1 2016-10-03 17:35:01 <bsm117532> I notice that the bcoin project (https://github.com/bcoin-org/bcoin) has implemented BIP141 (native addresses for segwit) which was deferred.  What's the status of that BIP and should we expect it to be active in the reasonably near future?
 2 2016-10-03 17:46:20 <instagibbs> bsm117532, it's inactive, and likely not moving forward(imo)
 3 2016-10-03 17:47:15 <instagibbs> there is work being done on new address types, not sure what the current state of it is though
 4 2016-10-03 17:47:26 <instagibbs> i think the thought of perpetuating base58 was too much for some :)
 5 2016-10-03 17:52:15 <bsm117532> So segwit transactions will only appear wrapped in P2SH?
 6 2016-10-03 17:52:36 <instagibbs> if you're using addresses, yes
 7 2016-10-03 17:52:46 <bsm117532> I'm currently making some segwit transactions...you don't actually need an address to send or spend segwit outputs.  But I feel weird and dirty about it.
 8 2016-10-03 17:56:29 <TZander> it was the price to pay for making it backwards comptible and soft-forkable.  Its indeed a little round-about way of doing things.
 9 2016-10-03 17:57:36 <arubi> bsm117532, it only makes sense to use bare p2wpkh\p2wsh if both sides natively support it, plus when eventually upgrading from using nested segwit in p2sh is really easy.  the midstate for signing is exactly the same, you just don't have to push the segwit script to scriptsig
10 2016-10-03 17:58:49 <arubi> s/don't have/don't/  , so you save 23 bytes for p2wpkh and 35 for p2wsh
11 2016-10-03 17:59:15 <arubi> (these are non discounted bytes, so it's better for everyone to upgrade)
12 2016-10-03 18:00:05 <bsm117532> I guess I'm still not clear on what the migration will look like for everyone-understands-segwit.
13 2016-10-03 18:01:18 <arubi> it doesn't have to be that absolutely everyone understands it
14 2016-10-03 18:03:40 <instagibbs> people will create addresses they understand. Segwit or not.
15 2016-10-03 18:11:19 <TZander> bsm117532: migration? Its very unlikely that we'll ever see a "everyone talks segwit' world.
16 2016-10-03 18:17:15 <arubi> TZander, at this point, upgrading to a new client version should be in anyone's favor, whether they're planning on using segwit or not
17 2016-10-03 18:19:05 <arubi> I think it will take some time until segwit txs overtake non segwit txs, but the whole cltv,csv,segwit soft fork package, the better performance..  it's really a handicap not taking advantage of these features
18 2016-10-03 18:19:24 <roasbeef> bsm117532: I've also implemented and currently use BIP141 within the btcsuite libs, all our lightning stuff recognizes the addresses for deposits etc, then just uses p2wsh natively for all scripts
19 2016-10-03 18:28:40 <bsm117532> I guess if I control both ends of a transaction - sender and receiver - I can use BIP141 to communicate...
20 2016-10-03 18:43:18 <roasbeef> yep, addresses are simply end-to-end