COUPLE.. seems you answered your own question
however more of the BScartel were 'invited' but declined to get involved
(google can help you, as you have learned when answering your own question)
you may think gavin is not part of the BScartel due to him leaving core and going with XT/Classic in 2013-2014
yet that was just more social drama distractions to point fingers at XT/clasic while blockstream and Barry silbert(dcg) took the reaigns of core
check out DCG.io/portfolio   BLOQ.. then look at who is in bloq


and to everyone else.
here is another kicker of why CW is not satoshi
CW explanation of why he chose "satoshi nakamoto"
https://youtu.be/v1_gxvx_QGo?t=1h5m31s
'i have a single mother and one of the guys that helped raise me was japanese'
and then went on to waffle about some 17th century philosopher
..
but the real answer is
in 2006 the entity that created bitcoin was entertained by other game theories of decentralisation and anonymity, puzzles, cryptography and other things
there was a game which was part of perplex city. which part of it was 'finding satoshi' which had a prize.

(no the perplex city 'satoshi' in the game guy is not bitcoin inventor)
and thats where bitcoins inventor got inspired by the name and used it, much like people now have the word bitcoin as their twitter handle even if they were not around in 2009.. they just like the name of something they find interesting.

fixed timeline for ya
remember CW whistleblew on himself while he made his australian exit, then had the dev 'proof' meetup in the uk after
then had it all put on delay 'hush hush' NDA till specific date which coincided with a couple 'round tables' . even the 2017 'roundtable' tried to re-raise the CW social drama

whenever the name CW pops up.. dont take notice of it.. instead try to look in the other direction and find what is NOT being talked about such as why is no one talking about the consensus 2017 details of may2017, money 20/20 and even london fintech week happening right now..

oh wait.. because talking about CW is so much more important right (sarcasm)

check out the "satoshi roundtable big news" at the start of the year from the media owned by BScartel
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-new-satoshi-nakamoto-rumors/
(title says it all)

lol

segwit2x = barry silbert

barry silbert = blockstream puppet master. all barry wants is segwit activated ASAP, all spam+propaganda leads back to barry even the tx spam that started when core bips "needed" to be pushed,

check out the mempool spam accelerate in october-november 2016.. oh and a spike around the june '16 period the other core bip needed some attention..

and if you dont think that barry is a puppetmaster. go check out his portfolio of companies he has OWNERSHIP stake in
http://dcg.co/portfolio/
blockstream
coinbase
BTCC
bloq


people can point fingers in different directions all they like, but if you follow the money and drama, its clear to see the strings

nice try pereira4, but next time you and billy really should stop trying to grasp empty staws from reddit and do some real research

in short core is not promising to copy the 2mb base within months of segwit.. thus expect big issues in regards to the 2mb event 3 months after segwit, due to lack of node support.
(expect major orphan drama)
hey gmax, how about re-implement a new fee priority formulae and stop this mindless 'just pay more' mantra

for those without a QR code reader

1231154114454330 0391279044894345 0556266374112278 8696551050230412 1229246084358588

nano s website says: temporary passphrase. (max100 characters)


well it depends how long you made your temporary passphrase and if its just alphabetic, or a mix

if its just lowercase alphabetic and only 3 characters long.
found within 78 attempts

the longer and more complex. the longer it takes

ive read it ages ago, i have also seen many many many many more attack vectors.

as for todds OLD 'fix' of requiring pools to add a few tx's to a block has his way of thinking it proves pools 'validate' blocks is false hope of trust/belief.

a pool can easily fool this 'fix' of belief of validating.. simply with a template of a block where they, on many blocks ahead of time know which tx's are not already confirmed, to know what to add to meet the threshold...
this is done by a pool not broadcasting unconfirmed tx's to the network but only build blocks with new unspents from their own stash of coins. spending them to themselves. thus then having extra tx's in a block to fool the "we validate because we have tx's" test. but. totally missing the actual flaw of 'empty block(validationless) mining

i have already stated ever since segwit is a thing that there are issues.
even their tier network cludge doesnt solve it
even their dns seed changes and filter/stripping and other things doesnt solve it
even killing off non segwit nodes and pools does not solve it.

the only way to truly prove that a segwit tx was added to a block and that its validated and wont cause issues in the cludgy tier network is to do away with the 2 merkle (1*b, 3*w) block inside a block and just go straight for a single blockspace where segwit and legacy tx's sit side by side fully serialised and in full. and where the entire network is ready to validate the full data

meaning a hard fork to a proper 4mb blocksize

that way the spv and 'backward compatible' nodes are not having to rely/trust that the stripped block they get has been fully validated first then stripped second.. because the blocks would be full and the full nodes would have upgraded to properly validate a serialised block. rather than pushing around stripped/filtered base blocks that are 'presumed' valid.

my point though is that the 2017 'sgwit is utopia' bubble is being burst and people are admitting it has issues

lol
that ACK was from 2015.. before a line of code for segwit on bitcoin was actually wrote.
yep peter todd loved segwit before it was wrote but is now saying it has flaws..

seems it took 2 years for the sheep to wake up and stop promoting things before code was actually available. because later they retract their promoting once they see the code.
atleast they are open to now point out the flaws and stop shouting utopia

the reality people need to realise is
FIAT spenders use debit cards 40 times a month on average, but because bitcoin is not acceptable in every retailer
the average spender only uses bitcoin once a week/once a year.(5 a month)  based on person-merchant

the only real niche LN has is the faucet raiders and exchange day traders that will want to arbitrage daily. (average 10 a day)

knowing people cannot predict spending habits beyond a couple weeks and wont risk locking entire hoards into year/eternity long channels. the reality is channels will only get funded with pocket money amounts and for only a couple weeks lock periods.

these things limit the available funding for route hopping to occur

---

LN is not.. and i emphasise this.. is not about the funds of [A-B] $120 actually moving out of the channel. LN is about having 'pockets' of funds that 2 parties share. and they have a couple pockets dedicated to share

think of it like a 3 legged race where the legs are tied together with a fanny/bumbag. where the money stays in the fanny/bumbag. but who owes what % of whats inside the fanny/bumbag is agreed by the 2 people tied to it.

so get 5 people and play a game


EG
[A-B]    [B-C]     [C-D]      [D-E]
imagine BCD only trust $60 for 2 weeks
A need to deposit $60 (1 channel with B of $60)
B need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with A and C)
C need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with B and D)
D need to deposit $120 (2 channels of $60 with C and E)
E need to deposit $60 (1 channel with D of $60)
[$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60]

now imagine if A wants to pay E $60
[$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$60-$60] then
[$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120][$0-$120] now finally after 4 hops E has $60 extra thanks to the 'routing'/hops

technically B, C, D still has $120 but its not spread over the channels
for instance B has $120
but has $120 in [A-B] but $0 in [B-C] channel

meaning if B wants to pay D.. B can no longer user the [B-C][C-D] route because B doesnt have funds to pay C to pay D.

instead B needs to go backwards through [A-B] because thats where B's funds are, so...
B needs to give A.. then A needs to find a completely new route or create a new channel that is funded and has a new route to E to get E to pay D. or B needs to set up a new channel to fun that has a new route to E.

.. it may seem complicated but its alot easier visually if you just get 5 friends and 3 fanny/bumbags and put $120 of monopoly money in each bag ($60) each person... and without physically taking the paper money out.. agreeing who owes what inside each bumbag and then finding the best chain of hops to fund the group..

and see how long the 'payments' last by making up scenarios of buying each other things.. you soon learn the limitations of LN
next time you are at a bitcoin meet-up.. try it with the other attendee's. as its a very helpful visual display

moving $10k a day from paypal to bank... then bank to other service(exchange) will raise a AML flag no matter if it was bitcoin or non bitcoin related

your best bet is a business bank account because personal bank accounts will definitely be super super critical over where the funds came from and where its going to.

even if you think that moving $9,500 a day is below the reporting threshold. banks have other policies such as regular 'undervalue' transfers happening frequently. meaning 1x $9500 a year=no report.. $9,500 every day= a report or flag WILL get raised and cause some bureaucracy nightmares

i say this because most banking issues is not really about "bitcoin" issues but about

1. personal bank accounts being used to move more than $500+ every day (unless you can prove your earning over ~$200k a year)
2. the physical shuffling of funds same day going in and out without having chance to even breathe/sit in the account
3. the main thing that actually causes issues was in fact 'localbitcoin.com' traders getting scammed via chargeback/bank reversals which gets accounts frozen

the code is not the same

btc1 includes increasing the base block.. something core refuse to include.

it also pressures the community to activate segwit sooner at a lower threshold which then rejects non segwit blocktemplate blocks to then get to the 95% to then activate the other bip
(80% activation causes a 20% reject/orphan of non segwit blocks, which then activates bip9's 95% activation)

here is the thing though.
pools can false flag the segwit activation to activate segwit without having to care about node counts of nodes actually having segwit code.. but the 2mb blocks part (3 months later) does require nodes to actually have code to accept blocks over 1mb. so code is needed BEFORE activation to start getting to a point where there will be sufficient node counts available to actually accept blocks over 1mb to not cause any orphan drama later

but core dont really care about if nodes(users) do or dont have code for segwit let alone 2mb.. all they care about is getting pools to activate it by any means

the stupid part is that people are false block flagging before actually running the actual code. which means its a false flag sybil activation. no pools or nodes should flag for something unless they are actually running the code to actually do what they are flagging.

even litecoin hasnt bothered much about segwit. even now the pools cant be arsed to even use segwit kypairs for their blockrewards.

but its better for the community to have the code first before activation so that there is no drama..

its worth people actually reading code and stop reading reddit

price crisis?

many people when the price spikes they cry it moved too high
many people when the price drops they cry it moved too low

learn to chill
if it goes to high sell a little at profit
if it goes to low buy a little at discount

stop thinking bubble or burst
stop thinking pump or dump

think profit(up) or discount(down)

bitcoins original ethos was a no barrier borderless currency for anyone and everyone.

but developers, stuck in their first world mindset have not thought beyond their snobby noses..
so things like taking AWAY fee control's and screaming "just pay more" has effectively turned bitcoin into something only the middle/upper classes would use.

they say using LN will be the solution for the third world unbanked, but those that only want to buy $2 (a weeks salary in some places) will face having to put funds into locked contracts with counterparty control and even managed by commercial hubs. making the point of bitcoin, pointless

look into schnorr too
it hides how many people are involved in a multisig and hides which signers signed. thus you may find what you thought was a 2-of-2 ends up being a 2-of-3 where the counter party has 2 keys and you only have 1

nope
best to store funds your worried about losing on private keys you control.
even if there is no network splitting altcoin creation, your still at risk of the "we been hacked" retirement plan which many exchanges have

luke JR is grasping onto straws
arguing about version numbers of 1.14.3 vs 0.14.1 is meaningless social drama. there was a 1.14.1 which was 'like-for-like' but then it had some alterations and now its 1.14.3 naturally. you cant change code but stay with 1.14.1. but to be honest due to a baseblock HF it should actually be x.15.x
maybe if core added in some segwit2x code to core's 0.14.3 (not released yet) and then.. (drum roll) make a 0.14.4 that has everything and more, core can then regain leadership of the minor version number then he cant cry and cause the social drama of version numbers because core is ahead.

as for testnet5 hmmm he needs to explain to himself why last year segNET first then established testnet second... instead of straight to testnet last year and why he prefers other implementations to start their own separate testnet first to prove its not a testnet killer before joining a established testnet. (arguing with himself will give himself the answer)
(hence im laughing that btc1 is doing exactly what he wanted last year)

i have to agree the sigop limit is stupid to increase. .. yes increase the blocksize but dont increase the txsigops
that said a raspberry Pi could handle more than that but dev's went anal by going ultra safe
devs now argue about using raspberry pi as the 'min specs' goal but fail to keep legacy txsigops and maxtxbytes low to make it workable.
its as if they want to cause quadratic sigop issues again just to cause drama. so strangely i see luke JR doing the right thing for once and asking to keep txsigops low.

then he rants about the 80% block activation.. yet its him that decided only pools should vote.. yep his idea back in late 2015 with his pool only shortcut(going soft) to avoid a full network of symbiotic pool and node consensus... only going for pool consensus was his own fault and why 95% would not have worked. due to his, at the time mindset that he was creating a shortcut which backfired.. yet he was ok with 95% but now strangely against 80%... (facepalm)

as for the bit4, well he was arguing for it as it helped dns seeds/nodes to identify different versions, aswell as arguing for different servicebits too..
but now grasping at straws...

strange that he thinks segwit2x will stall segwit.. lol actually it will cause segwit to activate sooner. but atleast luke is now admitting that segwit is cludgy
"As for the hardfork itself, it includes an 8 MB max block size limit (with the code obfuscated to make it look like 2 MB), a 160k max block sigop limit (obfuscated to look like 20k), and an 8M max block weight limit (ie, typical block size around 4 MB). To address the sighash scaling issue, a new 1 MB limit is imposed on each transaction’s non-witness data"

oh well luke does love his drama.
segwit2x and the NYA has nothing to do with bitmain. infact barry silbert pays lukes wage not bitmains.

3 channels per user
guaranteed routing
LOL

guess he hasnt done much of the "x degree's of separation" theory.
3degree's of separation requires 21 'hops' to cover 10billion people so that everyone can connect to everyone

now think about it 10billion people with 3 channels, thats 30billion funds onchain tx's needing to be broadcast ONCHAIN to open such channels
...
also each of those channels need to have sufficient funds to flip within the channel to fund the route
also each of those channels need to be online to sign funds. which not everyone will be online 24/7 to 'accept' the route

and ofcourse with each channel costs a 'payment fee' meaning if 1 wants to pay 10mill. he has to find the route and then make 21 payment fee's
relying on all 21 participants to remain online as they payment snowballs through the 21 channels

..

there is actually a niche for this... (once you put first world mindset to the side)

... yea like they think much about VODAFONE, yep vodafone manage mpesa
bitpay is basically going to be the vodafone credit(mpesa) rival


being your own banker is being eroded away due to the devs who removed the fee controls of bitcoin and just shouted "just pay more" slowing causing the only utility of bitcoin to be done via 2nd /third party mechanisms

spammers are always gonna spam
1. they will avoid using segwit transaction types and avoid using the LN side service.

2. segwit does not address spammers. it needs to stop letting 1tx have 100kb of space allowed. it needs to stop allowing more than a few thousand sigops per tx.(needs dropping lower than 4k (16k cludgy maths)

segwit is cludgy and doesnt fix the issues it promises. it stupidly HOPES malicious people will use segwit keypairs/ln.. yet psychologically spammers wont.

3. LN is not going to be useful as a 'throw all your hoard in' service or a 'lock your funds forever' service.. it will end up with channels opening and closing every fortnight on average holding just enough funds for them couple weeks average spending, which means that onchain blocks will still get filled, due to all the open/closing sessions

4. as for the utility of LN. it all depends on channel connections(routes) which is the game theory of "the 6 degree's of separation". this involves people having to have more than one 'channel' funded and accepted as a route on certain LN dns seeds.

do not accept LN as the ultimate solution of utopia. atleast research and understand its niche and limitations.. not just the reddit false adverts of utopia

in third world/developing countries they DO use windows phones.
also by having the whole payment/wallet/exchange to fiat under one roof is a service the third world developing countries need.
after all paying $2(40 hours min wage there) is impractical to use onchain tx's and having to then move funds around again to cash-in/out.

so there is actually a niche for this... (once you put first world mindset to the side)

but this niche is only created by them bs cartel removing fee controls onchain to make such side services like LN/coinbase/xapo preferable.
which is just re-inventing corporate bank control all over again requiring second party agreement/management