the way i see it
on this forum, wher outsiders have already heard something about bitcoin to have come here.. have come here because they have already heard something about bitcoin.

they do not need to hear the utopian fluffy pony advert style stuff of dreams and hopes. they want to know the REAL pro's AND cons.
those that just want to use this forum as a fluffy pony utopia of positive promotion need to realise that the promotion is not needed. people have already received the promotion to even be reading this forum.

they want the more open and actual details of good and bad. so that they can independently know the possibilities and the risks

i call myself a maximalist. i am not interested in the altcoins and other networks. but i am a realist. its far better to get people who really want to use bitcoin for bitcoins real uses. than just to shout at shep to run towards the bitcoin field so that the wolves can run out the field with their mouths full

its actually very transparent who the developers are. if you know how to research properly.
P..S
satoshi was NEVER a "bitcoin core developer" so his identity is not a question for this topic. and his involvement is not a current even. he has not done anything since late 2010 so not important or relevant to todays code concerns

bitcoin as a currency/value is decentralsied and distributed. and no one has control of the value/currency as everyone can and should hold the private keys to the currency/value.(apart from those who choose to use custodian services such as exchanges)

as for the code/protocol/software. well thats when things get greyer

bitcoin core defines itself as the CORE of bitcoin. they define themself as the reference client and the main resource to go to, and propose changes/upgrades. they have a plan. which they call their "roadmap"

many people hate the idea that core has this power. but mostly those that try to deny the existance of the power are the ones who actually defend core development to continue with their practices/methods and hope opposers (to core centralisation) just go away

though this does not mean core are fund custodians or have control of individuals funds. they are the main guys of the software/network evolution.

explaining it in simple terms. bitcoin core is to bitcoin. what microsoft is to .docx
they control the format and software. other software can exist but mainly they can only limit themselves to the features allowed that the main software have allowed

but no software provider controls the value/data that people use which gets stored decentrally on peoples computer

seems wind fury is now ignoring googles search results of bitcoin core devs, and now only wants to discuss WIKI

maybe what windfury needs to do is check wiki and realise people edited wiki to include those names. and should maybe get a wiki mod to edit the wiki.
(usually anyone can edit wiki, but as with everything.. even core. you find getting an edit actually published is easier if you kiss  a moderators ass) im sure he knows how to proceed with this

crisis began in 2007. ..
it wasnt until 2008-9 before it got concluded with bailouts

i remember in 2007 that bad things were happening. so dont try alluding that the crisis didnt happen until 2008-9
might help if you done research that there were financial issues in 2007. in regards to how banks were over creating 'bad money'
hint: sub prime loans

also satoshi's actual client was on sourceforge.. it was gavin that used github and everything continued from that.
the version gavin had on github in 2010 was different than satoshi's

but hey, if you ask trump  he will say russia and china had something to do with it because google told him

they are
if trump is obsessed with mentioning russia and china. then search results will point to what russia and china re doing.
there are hundreds of countries.
i search for things like hawaii.
so when i search "national emergency". i DONT get results about russia / china. my top result was the text alert thing that happened in hawaii awhile ago that was alerting people to a missile alert.

but i can guarantee trump gets stuff about mexico russia and china. and probably never gets anything about germany, italy or other countries he doesnt think about

untrue
1. FIAT: america 300m+ users.. china 1billion+.. yet the world follows the dollar
2. best store of value is more about utility. if people cant use it within the main network due to fee's. they will play around in other networks and then if they want to return to a blockchain network they will find the cheapest,fastest network that does the same things as bitcoin.. EG litecoin is probably going to be peoples exit out of LN
much like silver and copper coins were the exit out of banking even though before entering banks they held gold.

i know you will utopia that people will return to bitcoin network, but outside of your echo chamber. real people try to find the cheapest best options. and if bitcoins network cant give them what they want they will find other networks.

hense why instead of pushing to remove bitcoin utility and HOPE the Store of Value remains. your missing the point of what gives it the value. (VALUE not price). as decreasing VALUE leads to effecting the price

i do love how you think its a one person opinion.
i do love how you wish to protect the centralised "reference" implementation team by pretending its just me that opposes

you can play all your games you like. but you still miss the big picture
you can play all the games you like but you end up just highlighting the problem. that you think that devs should not listen to the community

i done the same search and i got names like greg maxwell luke dashir chrisdecker

funny part is
google takes a search key word and searches for results based on user preferences.

EG as a true bitcoiner if i search for "miners" my results come up with ASICS
a gold merchant or a coal worker would result in things related to excavators, sluice machines and quarries

we all know windfury loves his roger ver drama. so ofcourse FOR WINDFURY thats the results windfury would get

so it seems that windfury has the wrong results because windfury has in the past been told stories to only look at and discuss social drama of non-important people, and built up HIS OWN search preference thats not the truth.

windfury basically has been led down the wrong path.

but i do laugh whenever i mention a real bitcoin dev.. him and his buddies come running into a topic to meander the topic to attempt get me not to talk about the real devs and real issues. and instead to meander it into social drama about non dev stuff

so in short. google is proving to windfury that he is in an echo chamber of dont mention real devs and try to make people think about non-dev social drama.
windfury google is showing you your falling for your own buddies trick by leading YOU down the wrong path based on your own wrong path search history/preferences

emphasis
google is not broke.
YOUR. yes YOUR search preferences is the thing that is broke

"trust minimalized"

lol im laughing

i think more people really need to actually research LN. its getting obvious who has actually used it and who is just repeating the propaganda promotion material

october 2013 hype triggered by new asics compared to GPU
which caused a change in the mining:market dynamics of cheapest way to get bitcoin.. but it over inflated and bubbled due to the FOMO speculation

november 2017 hype triggered by VC's being satisfied segwit was activated by deadline
which caused buy up by VC's... but it over inflated and bubbled due to the FOMO speculation

if all you care about is promoting something to death purely to cause a hype bubble. just realise one thing...
they only last a couple days-weeks-months before correction

so dont waste years promoting another network just for the hope of a 2 week-month price movement

alot of people use to think (some still foolishly do) that slush,f2pool and antpool, were all "china"

f2pool is a server with users worldwide, so althought the server may be on a chinse registered domain. the asics are world wide
slush is a server with users worldwide, and the server is managed in thailand with the asics are world wide
antpool, tagged as china, but blockdata reveals several farms. company reveal facilities in iceland georgia san fran and mongolia

so if you read any racist propaganda about "china", just treat it as the usual 'fox news' type of racism

1. proof of key - be your own bank....   LN = not your own bank but need to ask someone else to be online and permit the transaction.. LEARN CO-SIGNED addresses .. they are called multisig for a reason
thats not sole party....
then get out of 2016, learn LN 2018. learn factories and then realise that 2nd party has flaws. and so now they are doing 3rd party(factory)
atleast keep yourself uptodate

2. using the "every transactions of the world" argument.
i laugh
im a huge bitcoiner and i havnt needed to touch my FIAT ATM card much since 2012. most my bills are paid using btc direct.
but guess what i dont need to make every product/item i buy appear as a bitcoin transaction even when paying btc

i do laugh at the excuse to push people off the bitcoin network and lock up their funds as the "cant buy coffee"
funnily i can buy coffee and without using my FIAT visa card, by spending my btc without LN and without spamming the network with every spoon of sugar and every drop of milk

and to add to that bitcoin will not be a "one world currency for everyone"
which is th other lame excuse to push people off bitcoin by saying that bitcoin wont work for 7 billion peoples every tin of baked beans so lets not make it work for rational spending of less people

so pull your excuses that bitcoin cant work out ur ass and actually start thinking it doesnt need to perform a transaction per tin of baked beans. instead people just pay for a week of groceries as 1tx
EG if you put 50 items into a grocery shopping cart. and go to the grocery cashier desk...
you dont then make 50 hand-over payments of dimes/pennies per item
you dont then have 50 items on your Visa card statement.

instead you make 1 handover of banknotes
it just shows as a single payment on your visa statement

if i want starbucks i dont need to:
preplan spending habits of 2weeks-2months
lock funds up for 2weeks-2 months with a co-signing partner
hope the co-signing partner is online when i am at starbucks
hope the co-signing partner has funds in his other channel to route on
hope the co-signing partners.. partner is online
hope the co-signing partners.. partner has funds to route on
split funds into multiple channels if a co-signer/routes multiple co-signers cause issues

no wonder the 'fundementals' are becoming weaker
people are over promising and over promoting OTHER NETWORKS as the solution. while trying to say bitcoin cant do x/y/x by over exaggerating rational use

even if every address input and output was segwit. it would still be around 2mb
(what devs are not saying loudly, is they want/need the other ~2mb spare average so that they can fit in future bloat features into the weight.. such as confidential payment codes)
but forget weight what really actually matters is transactions per day

what really needs to be pushed is transactions per day ON the bitcoin network.
Visa statistics has people only doing 42~ tx a month = 1.5~ a day.

things like LN are for the NICHE of spammers that want to do more then that. but for average joe who only spend infrequently LN is more hassle than help.
having a ~600k a day implied limit thats been around since a 9 years ago. and no real innovation to allow that limit to expand in 9 years.. has been the big debate for many years.

these 'tweaks' and new tx formats have pushed up the bloat per TX (leading to less lean transactions)
these 'tweaks' and new tx formats have just been a plan to push people off network
all with the false/myths that bitcoin and blockchain will fail to deliver

as for the link indicating segwit is at 50%. its not
some of those spent UTXO's classed as segwit are actually legacy

"A transaction that spends one or more SegWit outputs is considered a SegWit-transaction"
meaning
"A transaction that spends one or more legacy outputs is considered a legacy-transaction" too
yet thats not how the stats rightfully show

its not showing how many segwit outputs. its showing how many transactions that they biasedly describe as a segwit simply because 1 spent UTXO is segwit

....
lets put it into prospective
Bech32: https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/bech32-statistics?panelId=3&fullscreen&orgId=1  (130k)
P2Wsh: https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/p2wsh-statistics?panelId=3&fullscreen&orgId=1 (32k)
P2wpk: https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/p2wpkh-statistics?panelId=3&fullscreen&orgId=1 (100k)

p2sh: https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/p2sh-statistics?panelId=3&fullscreen&orgId=1 (6.1M)
p2pkh: https://p2sh.info/dashboard/db/pay-to-pubkey-hash-statistics?panelId=3&fullscreen&orgId=1 (42M)

as you can see not many actual addresses are actually segwit based compared to legacy

and going by the all time average of 52m UTXO.. its not even 1% adoption let alone 50%

no wonder the 'fundementals' are becoming weaker
people are over promising and over promoting

you dont need a treasury or a central budget
that was the failing of the first foundation.

what you need is a bounty board
where people who want something can list what they want and announce a bounty they will pay
and a kickstarter board
where people willing to do projects can list what they can do and have a kickstarter.

bounties just need to show proof of being capable of funding it (sign a utxo of funds they have) or even escrow funds

kick starters just need to show proof of talent by being able to prove who they are and show a portfolio of projects they already completed and payments only made at set progress points

....
having a central treasury directorship is not decentralised
nor is having a central dev team that end up deciding all decisions

but having just a resource to get independant people to connect and communicate and find eachother to innovate is what a foundations should be.
not in one team or one repo or one mailing list/irc
but where teams can form and make different repos, different implementations. that offer different features for the same network

where there is a simple agreement. dont call each different team an altcoin that has to use another network. but just a diverse separation of teams on the same bitcoin network with no leader/dictator/director

define middlemen
define someone with co-control of funds
they are not just a peer

EG banks
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control

EG LN lock
an agreement to open a account of co-signed control


so now your saying a bank is your peer, they can disagree with your intention to make a payment
they can choose their opening times. they can choose the limits of how much funds can be passed

yes you can close your account and open an account with another peer(bank)

i really do laugh when people try to deny another party is involved by saying 'but they are not a third party'
having anyone else involved and has partial or even main control means your not in 100% control

and if that other party has more control access of multiple users (hub/factory) then ask yourself
       y
       ^
       v
x<>o<>z

if you are X
what is o
2nd or 3rd party
peer or middleman

oh and if you think that users will be permanently online with a merchant:
all day for the purpose of one coffee a day
all day everyday for the purpose of buying groceries once a week
all day every day every week for the purpose of making one mortgage/rent payment a month

just to be tagged as 'second party' to avoid the meaningless tag of '3rd party'
you would be sadly mistaken

but trying to twist 3rd, into 2nd, into peer is more funny

why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though devs are happy to admit it
why are you so afraid to admit LN is a separate network even though literally N of LN spells it out
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract
why are you so afraid admit to funds get locked into a contract of co-party control

why deny co-party control
why not just call it what it is and actually if you want to promote it to death. promote it for its reality. not its uptopia

a topic of bitcoin fundamentals.... and many end up just talking about price.................

maybe its not the fundamentals that are weaker or stronger

but the PEOPLES understanding of what a fundamental of bitcoin is, that is weaker

EG
was:
    a currency choice to escape from fiat
now:
   a currency choice to use for a bit and then escape back to fiat with more fiat

though i was only addressing his arrows were in the wrong direction....

to address your point.
things have been done.

if bitcoin was mined using CPU at todays 42exahash. would requires near a TRILLION of PC's(exawatts a year)

ASICS are a million times less electric at todats 42exahashs which requires only a few million asics(terrawatts a year)
PC 0.025mhash/j
asic 25,000mhash/j

it also must be mentiond just 3 months ago. the main ASIC was
10,000mhash/j
this weeks new asics are 25,000mhash/j which is 2.5 BETTER at handling electric per hash. without the hashrate of the network being much different that 3 months ago.. thus electric usage has dropped 2.5x since last autumn

most ASIC farms are attached to power lines that hydro electric is the main producer

infact right now if you really want to beleive the false story of china 50% mining.. lets just step into that delusion

1. china produce over 6000TW a year.
2. china consume over 5000TW a year. (before accounting for mining)
3. 100% of bitcoin mining is ~40TW a year.
4. 20TW a year is not even 1% of the EXCESS (difference between 5k-6k) that just goes to waste, unused/unpaid
5. china love it when people are help pay/use the EXCESS (difference between 5k-6k)

as for the processes
mining -> tokenisation
you might want to within a wider "bitcoin network" box. have the elements like propogation consensus application be apart enough that you can arrow the flow

                                                                                        -onion(tor)                 \
application-> semantics->mining ->application->propagation-internet                     > application->consensus->tokenisation
                                                                                         -satalite(blockstream) /


and also how you worded consensus and worded semantics need be tweaked

semantic protocol
a specification of how new blocks and transactions must be formatted and relate to previous blocks and transactions to be able to be verified to meet consensus

consensus
a function of general agreement that anyone can use to determine which of the multiple candidate ledgers meets all the protocol rules to become the publicly visible ledger