Bitcoin Forum

Bitcoin’s top developer and Lead Maintainer, Wladimir van der Laan, has confirmed that he’s retiring. Van der Laan is the second successor to Satoshi Nakamoto and is one of the few people in the world with final commit access to Bitcoin Core’s GitHub.

this is not a good look for bitcoin. luckily the joe bitcoin user will have no idea about any of this and blissfully continue using bitcoin to pay for a cup of coffee.

That's unfortunate and I wish him the best, but saying that "this is not a good look for bitcoin" is quite an over-reaction. It's not like he's the only Bitcoin developer.

P.S. Due to the news of the Tornado Cash developer getting arrested, I wouldn't totally rule out the chances that he hopefully just is retiring under his name while continuing to develop under a pseudonym.



Maybe post your source? https://protos.com/bitcoins-longest-serving-lead-maintainer-calls-it-quits-names-no-successor/

The fact that something like this could happen without causing any worry at all among regular and not-so-regular users reminds us why Bitcoin's not some mega project that'll go under when its creator disappears. satoshi's disappearance cleared that up.

(though really, when Dogecoin's devs left, the coin didn't die either, so really, we're fine)

How? Is this about the old issue of centralization when it comes to merging of new code changes? Or is the problem not naming a successor?

I was just reading about the possible reasons for quitting and it looks like he's really burnt out. Whatever it is that made him leave, I don't think it's that big of a deal for the community and overall Bitcoin development. There are still few code maintainers and one of them could take the lead role. There are also hundreds of open-source developers or contributors if I am not mistaken.

Those guys at bsv are probably happy about this since the fake one also harrassed Van der Laan.

Wow! Ten years. That's pretty impressive commitment from Van der Laan.

It looks like he wanted to decentralize developing ability so that less relied on a single individual.

He was starting to delegate more tasks to others since Jan 2001, according to his blog: https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

I think you are confusing bitcoin with some of the centralized shitcoins that when the centralized authority leaves it harms that shitcoin!
There are at least a dozen good developers dedicating a large amount of time to work on bitcoin and a lot more part time developers that contribute a lot to the code and hundreds of little contributors. Not to mention multiple implementations of the Bitcoin protocol each having their own developers team.

That's sad to hear about that he is stepping down from the position but at some point we all have decisions to be made and it's his choice whether to carry on or not but the system won't be affected by that at all.There are many developers who are still working and many who left or died but was there any security compromise with bitcoin? No and that's how it is supposed to work in complete decentralised manner but still respect his decision.

I do not know if anybody can comprehend what pressure is on Wladimir van der Laan and the other developers to maintain the development and the security of this technology. Just imagine being the CEO of an investment firm that are securing the integrity of a financial system that hold Billions of Dollars worth of investments and deposits.  ::)

Then think about the pressure from governments to sabotage the project and the 3 l3tter agencies that are looking for ways to topple the "head" of the people that are maintaining a system that are used to bypass sanctions against rouge countries and also loads of criminal actions.  ::)

Thank you Wladimir van der Laan for fighting the "good" fights on our behalf. Hope your retirement are less stressful.  ;)

Even the creator of bitcoin Satoshi left the network for many years now, and nobody knows where he is, or if he is alive, and bitcoin has remained good since then till now, and it is working just fine because it is decentralized and based on consensus, and it doesn't need the creator and or any single person to remain what it is. Van der Laan may be a big loss in the sense that a good developer just left, and that is the end of it, but if you feel it will have any other impact, or that "the joe bitcoin user" should stop using the network because of this, you are wrong.

This is what I like with bitcoin. Leaders abandon it. It is revealed that there's no team responsible for its reputation. It is built neutrally. Projects built on top of it are very much controlled by a group of people, with few exceptions, but the core is as decentralized as possible. And it turns out that people want to acquire something that's free of bureaucrats and corporatocrats. It is beyond human failure. Corruption, as monetary policies are concerned, ceases to exist.

Heck, though not preferable — even if there isn't a single developer for Bitcoin(the core protocol) for an entire decade or more, chances are, it would still work totally fine.

^ Can't say the same for literally any other crypto project.

Oh no again, didn't we shed a few tears for van der Laan last year when he announced that he would move his activities to the background?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5376564.msg58704933#msg58704933

In addition, last year at least two more developers gave up their work on Bitcoin, but this is no reason to panic, because there are many other smart and intelligent people who will take their places. Bitcoin was never dependent on one man, didn't Satoshi teach us anything?

If Bitcoin Developers and Managers have said they want to retire it doesn't mean Bitcoin will die, because Bitcoin already has many communities around the world and will not stop Bitcoin, so there is no effect if there are no Developers and Managers. But if the Developer and maintainer announces that he wants to retire, he will surely find someone he really trusts for Developers and maintainers, although it's not known to everyone yet.

blackhatcoiner you do realise that they purposefully called it core for a reason. i know buddy doomad has indocrinated you into not openly talking about it and instead speak out the utopian. but atleast try to challenge yourself once in a while to step out of the "group think"

WLad admitted HIMSELF that he was a centralised bottleneck

whomever does become part of the release candidate maintainer. i do hope its not one of the guys paid by brink chaincodelab blockstream (funding sponsor middlemen of DGC)

i hope they decide on a outsider that can actually vet the code properly for bitcoin open networks sake and not the DGC core roadmap sake

the whole saga of tornado should be proof enough to not want a single reference client sourced from a single github repo. bitcoin needs to shed itself of single points of failure

He doesn't have to name a successor. It's not like Satoshi chose him to work on Bitcoin. He started it on his own in 2012, long after Satoshi's disappearance
Imagine that bitcoin managed to grow in 2011 and 2012 and Satoshi left in 2010. In those 2 years van der Laan was completely out of the picture.

OP is making it sound like we just bought a car and now the only authorized garage is losing its lead mechanic. It's not how it works! Bitcoin can continue even when all of those core devs quit.

in 2012 Wlad worked as just a coder, gavin took over from satoshi in 2011 and gavin passed it on in 2015 when the rebrand to "core" took place

gavin in 2010 said he too was only going to be involved in bitcoin for about 5 years. and so he also retired as intended and passed it too core(though core actually tried a malicious plot to defame gavin and then delete his keys(but thats another point of history certain people will refuse to acknowledge)

as for wlad his retirement was announced last year. and unrelated to the tornado fiasco as the decision to leave.

though lessons should be learned to not have bitcoin as a central point, which even core an wlad know they are central points.
we need to decentralise more so there is no reliance on one github/maintainer. especially need to avoid those in a near central point to not be funded majority by one central funder to ensure that bitcoin cannot be controlled

Bitcoin is meant to outlive Satoshi, Van der Laan, and everyone who writes code for it today. Bitcoin is a community, old people leave, new people come. So this is actually very good for Bitcoin, it will demonstrate that its development has no critical centralization, unlike Ethereum, where Vitalik is the owner of the code and can do whatever he wants.

Translation:  Any time at least two people disagree with franky1, franky1 has to assume that one has manipulated the other against him.  It's inconceivable to franky1 that two people could independently arrive at the conclusion they disagree with franky1's "inalienable truth".   ::)



Translation:  Only developers whom franky1 approves of should be considered for the role.



Translation:  It only counts as history if you agree with franky1's version of events (which almost certainly didn't unfold the way he claims they did, but he'll never accept that).

doomad.. you and a certain few people for years have been buddy playing each other, defending each other chatting to each other kiss assing each other all for the same warped fantasy.
the same warped fantasy that harms bitcoin

there are literally thousands of people on this forum.. yet its always the same few people that share your mindset. the same that suddenly agree with everything you agree with. its not random at all.
heck your social group has become soo sheepish that its not even where a person agree's with you on one things but disagrees on so many other things. its that your social group of about a dozen (under two dozen) that agree on pretty much everything. as if they are on the same script.
whatever you want to promote a agenda or a opinion, within a few posts they pop up to back up the promotion.agenda, and then defend it even with their silly exaggerations that cannot be backed up by data

you are not original,. not having an independant thought and you obviously are in the same social group because its the same dozen people that agree with each other and defend each other in topics where there are more then a dozen that do now share your mentality. but you keep talking about 'your' community that agree with you

check your topic history. you defend the exact same dozen people and adore them for sharing your scripts and mindset.

..
anyway back to the topic that a certain person does not want publicised. yet is well documented and easy to research

the facts about history of satoshi passing the project to gavin who passed it to(drama involved) wlad. is well documented and researchable..  
guess what doomad and chums.. you might want to hide it.. but

the github repo that is now core controlled was created by gavin..(satoshi used a different code repository on a different site)
yep its a fact of history that can be found in hard data..

People do like to make grand claims about the smallest things, so I guess this was warranted because at least it is not a tiny thing. I mean him quitting and not naming any successor is a bad look for what he did so far, not what bitcoin did, but what he did was related to bitcoin hence it's tainted now.

But at the end of the day, bitcoin will not be going down or being disliked, most people in all of crypto do not know who Van der Laan was, it is a new information to people. I mean if you already bought so many without even knowing who he is, would you end up selling just because he quit? Of course not. So, it is not a useless information but it is not going to change anything neither.

It could have a bit of a negative effect on the value once this gets more mainstream knowledge, which kind of shows a weakness that maybe hasn't been factored in properly to cryptocurrency to date. It probably effects Bitcoin much more than any other cryptocoin, but other coins will undoubtedly be affected by the knock on action of this. The continuity of the developers in the background is extremely important, even if it is a relatively stable platform, because they have vast power over the future direction of Bitcoin and can implement decisions that affect the money in everyones wallet. Much like you see in a company which loses a strong manager, it can easily start to wobble after that.

Wrong.  You are the lone, unhinged lunatic with a horrendous and disturbing notion of what Bitcoin supposedly ought to be (but never will be).  You perceive anyone who doesn't share your reprehensible and authoritarian views as "buddy buddy" because none of us can come close to understanding your fractured psyche and how you so consistently and unrelentingly misperceive the world and get it all twisted in your head to be some sort of sinister conspiracy.  All the while, some cautious, sensible and pragmatic developers continue to act in the best interests of the Bitcoin network/protocol, but all you can do is screech about inane nonsense you should have gotten the fuck over over 6 years ago.  Just accept that you have some very, VERY niche views that no other person on this planet is special enough in the brain to share with you.  Or just choke on your own tongue, already.  Either way, this shit's getting tiresome.



Not independent from reality, like you, no.  I like my thoughts grounded in sanity, thank you.  You should give it a try some time.



Fine.  How about you and I both shut up now and we'll run a little experiment?  

******

I freely encourage everyone reading here to look into this repository matter (assuming they aren't already familiar with it) and form an opinion on their own.  Then write here in this topic what your opinion is.  I'm genuinely curious to see if anyone other than franky1 perceives it as an issue.  Let's put it to the test and see how controversial it really is.  Thoughts, anyone?  

******

Btw, I'm not totally convinced that developer was arrested solely for being a dev. Tornado Cash were also taking a % for mixing transactions, so while it's easy to think that a dev was arrested for being an open source developer (which is against US law), it's much more likely that he was receiving a % of profit from these mixed funds - therefore charged for completely different reasons as it were, while being a dev.

I don't have anything to substantiate these claims, but there's a difference from being arrested for being an open source dev, then being an individual profiting from money laundering it seems. While there are protections in place for open source developers, there aren't many protections from directly profiting from any potential money laundering it seems.  Just saying...

as a point that doomad wants to avoid

here are words from Wlad himself of the drama of how he became maintainer due to the gavin drama .. all of which did not happen in 2011 but much later

https://laanwj.github.io/2016/05/06/hostility-scams-and-moving-forward.html

I agree we should keep it decentralized as much as possible, although I doubt submitting code to github for all to see is a step towards centralization.


Exactly! People come and go, but ideas and tools continue to help future generations. We can't expect someone who's been coding since the 80s to keep doing it 40 years later. People need a break, need to focus on their family and retirement. It was meant to happen sooner or later. I think there were some articles about him quitting months ago, so it's not a sudden change of heart.

tornadocash github repo got took down due to international sanctions drama
..

so if everyone is relying on one github repo of one reference client. then its a central point. even wlad as the main maintainer of that central CORE point knows and admits to it being so
even as far back as 2015 he was talking about how core also was and has been seen as a controlling point where they decide who gets in and out

he described it as transparent code, but controlled decisions of who is allowed in


and more recently he last year at announcing his retirement admitted how core got too centralised and how he foresee how different implementations should now be allowed to thrive
https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

Well, it just kind of airs some of bitcoin's dirty laundry so to speak. People like to think of bitcoin as being totally decentralized but if you look at the development process it is not.

Van der Laan has not named any direct successors, instead hoping that his departure will help Bitcoin become more decentralized. His ultimate hope is that Bitcoin will decentralize Satoshi’s GitHub commit access key to such an extent that Bitcoin no longer needs an official Lead Maintainer.


As long as Bitcoin relies on a centralized service like Github then that's a centralized service as we all know. Those can be taken down by the government or go offline for any other reason. I would have thought that Bitcoin would want to have a decentralized software development model too that's run by some DAO (https://www.investopedia.com/tech/what-dao/ (https://www.investopedia.com/tech/what-dao/)) where everyone casts votes on additions or modifications to the software. Then it would be decentralized. Like have a blockchain that runs just for storing the bitcoin core software. Then people wouldn't need to download core from a centralized website.

More recently, he floated the possibility of switching ownership of Bitcoincore.org to an organization rather than a single owner. He also mentioned encouraging others to set up mirrors for Bitcoin Core’s software. He wants Bitcoin to decentralize away from Bitcoincore.org, one of the few places people download the latest version of Bitcoin’s software.


His plan included the possibility of decentralizing development duties, moving away from reliance on GitHub to host the code, and finding someone else to send release candidate mails to the official email lists for Bitcoin developers, bitcoin-dev and bitcoin-core-dev.


At least he is being honest about the issues he sees with Bitcoin and I appreciate him for that.





Yes, that's the article. I never heard of him before reading that. But it seems like he had a thankless job...

the way bitcoin used to work was that there were different implementations, and when there was a proposal they all coded their implementations and the network upgraded to activate the proposal once majority had the code to allow the activation..
(this is where blockchains invention solved the 'byzantine generals problem')

things changed. where core became the repo. the proposal centre where core developed the code and then people downloaded core to vote it in and then if it activated. then other lower grade wallets would then change their code to then be fully compliant.
(this is where core became commander-and-chief. in a follow the leader style network structure (no longer caring about the byzantine generals. because all generals were core )

what now happens is if anyone has idea's that dont follow the core roadmap. they are treated as opposition/ competitors. where by if they even got close to a majority against the core roadmap they were treated as a threat to cores plan. and were set as a fork proposal to turn into a altcoin rather than a bitcoin feature upgrade.

there was alot of drama in 2014-17 in this regard(REKT era). and it was this era where core decided who they wanted in "their" github/community and who they didnt (even wlad admits to this now(first hearne, then gavin the garzik))
which ended up in about 2016-2017 with core becoming the defacto solo "reference client" at the top of the hierarchy and everything else held as inferior lesser quality wallets that just followed cores lead, where anyone trying to establish themselves as a "reference clinet" offering proposals were treated as the enemy.

..
it appears that Wlad as of last year wants to help push 'libbitcoin' as the main consensus reference for the proper consensus rules and prime engine /ruleset of bitcoin. where other brands can then do their own thing with the stuff that handles the users own control of data on their local PC's like how they store data on hard drives of validate transactions before during and after peer-to-peer data streaming between each other

which hopefully should see core hierarchy disappear. and instead become just a brand of many brands that all work co-operatively with each other but with separate brands, repositories, dev teams so that there is no central point of failure
(well as long as libbitcoin and other brands are not grabbed up and tied into the DGC portfolio to still be controlled by a single sponsor of control.. only time can tell)

And yet, there's nothing wrong with this decision. Gavin was somewhat a scum; supporting a provably lying bastard who says he's Satoshi[1], besides being inactive since 2011, is a red flag. And no, crying out later and demanding forgiveness doesn't water down things[2]. Every person with minimum intelligence could have done this "research" and reach to the same conclusion, that he's a passive liar. 

[1] http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi
[2] https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andersen-craig-wright-blog-mistake/

Perceive what an issue? The fact that repositories have lead maintainers or that they don't deserve this position? I have no problem with this matter either way, though.

Well I've thought about it some and my conclusion is that bitcoin has alot of work ahead for it if they are going to have to depend on "lead maintainers" forever. It's not clear to me that people can be trusted forever. But if bitcoin is going to be changing hands every 10 years or less well, that's alot of chances for someone to really screw things up. Put in some malicious code. Destroy the blockchain.

So my conclusion is that because bitcoin can't freeze its code base like a smart contract, it will always have a weakness in that it has to depend on people to maintain it over the years. that's a really bad thing. but because bitcoin might have bugs, you can't just freeze it into a smart contract. or else it might explode down the line and all go to 0. but the downside to that is of course, having to depend on humans.

more work should probably be put into ensuring the existing code has no bugs than making new features that 90% of people will probably never need or use. How many average bitcoin users ever heard of multisig? How many ever used it? Probably none. So what you do is get your existing code to a point where it has no more bugs and lock it down. Turn it into a smart contract that can never be changed. Then no one has to spend anymore time on developing it and risking introducing new bugs and everyone can be sure that bitcoin will always function how it has in the past. no changes to anything. everyone can then just use bitcoin and move on to other things as far as other projects that do other things. other than just sending money electronically.

as far as bitcoincore.org not being put into the hands of some organization well i don't think that's the main issue anyway. someone could hack bitcoincore.org, replace the binaries with hacked versions and people would download it, install it and maybe they might lose some bitcoin. the solution to that is not having more mirror websites because the same thing could happen to them including people putting up fake mirror sites with bad versions of the software. along with fake hashes and sigs.

That's less of an issue than you think.  Everything is checked carefully by multiple devs before changes are merged.  And as for "destroying the blockchain", the consensus mechanism which is effectively baked into Bitcoin would prevent that.  Any breaches of consensus rules that would involve the creation of invalid blocks, just means that anyone using the new and malicious/buggy software would simply be forked off the network.  All users on any older versions of the software would simply ignore such illegitimate blocks.  

Probably millions. Have you forgotten that multi-sig is the basis of the Lightning Network? If there aren't millions now, there will be. The world can't fit in 1MB blocks. If we'll have serious adoption within the next 8-10 years, it'll happen in second layer solutions.

So verify the signatures of your binaries. That's what all should do, and are warned so. Mirrors don't have to do with ensuring software integrity, but with source code and binaries availability.

I don't answer to your other concerns, because others did.

Bitcoin is and always will be a community driven project. If someone in the community retires, there will be someone else to take his place. I see no problem here. The only true way Bitcoin can or ever will die is if every single miner, every single Hodler and every single believer of Bitcoin were to change their minds overnight. And even then you would still have to stop the flow of new Bitcoiners and remove all the Bitcoin PR from the internet.

Basically I am saying it is impossible. And news like this only serves as temporary shorting opportunities for whales. And trust me, they love FUD like this. Because they know that this is only a temporary "scare".

this is not about human defence or offence(social drama bureaucracy) this is about trying to get a better understanding of the history of bitcoin events, based on hard data(protocol)
(subtle hint to blackhatcoiners latest avatar (protocol over bureaucracy))

not defending gavin. this is about getting facts right based on actual easily available data

firstly yes he did say that scammer CSW was an inventor and well we all know that not to be the case.
emphasis this next bit is not defending gavin. but an opinion thats not from the playgrounds of exaggerations and social drama queening and instead more logical (than some can manage to think).
my opinion was that gavin was retiring anyway and just wanted a mega pay day exit. so took whatever money he could from what ever source was offering out money and he could not give a crap about what it done to his reputation.

CSW is ultimate scum. but i feel gavin was leaving anyway and just wanted to get paid

but one correction on your part is that, gavin actually did more coding then you think between 2011-2015
maybe you like pretty pictures and videos instead of walls of text heck
so here is a easy proof your claims of in-activity are incorrect (in a format even you can see)
https://youtu.be/dTILX-_JzTs?t=172

i even set the video link at the start of 2012 so you dont even have to watch through 2011 the part where you think he was active. and instead the video begins when you think(wrongly) that he was inactive.. enjoy. it might enlighten you. and i dont me the colourful light show the video displays. i mean the proof that what you got told by someone else about inactivity. is not as it seems
https://youtu.be/dTILX-_JzTs?t=172

it pays to do research
its better to actually know what is really going on and do research. to atleast stay on track with what real data shows. rather than use personal social drama to then try to rewrite history.
yes gavin ruined his reputation. but he actually was more involved in bitcoin than certain people want to be mentioned

this is not about defending him. its about fact of who was involved for how long and how hard data can debunk the social drama crap certain people play.

yes he ruined his rep using lies for a pay day retirement farewell
but he was also active coder 2012-15
just to get things straight

..
blackhatcoiner
you changed your avatar to "protocol over bureaucracy" i hope that means from now on you are ready to use actual data and code instead of social drama
i hope to from this date see a new change in your efforts and posts that no longer play the bureacracy social drama playing cards you played before this date

let today be a new start for you. and if you do start from today to not play the bureaucracy cards you played, i will stop insulting you (this goes for your buddies too, should they be ready to change their ways)

Why Dr Wlad  van der Laan is quiting ?  What is the real story ?  I want to know from his own statements why he is resigning ?  Has he achieved what he wanted to achieve ?  Or has he failed to achieved, what he wanted to achieve ?

If he tell the truth that will become a real history in the Bitcoin Space. But if he does not tell the truth why he is leaving without handing over the "Bitcoin Torch" to some one who is worthy to carry the Bitcoin Torch  is not good things to do.

I think he should tell the truth, the reason he is leaving.

He said he was leaving 18 months ago:

https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

I think that is a good amount of time to wind down what he was involved in and pass a lot of knowledge to others.
As others have said it's really that big a deal, there are plenty of others involved in BTC someone who is not been doing it for so long and has been planning to leave.

It's not like he did a mike drop and walked off stage.

-Dave

Why isn’t it a good look for bitcoin? Bitcoin’s success is not dependent on other people anymore. There will always be someone else who is going to maintain/develop bitcoin when somebody quits. Bitcoin is decentalized. Even if all the devs quit right now, bitcoin would still survive.

Everybody needs his/her retirement at some point. Nobody can work forever. We should thank and congratulate him. We can’t do anything else.

Yeah, that's what I meant with "scum".

Didn't know he was working on it that much from 2011-2015, thanks. But, he did was kinda inactive compared with others.

What have I been doing so far? I have never for once supported social drama over actual data. Cut the strawman.

i mean using multisig directly not without realizing it. most users just use a bitcoin software wallet most of which do not do multisig how many people really use multisig directly? probably not many people. lightning i'm not sure but it seems like an overcomplicated thing and just makes bitcoin more confusing to people. but whatever.


so with a hacked version of bitcoin core, they would create a fake website and create the hashes and fake signatures for the file. so when you download it, check the hash and check the signature it will all check out. they'll also provide you with the public key or fingerprint of the signer. so when you add that person to your keyring and check the signature, it's gonna check out just fine.

so if you been paying attention, that's why i had said they need a new way of distributing bitcoin core. one that is decentralized and trustless. until then bitcoin isn't fully decentralized if you have to download it from some website.



Because he seemed somewhat disgruntled and leaving with a somewhat bad taste in his mouth. Was he even paid? Or he just did everything for free? If he did everything for free, he got taken advantage of. Used and spit out.

Why not? If people stopped using bitcoin then it would be worthless. If they stopped putting it on websites so others could download it, then bitcoin couldn't grow. If smart people like van der Laan didn't keep putting in their time and energy into maitaining it, presumably that would be a disaster and bitcoin would die a slow death. So yeah it depends on other people but what if it didn't have to? Wouldn't that be better?

That's why I suggested bitcoin should be a smart contract so that the smart contract can't be changed. No one would ever have to touch the code again. People could just use it and that's it! That's the only way that bitcoin wouldn't need to be "dependent on other people anymore".

How do you know that? Can you prove it?

Bitcoin software distribution is not decentralized or trustless. neither is its development model but it's harder to do that in such a manner maybe not even possible.
 

Did he even get paid? I agree no one can work forever for free. of course you should thank someone for working for free but congratulating them? i think that's a bit over the top. who wants to be congratulated for working their butt off for free? hopefully bitcoin has a better retirement plan for its devs than that.

bitcoin is not some AI
it doesnt code itself

so when people want features. people need to code them

the point of blockchains and bitcoins invention 13 years ago was the solution to the byzantine generals problem where different people had different idea's of what direction to go forward(the problem)

a:(not the solution/purpose of blockchains)
it was not to have a commander/chief deciding, where all his captains follow and all the troops follow the captains
(one source of protocol, multiple source of litewallet, thousands of users)

b: (the solution/brilliance of blockchain purpose)
it was suppose to be multiple brands in operation, cooperating on same level playing field where any of them can pitch an idea/mission plan. and all brands at same level would announce the mission plan to their loyal troops and the idea/plan that rallied enough troops combined from all loyal brand bases towards that same cause, meant that the majority accepted mission moves forward in that direction.

instead it became a contentious battlefield where anyone not following the core mission was to be cast aside and treated as a outsider, spy, opponent, saboteur. where they need to become the enemy in single brans loyal troops eyes. and then fought off the fields and if they survive to have them in a completely separate playing field(altcoin)
(research REKT campaigns circa 2014-17, research mandatory deployment circa 2017)

this is where thousands of devs over the years ended up leaving bitcoin to do their own projects. as they were pushed out of the bitcoin community.

even in his retirement announcement last year he was admitting certain things
https://laanwj.github.io/2021/01/21/decentralize.html

in blue: the acknowledgement that the core software was the most impactful controlling part of bitcoin infrastructure where he and core devs viewed anyone not agreeing/loyal to core devs were seen as attacking core

but you gotta laugh that his knowledge of the controlling aspect meant that he needed to add a disclaimer "his thoughts dont represent a corporate official statement of bitcoin

and last year in his final year announcing more of the things that do not align with the solution to byzantine generals problem that bitcoin/blockchains solved 13 years ago

note how he uses terms like FOSS and open source. rather than terms like open gate, open door open community
it basically means the code is clear to read(open:transparent). but access to get getting involved in helping with the code is not truly open

Well thats what you get when the guy that makes the decisions simply leaves from one day to another. It is a great myth that satoshi left and never used his coins, but if I read news like this I wonder if it will hurt bitcoin in the long run. If there will be no new features then bitcoin will be replaced. Already since a few years bitcoin is not the most modern coin anymore and just lives from its name.

I don't know about all bad taste. It seems to me you are making assumptions.

Was he even paid? Who cares? Who is going to pay him anyway? Wouldn't it make the matters worse? Let's say Binance is funding this dude. Did you know back in the day when Binance was hacked, CZ wanted a chain reorg? You draw the rest of the picture.

Bitcoin always has been all about voluntarism. Everybody has a chance to fix the bugs, voluntarily.


People will always be using bitcoin and there will always be some people who would want to develop it further. Bitcoin is now too big to fail.


See above.


Bitcoin, as is, would survive with no devs for decades probably. Maybe it would need some minor tweaks.


See above.

We congratulate him for his passion for bitcoin. Something you would never understand. A dev like him would find a job in any major company he wants, instantly. If he needed money I am pretty sure he would have done that. How do you even know if he is poor? Stop making assumptions it is the mother of all fuck ups.

check more into blockstream, chaincodelabs and brink.. which then shell company back to DCG as the main source of dev funding/sponsorship

it pays to do research to know who are the true managers of bitcoin development

note the closed door approach not the open door approach
where open source is just about READING code. not what you think it means. of a open door involvement in code

EG an open newspaper. is just a newspaper that is unfolded and easy to read the inside pages. it does not mean anyone can become a reporter

Translation:  franky1 thinks everyone has to listen to and seriously consider stupid and dangerous ideas that have the potential to damage Bitcoin.  People promoting stupid and dangerous ideas should be encouraged to stick around, even their their ideas could never be implemented because they aren't remotely compatible with the direction the project is taking.

I'm sorry, but that's just not practical.  Development becomes a hassle if everyone involved is trying to pull in different directions.  And you are in no position to tell anyone who they can or can't refuse to work with.  Not your call.  Go be a dictator somewhere else.

Also there's absolutely nothing preventing another dev team forming.  You could do it yourself.  In fact, I've suggested before that you need to prove your ideas work by building them, rather than just constantly whining about how no one does it the way you want it done.  Do it.  Form a dev team.  Create some code.  Make whatever ridiculous, broken, mind-numbingly stupid shit you want.  No one can stop you.

But you won't.  All noise, no action (or sense).  That's the franky1 way.

your mindset is for anyone whom wants to develop outside of the core dev team, can do so by forking off and creating an altcoin and see who joins the new network created
(that seems to be your only warped view of how you think decisions should be made)
(you: "alow core to control bitcoin. and anyone not on the core hymn sheet should go make an altcoin)


you do not tolerate any dev team to create an implementation that runs on the bitcoin network that has its own upgrade proposals for the bitcoin network that differ from the core roadmap

funny how you want core to code what they like,, not have the community decide if they want it first. before it activates(or if they want it, then allow activation) where instead you prefer core to just mandate a activation to occur even if the community isnt ready doesnt want it.. all because you want core to just do as they please
.. now its actually YOUR mindset that is destroying decentralisation by promoting centralisation

you are a politics protector not a protocol protector

you have no idea about the byzantine generals problem or how bitcoins blockchain came as a solution to it
where instead of telling opposing minded generals to f**k off instead different generals(implementations) proposed their plan/mission and the majority would decide which mission is best and go with that mission. in a cooperative manner where generals work side by side not opposite from each other

..its called consensus. coming to an agreement.. not contention

as for core, you have show many times that you believe core should be allowed to upgrade the network unopposed, and allowing core to do as they please because its their code and no one should tell them what to do.

that is the same mantra of an authoritarian/tyrant supporter who thinks a leader should be ahead of all and no one should advice him to step aside, or change the leaders mind.
..
thus you love the idea to be an authoritarian and unopposed dictator where everyone should just follow core (central point of failure)

you prefer to defend a group of dev via politics. rather than protect the protocol from politics

You've made it abundantly clear that your ideal version of Bitcoin (which only exists in your imagination right now) wouldn't be compatible with the current consensus rules.  You ask for shit that would cause a fork and then you piss, whine and cry when people suggest you go ahead and create that fork.  What the hell do you want, you raving psycho? 

Follow the consensus rules or don't.  Just shut the fuck up whining that the consensus rules are not what you want if you aren't going to do something about it because you're a spineless and impotent little bitch.  You're pathetic.

I don't know I just thought software engineers got paid. I didn't know they work for free.

Why would Binance fund bitcoin development? And even if they did, why should they expect any favortism? No one would expect them to receive any, you know.

There's a difference between fixing a little bug here or there versus working on something full time.

Bitcoin software development remind me alot of Linux Kernel. People did it for free, the business world never took Linux too seriously. Linux never took over in mainstream. There's more to the story than that but that's the TLDR of it.

Do you think people that program Microsoft Windows software devs would do it for free?

A bug fix is not a minor thing if it could render bitcoin worthless if it wasn't fixed. But assuming no critical bugs popped up then maybe it wouldn't need any devs.



Well I don't understand someone working full time and not getting paid. If that's what you're talking about.


I'm not assuming anything about him. I don't know where you got the idea I thought he is "poor".

That could be a large part of it too. There are a lot of unpaid interns out there (probably not for that long) but as of now showing what he did for as long as he did he can now not only find a job anywhere but also tell them how much he wants to make. If it is a solid company when the HR person asks why he thinks he should be paid that much he can respond 'because' and when the HR person starts to object the only other sound in the room would be the CIO / CTO slapping the HR person in the head and then asking Wladimir if he wants a company car or just a dedicated driver to take him to work.

Possibly a bit of an exaggeration but I have seen a lot of engineers and programmers work insane amounts of time for almost no pay just to get their name / reputation out there so they can really get the big money when they move on.

Side note, I am from NY and we had Fairchild Aircraft and Grumman and a bunch of other big government contractors here big time for years and I saw it 1st hand. Engineers would make very little money for what they did, get their name on a few patents and then move off to the 'civilian' market.

-Dave

There are dozens of things some users don't realize but utilize. Multisig, Pay-to-public-key-hash, Pay-to-script-hash, Segwit, ECDSA, Locktime, UTXO-based money, extended keys and their derivations paths, seeds, PSBT, encryption schemes etc.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood how verifying signatures ensures software integrity.

If bitcoincore.org is not compromised, but an attacker wants to create a duplicate of that site with their binaries, you should first of all not visit it. Weird URLs aren't trustworthy (e.g., bitcoinc0re.org). Second, if you're ignorant on that part, you should always import Bitcoin Core developers' public keys from elsewhere, for instance github, OpenPGP key server etc.

If bitcoincore.org is compromised, and the attacker changes the binaries, they can't add valid signatures, because they can't alter public keys that are outside bitcoincore.org.

The way I described you is the safest.

doomad you only see me mention how consensus works. because its YOU that keep getting it wrong so i then repeatedly correct YOU, so its YOU that see me doing it..
because im directing it at you., because you get it so wrong

maybe take a wild chance on yourself. roll the dice and play a different game

consensus does not cause a contentious fork. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!!
because true consensus the way that bitcoin invented it when he released bitcoin and blockchains
is that upgrades DO NOT EVEN ACTIVATE until there is majority acceptance. meaning there would be no contentious fork

YOU are the one that admires adores and want contention and contentious forks by upgrading the network without consensus

get a dictionary and realise consensus is about agreement of the majority
LEARN what it means

stop telling people that they need to fork off if they have a proposal outside of CORES roadmap

however recent events when core done update they CAUSED contention by doing mandated updates before majority. just to fork people off to the fake majority for secondary update.

YOU KNOW THIS AND EVERY COUPLE YEARS YOU REALISE IT AND ACCEPT IT. then you go through a stupid game of forgetting it and then you get upset when you get corrected AGAIN

now i know you will play games about show proof.
where i will show you the bips of the mandated code that caused a contentious fork. which you will then say you never used bitcoin at that time to realise it. then you will cower down and be quiet about the topic for a while..

so skip the usual drama games of ignorance and get to the point where you actually bother to read code and data and history again. and not just use your forgetfulness as a defence of why you have no understanding yet again just so you can show how emotional and silly you can be just to protect the politics of you favoured developer. even when their tactics went against the purpose of the protocol..

so go read something for once instead of telling people to leave the network and shut up about core centralisation..
REALISE even the lead maintainer is calling out on the centralisation and al the toxic crap of the last 7 years. so accept it happened and move on

You are not in the majority you raving fruitloop.  You are a lone wingnut.



I tell people to fork off if their ideas are moronic, like yours.  And if you want examples:


This would cause a contentious hardfork you ignorant dumbfuck.  So yes, please fork off.


This would cause a contentious hardfork you ignorant dumbfuck.  So yes, please fork off.


This would cause a contentious hardfork you ignorant dumbfuck.  So yes, please fork off.


This would cause a contentious hardfork you ignorant dumbfuck.  So yes, please fork off.

Stop pretending you want consensus when what you want is a divisive hardfork and a split community.

yawn yawn yawn.. bored of the idiot wanting to defend a dev not the protocol

it wont cause a fork... because you use the consensus mechanism.. eg activates only once majority have the code ready to accept it
(you keep forgetting that part!!)

guess he thinks bitcoin is not code, but a song sheet to sing him lullabies about how devs are kings and how he is the princess that devs love.
where bitcoin does not run on rules but instead runs by devs that need to be protected so they can give orders

its funny that for years doomad has been defending devs.. and then the devs themselves admit the problems of core. so he goes cry "must have been franky that done it"

social drama is boring. doomad you're boring

remember is one thing. if its the only thing that you can ever manage to remember more than one month

the consensus mechanism as designed by satoshi. is that features do not and should not activate unless the majority run the code to allow the feature to function without contention..
this does not mean activate feature A to cause a contentious fork to remove core opponents so that only core loyalists remain to fake a 100% acceptance of feature B (cores main feature they want pushed into activation).
it does not mean only rely on core as the central point of failure so that there is always 100% acceptance.

it means we need to actually decentralise and allow for choice and options and have cooperation to ensure that changes that are made are actually for the benefit of the community and not the politically aligned dev team sponsored by corporations

No I understand how it works.

Don't visit a fake site? of course not but people fall victim to fake sites all the time. so saying the solution is to just "not visit it" well, that's not really a solution, it's just general advice which everyone would agree with. kind of like "don't step in dog poop".

ok then how about bitcoin-core.org? or btccore.org? btc-core-satoshi.org? the varieties are as endless as the grains of sand on a beach. they all might sound somewhat legitimate especially if they look professionally done. you can even have decentralized websites that cannot be taken down. unlike with .org.

Nothing is stopping a hacker from creating a repo on github with a text file with a list of fake developers along with their key fingerprints and then putting those same keys on an openpgp server.



they just change the link to a fake repo on github or somewhere else that has a list of fake keys. but they might even be so bold as to host the fake list of keys on the fake website to make it even easier for naive newbies.

if they can compromise bitcoincore.org and change the binaries they can probably do that too.

i would think alot of people who download bitcoin core do not check signatures. so a fake website might just leave out the signatures altogether and just provide detailed info on how to check the hash. to make it easy for the victim to think things are legit.

the way bitcoincore distribution is setup now through a website and signatures and hashes is not decentralized. and subject to many viable attacks. i'm surprised it doesn't happen alot more than i have heard since i havent heard of people getting scammed by fake bitcoin cores.

which ties back in to Van Der Lan or whatever his name is advocating for bitcoin distribution to become less centralized but if he thinks that just putting it on more websites solves the problem he is sadly mistaken.

putting the same software on many websites is not about decentralising bitcoin
its about distributing core. by making core more available

decentralising bitcoin is about having not just 1 software distributed. but several software that work cooperatively to ensure if one fails, gets corrupt, buggy, injected with a trojan. the network can still function because other software of different languages/brands can continue running..

however with the position of one software on one website. is not enough to just have the official file hash publicised everywhere so that people dont just trust the filehash on the website that is distributing the software. because as you say if someone can hack a website or create a variant website they can just push their own file hash for their trojan version of the software. and people will believe its real because they match

there needs to be more then just matching file hash. more then just 6 peoples PGP signatures for the same file

there are other flaws aswell not just having the coders themselves PGPkey sign their own software which they also reviewed(their own software)

it requires independent devs to review it that are not paid(sponsored) at all and definitely not if rare case they are paid.. be paid by the same sponsors of the core hierarchy

funny part is .. core say they have hundreds of devs. but looking at the commits its the same half dozen that do the main code of features and the others are just little snippet fixes of grammar of comments and small little things like translations.

and then its the similar same few main devs that are showing PGP sigs of the final release candidate that people then are suppose to trust that its all been independently verified/reviewed/tested

even though all of that stuff is done by the same small group of people. just agreeing with each other, unopposed or un independently reviewed outside the group

as wlad hinted at. not only bitcoin but core both need to decentralise more

that should be slightly concerning to the bitcoin community if it is really true. because a single dev could then theoretically re-introduce a bug that was fixed in the past in order to sabotage bitcoin at some future point in time, once their commit got integrated into core and enough people were using that version. or they could figure out a new bug that people never saw before if they were creative enough.

but as you say, that's why they need multiple implementations of core in different languages but i would imagine that the bitcoin core reference client is the one that is used by the vast majority of nodes and miners. probably 90%. so what the other 10% do probably makes no difference.

why would a developer re-introduce a bug that got fixed in the past or put in a never before seen bug? well why do employees steal from their company? maybe there was an argument, maybe they got fired. maybe they want revenge. maybe it's not about money.

i mean if multiple people are not reviewing every single code change and understanding what exactly it is for and only one person is doing it well...there you go. big problem.

it gets more interesting when you look at the sponsors of the devs

there is 3 main sponsors
https://brink.dev/sponsors
Chaincodelabs
blockstream

which behind them is the DCG

DCG started with blockstream as the main funder of developers..
after a couple years blockstream founders split off and set up a sister company chaincodelabs
which then they made brink

brink pretends to be an outsider. but then you look at the few top main donators to brink. there is chris hammel of coinbase
then there is the business FTX
forth on list is coinbase again
then we have kraken
which can all be found in https://dcg.co/portfolio/ list

you see that DCG invented and declares it their product to own Liquid sidechain(via blockstream) https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
and the Lightning network subnet https://dcg.co/portfolio/#l

and then you look at the 2 main features that were added to bitcoin since 2015
segwit(needed to create locks to then be reference points to allow sidechains and subnets)
and then there was taproot which allows things that were in liquid

and you will see how as soon as both segwit and taproot got activated , certain devs then 'retired"
sipa (segwit and taproot main coder) also was another one that retired recently.

now what you have to realise is
segwit made promises of more transactions per second on the blockchain. and cheaper fees.
what they actually done was make transaction lengths of traditional formats be counted as 4x he length(weight) thus made a premium cost. where by they then discount the new segwit format by not counting the true length of a transaction..
yep it used to be based on actual bytes not this cludge miscount of vbyte stuff
also when segwit was not going to get its threshold to activate from november 2016-june 2017.. the teams of devs needed to try a new trick.
part of it was the ceo of DCG barry silbert) contacted the main bitcoin merchants and some pools. to create a contract campaign that those merchants want a 2mb block+segwit. where by a dev from Bloq will code this as the compromise.
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
this contract petition/campaign was called the NY agreement
https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

where by segwit had to activate first to then have a 2mb base block limit for the legacy tx format users.
this however along with the blockstream devs desire to push a mandatory fork that even if the main merchants or mining pools dont have the software to actually support segwit. they need to flag in their blocks that they support segwit or they will have their blocks rejected in july..
which occured and thus by july they got the 100%(yep 100%(impossible in true decentralisation) 100% support to want to activate segwit

oh and the funny part 7 years later
transaction fee's are not cheaper than 2016 levels
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/fees-usd-per-transaction.png?timespan=all&h=405&w=720
look at the low fee flatline 2009-2017. and then look at the spikes after 2017 and the low levels higher then the pre2017 flatline

transactions per block are not 2x 4x of 2016 levels
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions.png?timespan=all&h=405&w=720
look at the amount of transaction in late 2016-mid2017(before segwit activation)
then look at the transactions since.. yep plateau and slightly decending now. not climbing


oh and segwit has not finished because core devs dont care about user utility of segwit to "sign message" at GUI level. they couldnt even finish implementing segwit for actually community use of all the features a transaction can do. all they wanted was the part that allowed the locks to then offramp users away from bitcoin into LN or liquid

and then we move onto taproot. well that helps integrate liquid into bitcoin more.
and as soon as taproot activated. instead of those devs staying to maintain and bug fix their inventions. they decide its time for them to step aside and step down

now thats the politics side certain people want to protect and not have mentioned
the dev politics that has affected the protocol for corporate agenda of DCG

its this messy stuff that has caused social campaigns by the politial dev defenders to shout out how they feel that bitcoin is
'not fit for purpose', to then advertise people should move over and use LN
'cant scale' to advertise LN
'expensive' to advertise LN
'not private' to advertise LN and liquid

yep they are showing how chain analysis is linking peoples use of coinbase kraken, gyfts and many exchanges. to break peoples privacy when transacting bitcoin
well guess who owns chain analysis
yep https://dcg.co/portfolio/#c

so now you can see why core has become a central point of failure in regards to the political decisions of the protocol changes
and its only now that DCG has got the features they want. that they are happy to let bitcoin go a little. but not too much. as they will pretend blockstream are going. but still using the chaincode lab/brink sponsors to appear more decentralising paying for devs salary less directly

again. this is a big reasons we should not be letting core be the sole repository of decision making for the protocol. things really need to become decentralised more

and if you want to look at the other social drama dev politics
again we have bloq another implementation pretending to rival core..
yep DCG own it
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
and guess who worked for bloq
https://www.finextra.com/pressarticle/64273/blockchain-firm-bloq-appoints-gavin-andresen-to-new-board-of-advisors
yep gavin andresen took the job when he started the drama with the scammer..
yep got hired in march 2016 by bloq(dcg) and then retired from bitcoin-qt when it was rebranded to core(blockstream(DCG)who took over the main github from gavin. in may 2016

so it all goes full circle
..
i hope you are now all caught up on all the dev politics of 2015-2022

If this was private industry or proprietary code as opposed to open source, then perhaps we may have been in a world of shit.  However, this is part of the beauty of decentralization, in that the show doesn't stop with one individual, at least hasn't happened yet and this won't be an exception either.

Well, if you want to avoid stepping on dog poop, the first thing you should know is look where you step.

As I said, it doesn't matter as long as you look after your software's integrity, by verifying the signatures according to the public keys that are outside the possibly compromised site.

Visit the original repository. Visit multiple PGP servers, check that the public keys match. Visit web archive, and make sure these keys aren't altered. Visit bitcointalk.org. Visit stackexchange. You can even wait for a few days, just to make sure there is nothing compromised the day you downloaded the binaries.

IF they compromise bitcoincore.org, and IF they compromise github.com too, and IF they compromise every single PGP server that you'll look for the keys, and IF they compromise every single site that contains the fingerprints, then you're highly likely to be ripped off. I hope you understand how stupidly difficult it is to do all those, assuming you have a clean OS.

Their bad. I always check for signatures' validity when I download open-source software. I haven't lost a 'toshi.

And I think you are both overestimating how many people actually use core. I have a few good friends that use BTC a lot I have a few others that dabble in it, and know a bunch that trade. On top of that I know 2 people who were programmers for a major exchange that now work for other places in the crypto world. How many run core? Including me? Doing some math...... 1. Yes I have several nodes on different platforms and so on.
Everyone else I know are all running lite wallets on their phones or PCs.

We are are very small group here who are very into BTC and so on. But most people don't want to spend the time / money and everything else to deal with it. Electrum is fine or a host of others quick and simple wallets.

-Dave

average joe does not have time or patience to spend time to validate the website they look at manually. and well most websites in crypto are proxy protected and such so people cant really see any thing that can be considered real or true verification of website ownership anyway

but say they trust the website.. then they dont have the patience to validate the gpg sig then validate the hash in the sig matches the file hash of the downloaded exe file
nor do they have the basic knowledge to know they could/should do that

heck there used to be internet safety advice for people that do online banking to look at the web address of the bank and make sure its not a redirect to a similar sounding website

however people in the UK trust bank names like barclays,hsbc,natwest or halifax
so when they go to halifax website. and then click login. instead of being just brand followed by .co.uk it changes to halifax-online

yes thats the official site but halifax did not stick to the rules of using its actual known brand website domain. and thus some could think its phishy

people then end up having to trust web browser extensions that officiate websites with little green padlocks and ticks that suggest its official or end up using malware/antivirus software and such

take a look at the google play and apple store site, where they dont just list apps but have become certifiers and validators of the apps.
.. because.. average joe cant, dont want, dont have time [insert excuse] to independently verify
and malicious people play on the naivety of others

i'm a bit skeptical of FTX and any motives they might have since they been in the news with this Voyager scandal: https://cryptobriefing.com/voyager-says-ftxs-buyout-offer-was-misleading-low-ball-bid-sbf-fires-back/

so it's certainly sad that they are involved with bitcoin develpment in anyway.

yeah that always seemed fishy to me how they invented this vbyte imaginary way of determining a transaction's "weight".

i never hear or see people saying how great segwit addresses are because they are saving them so much money...segwit addresses are more confusing and less people understand how they are generated. bech32 addresses even had an error detection bug so they had to invent a new bech32m. such ugliness.


just another example of something that wasn't needed but got shoehorned into bitcoin by powerful interests?


when people do that, they should threaten to remove the upgrade. that would be an interesting occurence to see some BIP that got activated, become deactivated later on down the line.

sounds like bitcoin got under the control of some bad situation. >:(


The reason bitcoin core people dont get hacked is they are technically inclined and they do check hashes and signatures of the stuff they download. Especially bitcoin core. But people that download electrum are probably more numerous and don't check sigs. Not as large a percentage of them anyway. Signature checking is a bit of a pain in the ass anyway. If they could make it quicker it might help but that's another story. But that's why you hear more stories about people downloading a hacked version of Electrum and poof their money is gone.

yep everyone is screaming that bitcoin fes are too high.. and so core are now pushing people to stop using bitcoin transactions and use other networks as the solution(to a problem THEY caused)

look at the latest funny..
.. they make taproot and pretend "no one can tell its a taproot because it looks like a standard segwit"

standard segwit bc1q
taproot             bc1p
i did laugh

but as for standard segwit
people that want to prove they own an address..after 4 years of segwit use(it wasnt really in used until 2018 due to lack of majority of wallets supporting it (something that should have been in place pre activation in normal pre-core consensus to have majority ready, to then allow an activation)

anyway. 4 years later people cannot "sign/verify a message" using core gui and segwit the same way people can with legacy..
yep segwit is not a finalised feature. all they cared about was activating it to get their gateway bridges to offramp people to other networks.

taproot is also unfinished also cant sign/verify message in core gui. and yet the main dev coder of taproot and segwit (sipa) has stepped aside too.
seems they dont care about actual features people want, nor ensuring features actually fully work(well they did see it doesnt work. but its not on the top of the list to bother with finishing).. yep the so called "other dev" reviewers never bothered to tap the privilieged devs on the shoulder to tell them to finish their job. nor did they even themselves independently finish it for sipa.. they just let him do the small bit he was sponsored to do and not worry beyond that, because they trust sipa done a good job and nothing was needed beyond whatever sipa chose to do

so sipa just done the minimal he could to push in just the things they were sponsored to push through, letting his sponsprs PR team hype it up, oversell its utility, over promise what it will give to other users..  without thinking about the wider communities actual user experience of using a feature they publicised soo much about.. .

one last subtle funny
sipa's own website which show bitcoin stats ..
https://bitcoin.sipa.be/
 asks for donations..(scroll to bottom, on the right) to a legacy address not a segwit address. (he does not use his own sponsored invention address format)