Segregated Witness has been merged!

[btcxyzzz]

Blockstream does not "basically represent core". That is a common misunderstanding spread by r/btc FUDers.

How so? By comparison of these two pages: https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ and https://www.blockstream.com/team/ I found that 4 people work for both companies. That's dangerously high and implicating number. And that's what's shown, I believe there are more to know about happening behind the curtains.

Also, do you know about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/     That's THE most important thing you should all know about Bitcoin, in political sense.

[1714670520]

1714670520

[1714670520]

1714670520

[1714670520]

1714670520

[1714670520]

1714670520

[achow101]

Blockstream does not "basically represent core". That is a common misunderstanding spread by r/btc FUDers.

How so? By comparison of these two pages: https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ and https://www.blockstream.com/team/ I found that 4 people work for both companies. That's dangerously high and implicating number. And that's what's shown, I believe there are more to know about happening behind the curtains.

Also, do you know about this: https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/     That's THE most important thing you should all know about Bitcoin, in political sense.

That is four people out of 17 primary contributors, not to mention that there are hundreds of other people who occasionally contribute. However, only one of those 4 has commit access, and none of those 4 are project maintainers. Since those 4 are not part of the project leadership (not maintainers), they cannot be considered to "basically represent core", they can't decide the direction that Core goes in and they can't force any changes to Core that other contributors are against.

[Quickseller]

introducing additional features into Bitcoin that are increasingly complex

What do you think is increasingly complex? I think segwit makes Bitcoin simpler and safer. (though because the old things are still supported you can say there is some increase, but it seems pretty modest considering the simplicity it brings to people who are only using segwit and the number of problems it solves)

SegWit stores/broadcasts signature data separately from transaction data. Prior to SegWit, all of this was stored together, and I see this as two things that can potentially go wrong verses one thing that could potentially go wrong. If someone who is not using SegWit sends a transaction then the signature data will be stored along with the transaction data, adding to where fully validating nodes need to check when checking if a transaction (and block) is valid or not.

I also believe that many (maybe all) of the BIPs that have been implemented in the last medium term were implemented in order to allow for LN to be possible, including SegWit. (Yes some of the BIPs do solve other issues and are overall beneficial to Bitcoin). Based on my understanding of LN (from reading the white paper), I believe LN to be horribly complex because of the number of transactions that need to be signed in a very specific order by each party whenever one party sends BTC to another party via LN. I believe this complexity will result in wallets like electrum, multibit and armory to have bugs in them that go undetected that can result in the loss of funds by users.

[Carlton Banks]

introducing additional features into Bitcoin that are increasingly complex

What do you think is increasingly complex? I think segwit makes Bitcoin simpler and safer. (though because the old things are still supported you can say there is some increase, but it seems pretty modest considering the simplicity it brings to people who are only using segwit and the number of problems it solves)

SegWit stores/broadcasts signature data separately from transaction data. Prior to SegWit, all of this was stored together, and I see this as two things that can potentially go wrong verses one thing that could potentially go wrong. If someone who is not using SegWit sends a transaction then the signature data will be stored along with the transaction data, adding to where fully validating nodes need to check when checking if a transaction (and block) is valid or not.

I also believe that many (maybe all) of the BIPs that have been implemented in the last medium term were implemented in order to allow for LN to be possible, including SegWit. (Yes some of the BIPs do solve other issues and are overall beneficial to Bitcoin). Based on my understanding of LN (from reading the white paper), I believe LN to be horribly complex because of the number of transactions that need to be signed in a very specific order by each party whenever one party sends BTC to another party via LN. I believe this complexity will result in wallets like electrum, multibit and armory to have bugs in them that go undetected that can result in the loss of funds by users.

Are you some kind of clairvoyant? You appear to be having troubling "visions" about Segwit/LN, based on your perceived complexity of these solutions, informed by your feelings.


If complexity were an issue in it's own right, Bitcoin 0.1 would never have got off the ground, the system has been complex from the start, and it needed to be to solve the problem Satoshi set out to solve.


You're trying to talk to a world-expert on Bitcoin about the way these changes affect your emotions. Don't be surprised if no-one cares.

[tspacepilot]

Are you some kind of clairvoyant? You appear to be having troubling "visions" about Segwit/LN, based on your perceived complexity of these solutions, informed by your feelings.

If complexity were an issue in it's own right, Bitcoin 0.1 would never have got off the ground, the system has been complex from the start, and it needed to be to solve the problem Satoshi set out to solve.

You're trying to talk to a world-expert on Bitcoin about the way these changes affect your emotions. Don't be surprised if no-one cares.

It's his MO.  He uses this kinda prose to push people around all the time in the escrow and loan world of this forum.  It's kinda funny to see him try this shit in a technical discussion though.  Cute.

[yayayo]

This is great news! With segregated witness and lightning networks, Bitcoin will be well prepared to meet future increases in adoption. Core team did an outstanding job and found intelligent solutions for scaling Bitcoin and at the same time increasing network security and efficiency.

The big-blocks-at-all-costs FUD-campaigners have been proven wrong with their doomsday predictions of the Bitcoin network failing after approaching full block capacity. After Segwit and LN are operational, these people will look even more ridiculous with their constant alarmist campaigning against Core.

It's highly encouraging that Core developers persisted in implementing a sustainable and decentralized solution despite the imputations and lies thrown at them by the proponents of a Bitcoin exposed to governmental control.

ya.ya.yo!

[hv_]

This is great news! With segregated witness and lightning networks, Bitcoin will be well prepared to meet future increases in adoption. Core team did an outstanding job and found intelligent solutions for scaling Bitcoin and at the same time increasing network security and efficiency.

The big-blocks-at-all-costs FUD-campaigners have been proven wrong with their doomsday predictions of the Bitcoin network failing after approaching full block capacity. After Segwit and LN are operational, these people will look even more ridiculous with their constant alarmist campaigning against Core.

It's highly encouraging that Core developers persisted in implementing a sustainable and decentralized solution despite the imputations and lies thrown at them by the proponents of a Bitcoin exposed to governmental control.

ya.ya.yo!

Hoping all the best.