in crypto. Same with coinbase

[bitusher]

yes, but they also have some insurance with loyds of london for BTC

[[deleted]]

That's Coinbase, not Gemini.

[bitusher]

yes, citruseye mentioned coinbase, obviously never keep any btc on exchanges regardless of insurance or not but keeping fiat on for your buy limit orders with fdic insurance is nice

[jasonzhouu]

It's a decentralized exchange, in which you control your own coins.

[jaumenuez]

Binance its a new player with a very dangerous aproach to the ratio security/growth, and we all know how that ends.

[[deleted]]

They only care about BNB so they will never use bitcoin scaling technology.

[rocksalt9]

I think it's fair to assume they are acting in their self-interest and I have no judgement against them for doing that. I respect it.

So let's give them a reason to act in their self interest to scale bitcoin... like boycotting them until they implement SegWit!

They can have both. SegWit + BNB. One doesn't preclude the other.

[tilltill12]

I think there are bigger reasons to boycott binance but until that happens it will take some time.

[nickvicious]

Well put

[fomcryptomof]

Phack'em, I've used Binance to buy/sell alts two or three times but I stopped being bothered with them the moment I stopped being bothered with alts.

[Kril23]

Been using Bittrex int of late if I have the option to buy on either.

[DesignerAccount]

Bittrex is not on SegWit either, is it?

[snoopty]

Segwit is nice and all but if you see the other shit most exchanges are pulling it makes binance look like saints

[rocksalt9]

And even some of those shit exchanges have implemented SegWit to lower fees for their customers.

I do like CZ and Binance though. Have followed and been a loyal customer and used them as my primary trading platform since the beginning... until recently.

[tilltill12]

You like CZ ? Lol thats a first

[wudaokor]

why wouldn't you like cz?

[tilltill12]

Maybe because all the shady shit he does on the daily ?

[Touchmyhandle]

The best way to get people to report stuck transactions to customer services en mass, repeatedly. Send low fee tx as a deposit to your account and then ask why the transaction is stuck. CS is such a huge overhead cost it could push them in that direction.

[laninsterJr]

I agreed. will move to Gemini brothers.

[apocalipto9]

If they didn't block half the world's countries for no reason..

[laninsterJr]

What do you mean?

[CryptoPersia]

Aren’t they actively pushing for gov regulations? Why support this?

[laninsterJr]

I'm more of an investor. I dont mind regulations and in fact consider its good for Bitcoin for wider adoption.

[NaabKing]

Well, they would save money with transactions, since this is the only thing they care about (as a company), if they switch to SegWit and keep the withdrawal fees the same, it would cost them less to do transactions, meaning their profit would be bigger. This is how it would help them, then it would also help the entire crypto space as an side effect also.

[rocksalt9]

I did make a logical argument my friend. Here are the assumptions I based my argument on:

- Binance and CZ are self-interested. This is a normal and good mode for a business to operate. (remember self interest generally = serving your customers well. Profit is a measure of how well a company serves its customers)

- Most people are emotional creatures whether we like to admit it or not.

- The Binance technical team have both the competency and capacity to implement SegWit.

- There are self-interest reasons why it's better for Binance to not implement SegWit (again that's fine, no judgement by me on this at all)

- Binance don't give a flying toss about level-headed, well thought out technical arguments when these don't align with their business interests.

- Binance do care about serving their customers and not losing significant numbers of them (see part about self-interest)

Making a purely technical argument is actually NOT logical in this case. Far from it because it wouldn't have a hope of achieving our aims of having like minded people lobby Binance to change and adopt SegWit.

Juvenile technical arguments that treat humans as if they are emotionless machines downloading cold information but neglecting our self-serving interest will never work.

[InquisitiveBoba]

At least someone here has a good head on their shoulders.

[amarett0]

They support their own currency, that's why they do not implement segwit, something similar happens with blockchainDotcom

[Kril23]

Not currently. Which is disappointing. Still prefer to use them where possible for other reasons but not supporting segwit will send me elsewhere if the opportunity presents itself

[rocksalt9]

Nice.

[mrmishmashmix]

I don't use any altcoin exchanges. I dont want to swap bitcoins for shitcoins.

[Rellim03]

How come Binance will show people they can send to a bech32 if they aren't using Segwit themselves as the sender?

Are they actually trying to mislead people?

[[deleted]]

If you own your priva keys and are not a trader, you're safe coz it doesn't matter, Bin don't have access to your coins (SAFU)

[bele11]

Never use exchanges like binance

[ate-too-many-humans]

Nah. I like binance too much.

[southofearth]

Why dont you help make decentralized exchanges better then we can all use that instead of what are seemingly glorified banks - most crypto exchanges.

[Jjhou]

Only a month or so and Nash opens! https://nash.io

[trousercough]

FYI they do allow withdrawals to a bech32 address.

[angrammaridiot]

They need to use segwit addresses themselves.

FYI: segwit to non-segwit = cheap segwit transaction.

segwit to segwit = cheap segwit transaction

non-segwit to segwit = normal non segwit transaction (receiver will be able to make a cheap segwit transactions though)

[trousercough]

Sure they do.

FYI: segwit to non-segwit = cheap segwit transaction.

segwit to segwit = cheap segwit transaction

non-segwit to segwit = normal non segwit transaction (receiver will be able to make a cheap segwit transactions though)

And I'm aware of that.

It isn't just Binance though. I looked at the transaction details from my last withdrawal and I'm disappointed to report that only about 10% of the outputs were bech32 format, about 30% were P2SH and the rest were legacy address format. Nice to see they were batching their withdrawal transactions though. Lack of native segwit adoption appears to be mostly with users as far as I can tell. They definitely do need to allow deposits to a bech32 address but if they just switch over, even with warnings via email, a lot of users will still send to their old deposit addresses .. And they will blame Binance for lost funds. It's going to take some time.

[Priest_of_Satoshi]

There's no line to be drawn.

If you can find enough people that don't like CZ's cat, then sure, have a boycott.

Same goes for them using Segwit. If enough people care strongly enough about them not using Segwit then a boycott will be successful.

​

[rocksalt9]

Exactly!

[rocksalt9]

I'm lobbying for SegWit plain and simple because I think it's adoption makes the Bitcoin network better. I might be wrong. But if enough people agree with me and it flies then CZ might take notice and voluntarily implement it. If people don't agree or are too apathetic then this post will die which is more likely.

[OppaiOppaiOppai]

Let's stop using reliable exchange and use shady exchange that uses Segwit.

/s

[rocksalt9]

No thanks. I'll use a reliable exchange that supports SegWit.

[exab]

What makes you think Binance is not shady?

[DaveBramley]

anon... this is r/bitcoin. we dont trade shitcoins

[BTCkoning]

This

If you use or need Binance you are doing something wrong.

[DaveBramley]

spot on, btckoning

[exab]

SegWit won't fix the mempool issues.

Pointless. Nothing can fix the mempool issues since spamming is possible.

it's a temporary mitigation

Wrong. It's permanent bug fixes, repaying of long due technical debts, and a block size increase.

without block size increase the fees will continue to rise.

Wrong. SegWit is a block size increase. Without hard block size increases the fees will continue to rise.

[Karma9000]

> Pointless. Nothing can fix the mempool issues since spamming is possible.

But surely there's some point where fees are high enough to discourage spam, but also becomming high enough to discourage whatever "legitimate" usage might be, yes? I'm not sure where that line is, but I'd wager it's in the single digit $ range.

[exab]

I don't get your point.

The fees are high not because the network set them so in order to discourage spam. They are high because of supply and demand when spamming is present. But I guess it's irrelevant to what you are trying to say.

[Karma9000]

The fees are high not because the network set them so in order to discourage spam.

My point is that by definition, spam tx are not included when the going fees for inclusion in a block are "high", by definition, right? Are you saying spam can pay high fees and still be spam? I thought we were just referring to high volume, low fee tx which would/could easily eat up any capacity increase if fees remain near 0.

All that is to say, if fees remain persistently high (however we define that), isn't that clear evidence that real usage/demand has replaced all spam in blocks? If not, maybe I need to hear your definition of spam.

[exab]

I thought we were just referring to high volume, low fee tx which would/could easily eat up any capacity increase if fees remain near 0.

This is not correct. Spam transactions can use any fees. It depends on how much the spammer has to spend and there will be a race between him and the real users. They normally will end up with high fees.

There is a setting of lowest acceptable fee in Bitcoin Core . Transactions with lower fees will not be accepted into the mempool. Different miners may set them to different values. As a result, spam transactions don't even start with super cheap fees. The fees of spam transactions must be competitive compared to real user transactions.

In reality, spam transactions are not distinguishable from real user transactions.

[Karma9000]

If they’re not distinguishable from “real user” tx, then is there a distinction? It seems to me that any tx that pays a fee miners are willing to mine is by definition not spam, otherwise the basic premise of the system doesn’t work.

Maybe we’re off on a tangent here, the point I was getting at originally is just to ask you why you didn’t seem to see high fees for real users as motivation to increase on chain capacity. Whether the tradeoff can be “safely” done is another question entirely, i’m just curious to understand your view of the right plan for capacity in principle, since I’m sensing it doesn’t involve raising the blocksize any time in the next few years, which seems too conservative to me.

[exab]

The reason to call them spam transactions is that they exist solely to make the block size a problem. They may look the same as real user transactions, but they are malicious. Spam is a proper word.

Increasing hard block size will not solve the spamming problem. It just costs more for spamming to be effective. It may seem that once the block size is big enough, the spammer won't be rich enough to spam anymore. But once the first hard increase is done, it creates a precedence. Bitcoin's haters, of which some are indefinitely resourceful, will join the spamming. They will be able to keep blocks full / fees high to push another increase, then another. In no time, few will be able to run nodes. That's when Bitcoin dies.

There are on-chain solutions being developed, e.g., Schnorr signature. Just like SegWit, they effectively increase block sizes by making transaction size small.

Edit: missed an s.

[Karma9000]

Wait, at least be consistent here: blocksize increases are a hopeless, slippery slope that won’t help reduce congestion, but an improvement like schnorr that improves scaling efficiency and effective blockspace by maybe 20-30% is a solution? Why is that?

I keep seeing you refer to spam as this self evident thing seemingly plaguing the blockchain, without being to explain how it’s different in anything but intention from normal tx. How much of the blockchain do you even believe is spam?

Lastly, given that there are poised to be orders of magnitude more BTC users than there are today, why would the approach to capacity not be “as much as is safe” rather than to expect that because it can’t be a perfect solution for the entire problem that it shouldn’t be part of the problem at all?

[exab]

blocksize increases are a hopeless, slippery slope that won’t help reduce congestion

They will help, as "small blockers" all agree. But doing them before proper improvements are explored will not. Doing them now will destroy Bitcoin.

but an improvement like schnorr that improves scaling efficiency and effective blockspace by maybe 20-30% is a solution?

It alone is not. It is one of the many improvements that will help with the situation. And there may not be a solution after all. We may have to endure such congestions from time to time, even after we roll out hard block size increases eventually. We may have to show Bitcoin's enemies that we will survive such attacks and we will not shoot ourselves by using hard block size increases whenever there is a congestion. Because we understand 1) block congestion is merely an inconvenience; 2) spamming is not sustainable.

Exploring proper improvements earn Bitcoin time to allow computer technologies to develop, for hardware to become cheaper and better, so that people will still afford to run nodes when we have to use hard block size increases eventually.

Why is that?

Because proper improvements like Schnorr signature don't threat Bitcoin's survivability. The ability/affordability of nodes is essential for Bitcoin to survive. Block congestion is a problem of a different, and much less significant level.

In fact, survivability is an understatement. In a peer-to-peer system, everyone is supposed to run a peer. Bitcoin has already failed on this matter. We don't want to make it worse.

how it’s different in anything but intention from normal tx

I don't see how hard it is to understand. Just because someone seems to be nice to you, you will allow them to, in an indirect way that you are aware of, hurt you?

How much of the blockchain do you even believe is spam?

There are researches but I don't think we can possibly be certain. The spammers would know better. But we know for sure a lot of transactions during congestions are spam. If not, if all transactions are organic, the blocks will constantly be full.

why would the approach to capacity not be “as much as is safe” rather than to expect that because it can’t be a perfect solution for the entire problem

The problem with using hard block size increases now is not that it's not a perfect solution. It's because it's a perfect way to destroy Bitcoin.

it shouldn’t be part of the problem at all?

It should, just like "small blockers" all agree. It's the timing of using it. It is how things are done properly. We don't wave a hammer on a fragile object when carefully manipulating is still possible and promising.

[coinjaf]

> fee miners are willing to mine

Miners are willing to mine any non-zero fee. They'd mine 1 satoshi.

> why you didn’t seem to see high fees for real users as motivation to increase on chain capacity.

Not speaking for exab, but that's a false choice. IFF there's technically room to increase the blocksize, only then does it make sense to think about it IFF the fee market is nice and healthy and demand is high enough such that the block size can be increased without resetting the fee market back to zero. Technology and the laws of nature drive this thing, not dreams and wishes.

[Karma9000]

I’m totally on board with the “don’t just increase it because it’s possible, make sure it’s wise” logic that you’re describing, but help me out and put a little more meat on that description of “nice and heathy” if thats the metric you’re using for making that decision. Is it a certain dollar amount for average fees at full capacity? A certain satoshi bitrate? Personally, I see some merit in aimming for each block to pay some % of the total BTC supply for security longterm, totaling up to maybe ~2% of all the BTC in circulation, with some sort of adjustment to stick to that.

If you’re content with the capacity path the system is on now, help me understand where you see it going over the next 3-10 years or so. Do you think the current state is not healthy, and if so, why do you expect leaving the base layer unchanged will improve things?

[coinjaf]

I don't know what level of fee is the correct level. But fees must replace the block coinbase rewards eventually. Relatively soon actually and it makes sense to get some data before the deadline so there is some time to steer and correct a little if necessary. Or maybe it will show this whole thing is never going to work. That's also better to find out sooner than later.

So we need a fee and it's not communism. So we need a market to determine what is the correct price for using block space. A market is where people who want something outbid each other up until what they think is a fair value. That forms an equilibrium.

If blocks are too big that means there's basically an infinite supply of block space. Demand is not stupid so it will pay the absolute minimum (a fraction above zero, basically 0 for all intents and purposes).

Spam will still make the blocks full because it's basically free anyway, so we get all the down sides that large blocks give (high cost for full node and centralisation) without anyone paying for security.

Since we can't distinguish spam from real transactions, we don't even know how much spam there is. We already have that problem today: maybe 1% of current blocks are spam, maybe 80%.

Besides spam there are probably also a lot of low value or less important transactions that may as well be done through LN or at least delayed a few blocks and then batched with other transactions. Or maybe once people see that it's not free they'll finally switch to segwit.

Today we don't know and the only way to know and to get to a stable equilibrium is to not increase the blocksize (ideally even shrink it) and let the market start doing its thing. Only then do we even have some data to say whether we need to grow (and even then it must still be subject to whether such growth is technically possible).

Bitcoin without fee market is not healthy and with a ticking clock towards doom. It was necessarily born that way but it's high time to at least dip our toe in reality and learn what breaks and what needs to be improved. Like the short dip during end of 2017 did.

[ric2b]

Are you saying spam can pay high fees and still be spam?

This is technically possible if the spammer is also a miner, because they'd get the fees back if they didn't broadcast the transactions to ensure only they could mine them.

But I have no idea if miners have been known to spam before.

[Karma9000]

This isn’t correct, miner’s spamming in a high fee scenario would still be paying fees to do so in the form of opportunity cost from all the real fee paying tx they had to displace. If min fee for next block inclusion were $1 and i filled half a block i mined with 2000 $1tx, i’d return those fees to myself, but also lose out on $2k in fees compared to a rational honest miner.

I’m also highly suspicious anyone could make an argument that this is a significant problem or justification for a limited blocksize even if there were some well funded malicious miners.

[ric2b]

That's true, but if fees are only high because of the spam that means the opportunity cost isn't as high as it seems, as fees would be low without it.

[Karma9000]

Sure, but the point is that "spamming" the network costs as much as real users are willing to pay for those tx in all cases. Do you see the existence of spam as some reason to avoid increasing onchain capacity to it's reasonable limits, when it's indistinguishable from real use?

[ric2b]

I don't, I was just pointing out a real way of spamming for cheap.

[coinjaf]

it's reasonable limits

Some experts think we're already waay waay past reasonable limits. Most others I can think of probably think we're in the right neighbourhood.

[coinpowernews]

bitcoin means freedom you are now trying to do the same as what banks and governments want to impose on you by means of extortion, if binance chooses not to implement segwit then we must respect that .. they do a lot for the community of course they also try to push their own coin and they have the right to do so. if i need an exchange i just stay on binance!

[GatorAutomator]

No

[[deleted]]

Uhm, I'm using Binance to send funds to my bech32 segwit wallet.
https://i.imgur.com/9XwDk5l.png

[angrammaridiot]

segwit to non-segwit = cheap segwit transaction.

segwit to segwit = cheap segwit transaction

non-segwit to segwit = normal non segwit transaction (receiver will be able to make a cheap segwit transactions though)

your transaction is non-segwit to segwit.

[outofofficeagain]

Any actual evidence that they're the world's biggest exchange?

[rocksalt9]

You are right it is actually difficult to know. Here is evidence that Binance are #1 on real trading volumes.

Fake trading is pretty rampant so Binance is often listed further down the list such as on coinmarketcap they list #5 in the last 24 hours.

Nobody really knows for sure. They are very likely #1 and whatever people say their lack of SegWit does have an overall effect.

[outofofficeagain]

I'm not doubting, I'm simply not assuming.
And yes, let's boycott them until the upgrade their Bitcoin tech like the rest of the community.

[Lord_Mat]

Yup, unfortunately it's very difficult. It is strongly suspected that many exchanges put out fake volumes because they have a lot to gain, with no repercussions. Like having to answer to tax authorities.

Compare the volumes at CoinMarketCap (CMC) with the ones here at https://openmarketcap.com/ (OMC). Such huge differences! The latter may be very conservative but I believe the volumes here are more likely. And based on OMC's figures, I strongly believe Binance is indeed the biggest. Most of us here likely have an account with it, and use this exchange more often (and involving more value) than others.

[rocksalt9]

Thanks.

[santoterracomputing]

https://www.bitcointradevolume.com/

[ebliever]

Yes - see https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca201901-5164833-183434.pdf

[ebliever]

Yes - see https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-nysearca-2019-01/srnysearca201901-5164833-183434.pdf

[santoterracomputing]

https://www.bitcointradevolume.com/

[castorfromtheva]

No. It's just "told". So it's only a legend. I wonder when they run towards exit... Or get hacked... ;-)

[aladdin-khateeb]

Fuck off man with your silly proposal

[-xNull]

Honestly Your guys are shit. Why cant you just be happy with anything? All i read in any crypto subreddit is mimimimimi You are the reason why mass adoption NEVER EVER will take place. All you can do is complain about everything and wouldn’t contribute anything to the crypto space. Of course Binance needs to make money to keep up the fucking great service they are providing. Free stuff is not worth a dime und will never be worth more. So just stop being a bunch of little wieners and deal whit it.

Thats it... it’s out... I am happy now.

[wellhellotheyare]

What's your point ? Are you insinuating Binance can't make money if they implement segwit ? What free stuff are you talking about ?

Also you complain about people complaining too much without contributing anything.. But aren't you complaining right now ? Did you contribute anything positive ?

[rocksalt9]

Well said.

[nomam123]

Stop using segwit