Post your SegWit questions here - open discussion - big week for Bitcoin!

[Yogafan00000]

Im just a simple Bitcoin user. Reddit and Github is not my world.....and not the world of thousands of Bitcoin users. Thats the point. Its just not good enough, to expect the current set-up of 3, 4, 5 ultra nerdy codey types, to tell us how Bitcoin goes forward. This is simply not sustainable.

So you want perfectly working, pure, unfuckupable Bitcoin for everyone, but you don't want hard work or responsibility or difficult decisions.

Let get a hotline to some hyper-intelligent aliens who can help us out.

[1714917107]

1714917107

[Carlton Banks]

I cant accept a 'group' of people who dont seem to be accountable to any one else, let alone themselves, are deciding between themselves what Bitcoin should be.

Remember the door you came through, to get your Bitcoins? Use it


The code speaks for itself, and there's nothing anyone can realistically do to ensure that every single iota of desision making is publicly observed, without destroying the privacy of the developers. If you don't like that, Bitcoin is not for you.

[stereotype]

Its just not good enough, to expect the current set-up of 3, 4, 5 ultra nerdy codey types, to tell us how Bitcoin goes forward. This is simply not sustainable.

But bitcoin is high technology which requires high level engineering. How would the average Jo ever have come up with what bitcoin has become so far, and then where to take it from here? Why dump the high technology now and treat it like a black box that should never have high level engineering applied to keep advancing it, only to have a few dials and buttons adjusted by users?

Bitcoin has created its own ecosystem. A system that includes, and was created, by many differing players/actors/interests. At some stage certain other users/players/actors/interests, will need to be accounted for......even Back and Maxwell's employer! An example i would cite in this context, is the fact that some Bitcoin organisations/companies are reporting that they are receiving complaints from simple Bitcoin users, that their tx's are taking too long to confirm. This has a resource hit on said companies, and also creates an experience that at the least, does not meet the users expectation of how cool Bitcoin is, or should be.
Are these users/players/actors/ interests accounted for within Core? Whats the official channel for doing so? Do they actively and professionally seek their concerns?  

Im watching a broken process that has not dealt with issue/s that were brought to the fore, years ago. The definition of dumb, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results.
Consensus and self-governance aint working, or really needs to be better defined. The current and exhaustive arguments are demonstrating to all and sundry, that this way of reaching agreements aint working for the broader good.
Do something different, before BU becomes a thing.  

[stereotype]

I cant accept a 'group' of people who dont seem to be accountable to any one else, let alone themselves, are deciding between themselves what Bitcoin should be.

Remember the door you came through, to get your Bitcoins? Use it


The code speaks for itself, and there's nothing anyone can realistically do to ensure that every single iota of desision making is publicly observed, without destroying the privacy of the developers. If you don't like that, Bitcoin is not for you.

Hey. Dont tell me whats good or not for me, OK? Thats exactly the point im making.......a tiny minority defining whats good for others.

STFU CB. 

[stereotype]

Im just a simple Bitcoin user. Reddit and Github is not my world.....and not the world of thousands of Bitcoin users. Thats the point. Its just not good enough, to expect the current set-up of 3, 4, 5 ultra nerdy codey types, to tell us how Bitcoin goes forward. This is simply not sustainable.

So you want perfectly working, pure, unfuckupable Bitcoin for everyone, but you don't want hard work or responsibility or difficult decisions.

Let get a hotline to some hyper-intelligent aliens who can help us out.

No idea what your point is. Did you understand mine?

[buwaytress]

Who does, represent Bitcoin Core?

No one really represents Core. The closest you could get to "who represents Core" I suppose would be everyone listed on https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ but any decision about what goes into Core is made by the entire group, plus a number of contributors not listed on that page.

What are Core, bound by?

Nothing really. There is no obligation for Core to do anything and nothing that requires them to do anything. There is a moral obligation for them to do "what is right for Bitcoin", but that is subjective.

Hi achow, always respect your answers and insight. If a number of contributors not listed also help decide what goes into Core, how is it that the Hong Kong agreement resulted in a "proposal" by contributors? Does this mean that contributors may have an avenue for opening ideas but a higher layer still calls the shots?

Where is there documentation on the leadership/direction of "Core". I (think I) understand that decentralisation means just that there is no such thing, but to my uninitiated mind, it seems more a (non-deliberate) lack of transparency rather than decentralisation.

Who got to choose who became "Core"? Were they self-appointed?

P.S. This thread has really picked up in the last week and that's been really good for learning for most people like myself.

[xyzzy099]

Adam Back is CEO of Blockstream, Greg Maxwell is CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream has $75 million in investment from DCG (Digital Currency Group). Obviously 95+% of Blockstream's intellectual capital is in bitcoin development. Adam Back designed his own crypto-currency (Hashcash) and is well-versed in the concepts of bitcoin. Maxwell is the leader of bitcoin core development, and he spearheaded Segwit development. Commit access to source code is an irrelevant metric of leadership.

Is there really any question who the leaders of Core are?

Your logic above, if I follow it correctly is:
  A) A company called Blockstream has a lot of VC funding
  B) Some of the employees of this company (e.g. Adam Back) know a lot about Bitcoin (how is this relevant?)
  C) One of the employees is the 'leader' of bitcoin core development (not true by any metric I know, although Greg is certainly a leading developer
  ... (skipped steps?)
  n) Therefore Blockstream 'controls' core development

There are literally dozens of companies in the Bitcoin space that have millions in VC investment. many who have received even more such than Blockstream.  ALL of them, I assure you, have employees that are either directly involved in, or working hard to influence, the development of Bitcoin.  And this includes all Bitcoin-related projects, including BU, Classic, XT, etc., not just Core.  ALL of them have developers that have real-life jobs, many in these VC-backed companies.

So what is special about Blockstream that allows them to force their vision on Bitcoin Core?  If VC capital is the metric that determines who has most influence, why do you think Blockstream - not the richest company in the space - has ALL of the influence?  In your theory, wouldn't influence be proportional to VC money received?

Greg is not the most prolific developer in the Core development team, and he has no control over what ultimately gets committed to the code, so in what sense is he the 'leader' of Core development?  I'm sure his exceptional expertise and ability to deliver actual working (not bug-ridden) code afford him a position of influence among his peers, but I don't think he has any kind of direct control over Core development other than that.

[achow101]

That would be Adam Back and Greg Maxwell.

Please explain in what way Adam Back has any say about anything that happens in Bitcoin Core. He is not a contributor, and AFAICT, never has been. He is not a member of the "team", he doesn't have commit privileges, he doesn't even participate in developer discussions on the IRC channels nor in the weekly developer meetings. So how, exactly, does Adam Back "lead" Bitcoin Core? If anything, I would say that the leader of Core is Wladimir as he is the release maintainer, usually the one who merges everything, chairs the weekly dev meetings, etc.

Hi achow, always respect your answers and insight. If a number of contributors not listed also help decide what goes into Core, how is it that the Hong Kong agreement resulted in a "proposal" by contributors? Does this mean that contributors may have an avenue for opening ideas but a higher layer still calls the shots?

Some contributors (not all, in fact, only 4 IIRC), were at the Hong Kong meeting and are the ones who made the proposal. Any individual can make a proposal, but that does not mean that everyone who works on the project frequently will think that it is a good idea and that everyone will agree to accept the proposal and implement it. There is no "higher up" but rather a group consensus decision.

Where is there documentation on the leadership/direction of "Core". I (think I) understand that decentralisation means just that there is no such thing, but to my uninitiated mind, it seems more a (non-deliberate) lack of transparency rather than decentralisation.

There isn't documentation really, and there really isn't a leadership structure. You can see who is considered a part of the "team" at https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ but the team does not included everyone who contributes, just those who do so fairly frequently. The leadership consists of the three maintainers as they are the ones who merge everything (and Sipa who has commit access but isn't a maintainer) and I suppose you could say Wladimir is the leader as he is the release maintainer.

Who got to choose who became "Core"? Were they self-appointed?

Basically. People who contribute to Core frequently became noticed by other contributors, and over time, became associated with "Core" as a "Core dev". The only people who were "appointed" were the three maintainers, and only because they were basically doing the position that they were given for a while before they were actually given the titile. E.g Wladimir was setting out release schedules, release TODOs, release notes, and making releases themselves for a while before Gavin officially gave him the title. Jonasschnelli was submitting wallet and GUI pulls and reviewing other wallet and GUI pulls for a long time and he basically became the final say on wallet and GUI related stuff for them to be merged or not until Wladimir eventually made him the wallet and GUI maintainer. The same thing happened with MarcoFalke for him to become the QA maintainer.

[classicsucks]

Adam Back is CEO of Blockstream, Greg Maxwell is CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream has $75 million in investment from DCG (Digital Currency Group). Obviously 95+% of Blockstream's intellectual capital is in bitcoin development. Adam Back designed his own crypto-currency (Hashcash) and is well-versed in the concepts of bitcoin. Maxwell is the leader of bitcoin core development, and he spearheaded Segwit development. Commit access to source code is an irrelevant metric of leadership.

Is there really any question who the leaders of Core are?

Your logic above, if I follow it correctly is:
  A) A company called Blockstream has a lot of VC funding
  B) Some of the employees of this company (e.g. Adam Back) know a lot about Bitcoin (how is this relevant?)
  C) One of the employees is the 'leader' of bitcoin core development (not true by any metric I know, although Greg is certainly a leading developer
  ... (skipped steps?)
  n) Therefore Blockstream 'controls' core development

I feel like I woke up on a planet other than Earth today.

I'm not sure why it would be good if Core has "no leaders"? And why you're making this argument? What do the terms CEO and CTO mean to you? Who writes the bitcoin core roadmap? Would someone really invest $75 million in a corporation that has no leadership? Is this what happens to your thinking if you spend too much time doing open source development?

If bitcoin core really does not have leaders, someone needs to step up immediately.

[achow101]

I feel like I woke up on a planet other than Earth today.

I'm not sure why it would be good if Core has "no leaders"? And why you're making this argument? What do the terms CEO and CTO mean to you? Who writes the bitcoin core roadmap? Would someone really invest $75 million in a corporation that has no leadership? Is this what happens to your thinking if you spend too much time doing open source development?

If bitcoin core really does not have leaders, someone needs to step up immediately.

Bitcoin Core is not a corporation, it does not have a CEO, it does not have a CTO, it does not have investors. Bitcoin Core is not a product of Blockstream. I don't see why you can't understand that Bitcoin Core is not a product of Blockstream and Blockstream's leadership does not have any say over what goes into Bitcoin Core.

[xyzzy099]

[
I feel like I woke up on a planet other than Earth today.

I'm not sure why it would be good if Core has "no leaders"? And why you're making this argument? What do the terms CEO and CTO mean to you? Who writes the bitcoin core roadmap? Would someone really invest $75 million in a corporation that has no leadership? Is this what happens to your thinking if you spend too much time doing open source development?

If bitcoin core really does not have leaders, someone needs to step up immediately.

No one is disputing that Adam Back and Greg Maxwell are leaders of Blockstream - but Blockstream and Bitcoin Core are two completely different entities - one is a private company, and one is an open source software project.  OSS projects frequently do not have a formal 'leadership' structure.

[classicsucks]

[
I feel like I woke up on a planet other than Earth today.

I'm not sure why it would be good if Core has "no leaders"? And why you're making this argument? What do the terms CEO and CTO mean to you? Who writes the bitcoin core roadmap? Would someone really invest $75 million in a corporation that has no leadership? Is this what happens to your thinking if you spend too much time doing open source development?

If bitcoin core really does not have leaders, someone needs to step up immediately.

No one is disputing that Adam Back and Greg Maxwell are leaders of Blockstream - but Blockstream and Bitcoin Core are two completely different entities - one is a private company, and one is an open source software project.  OSS projects frequently do not have a formal 'leadership' structure.

OK then if you're really that naive, you can choose to believe that... I see here a $20 billion market cap cryptocurrency financial network. You really think that NO ONE is controlling how this network's software is coded?  This is not some Richard Stallman GNU Hurd project. You don't see that Blockstream's agenda is served by Segwit?  You don't understand that Blockstream is positioned to profit handsomely if they can sell Lightning and second layer solutions?

And by the way, I'm sure there are people behind the scenes that exert more control than Maxwell and Back. Barry Silbert or somebody like that...  somebody who is making money and wants to continue doing so.

[xyzzy099]

OK then if you're really that naive, you can choose to believe that... I see here a $20 billion market cap cryptocurrency financial network. You really think that NO ONE is controlling how this network's software is coded?  This is not some Richard Stallman GNU Hurd project. You don't see that Blockstream's agenda is served by Segwit?  You don't understand that Blockstream is positioned to profit handsomely if they can sell Lightning and second layer solutions?

And by the way, I'm sure there are people behind the scenes that exert more control than Maxwell and Back. Barry Silbert or somebody like that...  somebody who is making money and wants to continue doing so.

     I asked you before, and I will ask now again:  What makes Blockstream so special that they were able to take over core development, and able to maintain absolute control over it, as you claim?  There are lots of big money players in the Bitcoin space, some considerably bigger than Blockstream, why are they not in control instead?  Why don't competing players team up and kick Blockstream's collective butt?  What is the mechanism by which Blockstream maintains this chokehold on core development, and is able to resist all other players?

     The answer is that what you have chosen to see purely as 'The Blockstream Agenda' is really the development agenda that is favored (or in any case. least objected to) by the majority of current core developers,  many (if not most) users, and a great number of the most respected and technically-knowledgeable individuals in the Bitcoin space.  Do you really think Andreas Antonopolous is controlled by Blockstream?  Nick Szabo is one of the fathers of the technology that became Bitcoin, and he also supports Segwit.  Do you think these guys are 'controlled' by Blockstream?  I'm not dropping names as an argument-from-authority here - just pointing out the obvious facts that Blockstream is not forcing segwit down the throats of Core - it is a very widely supported technology.

     There IS control over that $20B financial network.  It is controlled by the consensus of all current core developers, whatever company or interest they may represent.  ALL of them, I assure you, have their own agendas, and all of them work to support that agenda.  The end result is whatever political solution they can work out amongst each other, end of story.

     If the majority of core developers had instead decided that the best technical solution to increase TPS was 20G blocks, there would be a chorus of trolls on this forum claiming that Bitcoin Core was completely controlled by multimillionaire Roger Ver.  ANY PATH FORWARD AT ALL serves the interests of some players, and there will always be politicing by all sides.

[buwaytress]

Hi achow, always respect your answers and insight. If a number of contributors not listed also help decide what goes into Core, how is it that the Hong Kong agreement resulted in a "proposal" by contributors? Does this mean that contributors may have an avenue for opening ideas but a higher layer still calls the shots?

Some contributors (not all, in fact, only 4 IIRC), were at the Hong Kong meeting and are the ones who made the proposal. Any individual can make a proposal, but that does not mean that everyone who works on the project frequently will think that it is a good idea and that everyone will agree to accept the proposal and implement it. There is no "higher up" but rather a group consensus decision.

Where is there documentation on the leadership/direction of "Core". I (think I) understand that decentralisation means just that there is no such thing, but to my uninitiated mind, it seems more a (non-deliberate) lack of transparency rather than decentralisation.

There isn't documentation really, and there really isn't a leadership structure. You can see who is considered a part of the "team" at https://bitcoincore.org/en/team/ but the team does not included everyone who contributes, just those who do so fairly frequently. The leadership consists of the three maintainers as they are the ones who merge everything (and Sipa who has commit access but isn't a maintainer) and I suppose you could say Wladimir is the leader as he is the release maintainer.

Who got to choose who became "Core"? Were they self-appointed?

Basically. People who contribute to Core frequently became noticed by other contributors, and over time, became associated with "Core" as a "Core dev". The only people who were "appointed" were the three maintainers, and only because they were basically doing the position that they were given for a while before they were actually given the titile. E.g Wladimir was setting out release schedules, release TODOs, release notes, and making releases themselves for a while before Gavin officially gave him the title. Jonasschnelli was submitting wallet and GUI pulls and reviewing other wallet and GUI pulls for a long time and he basically became the final say on wallet and GUI related stuff for them to be merged or not until Wladimir eventually made him the wallet and GUI maintainer. The same thing happened with MarcoFalke for him to become the QA maintainer.

Thanks, as always, for taking the time to say it simply. It really is interesting to realise that a lot of what bitcoin is is done voluntarily - though of course one has to think it is paying dividends to the maintainers at least, as it sounds almost like a full-time job.

So I've more or less established the de facto "who are in charge", but do they have a succession plan? What happens if these three very important maintainers suddenly disappear or stop their work (let's not say death but disappearance, maybe like Nakamoto). Is there enough information and resource for someone else to pick things up? And must the devs achieve group consensus on succession?

[achow101]

Thanks, as always, for taking the time to say it simply. It really is interesting to realise that a lot of what bitcoin is is done voluntarily - though of course one has to think it is paying dividends to the maintainers at least, as it sounds almost like a full-time job.

AFAIK there are only two organizations that pay people full time to work on Bitcoin Core, MIT DCI and Chain Code Labs. MIT DCI funds Wladimir van Der Laan and Cory Fields to work on Core full time, and Chain Code Labs funds Alex Morcos, Suhas Daftuar, Matt Corallo, John Newberry, and Russell Yanofsky to work on Bitcoin Core. Everyone else works on it on their free time.

So I've more or less established the de facto "who are in charge", but do they have a succession plan? What happens if these three very important maintainers suddenly disappear or stop their work (let's not say death but disappearance, maybe like Nakamoto). Is there enough information and resource for someone else to pick things up? And must the devs achieve group consensus on succession?

AFAIK, there is no succession plan. If the 3 maintainers somehow just dropped off of the face of the Earth, Pieter Wuille could still merge things and add people to have commit access (I think). Really though, there are still many people experienced with Bitcoin Core and contributing to it that they can continue working on it and improving it pretty much at the same pace as before.

[classicsucks]

Your response makes sense, but I still think it's naive to believe that this "egalitarian" OSS model is actually running the show...

OK then if you're really that naive, you can choose to believe that... I see here a $20 billion market cap cryptocurrency financial network. You really think that NO ONE is controlling how this network's software is coded?  This is not some Richard Stallman GNU Hurd project. You don't see that Blockstream's agenda is served by Segwit?  You don't understand that Blockstream is positioned to profit handsomely if they can sell Lightning and second layer solutions?

And by the way, I'm sure there are people behind the scenes that exert more control than Maxwell and Back. Barry Silbert or somebody like that...  somebody who is making money and wants to continue doing so.

     I asked you before, and I will ask now again:  What makes Blockstream so special that they were able to take over core development, and able to maintain absolute control over it, as you claim?  There are lots of big money players in the Bitcoin space, some considerably bigger than Blockstream, why are they not in control instead?  Why don't competing players team up and kick Blockstream's collective butt?  What is the mechanism by which Blockstream maintains this chokehold on core development, and is able to resist all other players?

Probably Blockstream was in the right place at the right time? When you get a team of people together, they stick together.  While we're on the subject, I don't think Core has absolute control over bitcoin development anymore, now that Segwit is bombing and they have no contingency plan. And who are these "other players"? If you mean the BU team, they're obviously technically a bit below par. Where is it written that the bitcoin network has to constantly change and upgrade?

I asked you before, and you didn't answer: Who prepares the bitcoin core roadmap?

     The answer is that what you have chosen to see purely as 'The Blockstream Agenda' is really the development agenda that is favored (or in any case. least objected to) by the majority of current core developers,  many (if not most) users, and a great number of the most respected and technically-knowledgeable individuals in the Bitcoin space.  Do you really think Andreas Antonopolous is controlled by Blockstream?  Nick Szabo is one of the fathers of the technology that became Bitcoin, and he also supports Segwit.  Do you think these guys are 'controlled' by Blockstream?  I'm not dropping names as an argument-from-authority here - just pointing out the obvious facts that Blockstream is not forcing segwit down the throats of Core - it is a very widely supported technology.

     There IS control over that $20B financial network.  It is controlled by the consensus of all current core developers, whatever company or interest they may represent.  ALL of them, I assure you, have their own agendas, and all of them work to support that agenda.  The end result is whatever political solution they can work out amongst each other, end of story.

     If the majority of core developers had instead decided that the best technical solution to increase TPS was 20G blocks, there would be a chorus of trolls on this forum claiming that Bitcoin Core was completely controlled by multimillionaire Roger Ver.  ANY PATH FORWARD AT ALL serves the interests of some players, and there will always be politicing by all sides.

...and perhaps that's why there won't be anymore changes to the bitcoin network.

Segwit was a radical departure from the original bitcoin protocol. And now it's in the dustbin. If BU really tries to hard fork, they'll end up there too.

[xyzzy099]

Your response makes sense, but I still think it's naive to believe that this "egalitarian" OSS model is actually running the show...

There's nothing egalitarian about it.  I think meritocratic is a better description.

Probably Blockstream was in the right place at the right time? When you get a team of people together, they stick together.

I thought your whole thesis was that Blockstream was able to control core dev because $75B VC investment???  I pointed out that there are other companies in the Bitcoin space with more money, and ask why they are not in charge instead.  Now you change to "Blockstream was just in the right place at the right time"?  Doesn't sound like a successful formula for seizing and keeping control of a $20B dollar enterprise to me...  Is it not possible that core development is a meritocratic process where the best ideas vie for support among the developers?

While we're on the subject, I don't think Core has absolute control over bitcoin development anymore, now that Segwit is bombing and they have no contingency plan.

I would agree that core does not now and never has had 'absolute control' over Bitcoin development.  Anyone can git-clone the code and make any changes they want, as several other developer groups have done recently.  I think that your pronouncement of the death of segwit is definitely a little premature though

And who are these "other players"? If you mean the BU team, they're obviously technically a bit below par. Where is it written that the bitcoin network has to constantly change and upgrade?

"Other players" just means other "interest groups" (either within or outside of Bitcoin Core) who may or may not have different ideas about how Bitcoin development should proceed.  Could be other companies, or just other developers with different ideas.

I asked you before, and you didn't answer: Who prepares the bitcoin core roadmap?

I don't think anyone 'wears that hat' - my observation about how documents like that come to be is that someone who cares about the subject will write something preliminary up, and discussion will ensue on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, IRC, etc., changes will be made, then the group will ack/nack the final document.

...and perhaps that's why there won't be anymore changes to the bitcoin network.

Maybe.  You can actually make a good argument for why an 'immutable' Bitcoin might be a good idea.  Personally, I am not against that idea, but I think it might be premature at this point.  It would be nice to see at least a fix for malleability like segwit or something else get in before we lose the ability to agree on changes forever.

[classicsucks]

Thanks for the reasoned discussion.

Probably Blockstream was in the right place at the right time? When you get a team of people together, they stick together.

I thought your whole thesis was that Blockstream was able to control core dev because $75B VC investment???  I pointed out that there are other companies in the Bitcoin space with more money, and ask why they are not in charge instead.  Now you change to "Blockstream was just in the right place at the right time"?  Doesn't sound like a successful formula for seizing and keeping control of a $20B dollar enterprise to me...  Is it not possible that core development is a meritocratic process where the best ideas vie for support among the developers?

Well if Blockstream was in the right place at the right time, they hired Maxwell and Back, and $75 million fell from the sky because of that, wouldn't that make sense? Do you believe that abandoning Segwit and LN would ever be allowed by Blockstream investors? No, because that's the vision they were sold. Their $75 mil, Segwit and LN will go to the grave together.

Of course the devs can argue the merits of technical changes - they're devs! But, as we've seen, they have no clue when it comes to economics, politics, and Wall Street vs. China business dealings... and that's why we're here.

I asked you before, and you didn't answer: Who prepares the bitcoin core roadmap?

I don't think anyone 'wears that hat' - my observation about how documents like that come to be is that someone who cares about the subject will write something preliminary up, and discussion will ensue on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, IRC, etc., changes will be made, then the group will ack/nack the final document.

That's quite an "unseen hand"! I propose that it's Maxwell/Back with 80% certainty.

...and perhaps that's why there won't be anymore changes to the bitcoin network.

Maybe.  You can actually make a good argument for why an 'immutable' Bitcoin might be a good idea.  Personally, I am not against that idea, but I think it might be premature at this point.  It would be nice to see at least a fix for malleability like segwit or something else get in before we lose the ability to agree on changes forever.

We might be in a Nash Equilibrium here. In some ways that thought is comforting - no more drama!

[xyzzy099]

Well if Blockstream was in the right place at the right time, they hired Maxwell and Back, and $75 million fell from the sky because of that, wouldn't that make sense?

Again, I have to point out that there are bigger companies involved with Bitcoin - and nothing stopping a number of smaller competitors from teaming up either.  So why Blockstream?  Even if Blockstream was 'in the right place at the right time', wouldn't a bigger dog just run them off the block - I mean, assuming your thesis that money is what controls bitcoin core development is true?

Do you believe that abandoning Segwit and LN would ever be allowed by Blockstream investors? No, because that's the vision they were sold. Their $75 mil, Segwit and LN will go to the grave together.

Well, first off, lets try to dispel a myth.  Lightning is not a Blockstream product.  They do not stand to make any money in any way, as far as I can tell, from LN.  They have supported it, and even have one dev working on a version of LN, but I think the only way they can benefit from it will be the same way you and I will benefit from it - it will add utility to Bitcoin, spurring more use, thus driving Bitcoin value higher.

Blockstream's financial niche, I think (and I am not really a Blockstream expert btw), is side-chain-based products.  These will benefit from segwit, but certainly don't require it.  Lightning does not require segwit either.

I seriously doubt any VC group or investor would invest $75M on the vagaries of what may or not be adopted by an open-source software project.  I imagine they invested in vision and development talent that could make them money regardless of what comes out of Bitcoin politics.

I don't think anyone 'wears that hat' - my observation about how documents like that come to be is that someone who cares about the subject will write something preliminary up, and discussion will ensue on the bitcoin-dev mailing list, IRC, etc., changes will be made, then the group will ack/nack the final document.

That's quite an "unseen hand"! I propose that it's Maxwell/Back with 80% certainty.

All I can suggest is that you subscribe to the mailing list, or log into the IRC and watch it happen in real-time.

[coin@coin]

SegWit doesn't look like is going to get activated any time soon, some Chinese miners have gone the BU way and possibly more will switch, but I hope not.

What other options are there for SegWit to be activated? Can the way to activate it be changed at this stage? Or what other possible way is there?