Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[aztecminer]

3.6 MB blocks on the segwit testnet.

https://segnet.smartbit.com.au/blocks?sort=size

What is it?

They are testing big blocks in another chain or simulator, or what?

this is a testnet for segwit. before a release to public or on the mainnet Core is testing all the improvements.

sure they are... we are testing bitcoinPure on skynet platform atm. this will allow us to send bitcoins to mars via our dark side of the moon mining node . at bitcoinPure we are always thinking ahead of the segwits and botnets.

[1715439670]

1715439670

[1715439670]

1715439670

[1715439670]

1715439670

[Hunyadi]

chinese cartel in action. preventing a price above 2793-2795 to avoid new miners coming into the game. seems the have tons of bitcoins available.

https://snag.gy/4tpVj5

Hmm... I was counting on a Chinese pump to break above 2820 CNY within 2 days. If this won't happen, then the market will have made a lower high,
and then probably a lower low, which means a downtrend will become apparent.

IMO the point is to get the most out of Bitcoin until the halving event. no new miners allowed until then.

Interesting theory.

[hv_]

chinese cartel in action. preventing a price above 2793-2795 to avoid new miners coming into the game. seems the have tons of bitcoins available.

https://snag.gy/4tpVj5

Hmm... I was counting on a Chinese pump to break above 2820 CNY within 2 days. If this won't happen, then the market will have made a lower high,
and then probably a lower low, which means a downtrend will become apparent.

IMO the point is to get the most out of Bitcoin until the halving event. no new miners allowed until then.

Interesting theory.

If there are enough buyers out there, then they risk to sell their stake at a low level - does not really make sense to me.

Better is always to drive the price higher, not to sell cheap.

[JorgeStolfi]

Raising the 21 million BTC limit with a soft fork

Thank you, I wasn't aware of this. But to make it work, a consensus between the
majority of miners and the developers would have to be reached.  Or a cartel of miners that
∂ has the required hashing power could hire their own developer team
and replace the current team, like a miner's coup?

Someone would have to implement that change; but it does not have to be the Core devs.
The changes would not be too big (compared to the whole of the code); the miners could
easily find programmers able to implement them.

Again, a soft-fork type of change to the protocol becomes effective as soon as a majority
of the miners starts mining by the new rule.  The other players need not download
a new version, and would not even notice the change.

In practice, the cartel will probably want to warn at least the other non-cartel miners, and
provide them the modified code, so that they don't waste effort mining blocks that the cartel
will orphan.

For the change to have an economic impact, it would still be necessary for some part of the user
base to download software that incorporates it.  However. that does not have to occur before
the change is activated (as would be the case with a hard fork).  Old clients would still operate
normally for a while, and would interoperate with new clients to some extent.

It is hard to be more specific about the process without specifying the change, and its
context.  There have been several soft forks already, that users for the most part were not
aware of: they eventually adopted the changes, mostly without knowing, when they downloaded
newer releases of Core.

Specifically, for a change that creates additional coins (beyond the normal block reward schedule),
the miners would start accumulating those rewards immediately; but anyone running the old
software would not see those extra coins, because they would be in the new extension part of the blocks.

In order to sell the "extra" reward coins, the miners would need to convince an exchange to run
the new software.  At the moment, any majority cartel would have to include the top Chinese miners,
so the big Chinese exchanges (that are very closely connected to them)  will probably accept those
coins too.  Those exchanges would then  provide the new wallet software to their clients, and
urge them to upgrade. 

A user or merchant running the old software will only notice that something is amiss
when he fails to receive coins that someone else claims to have sent him.  That will
happen if the sender is using the new software, and the coins that he sent were tainted
by mixing with the new "extra" reward coins at some point.  When that happens,
the receiver would have to download the new wallet software to get access to those coins
(even if only to return them to the sender).

There are many reasons why a mining cartel would not want to do such a change, of course.
However, those obstacles would also stand in the way of the same change being deployed by
a hard fork.  The soft-fork option just removes one big obstacle: the need to inform
all users beforehand, and to convince them to accept the change and upgrade, before the
change is activated.

A hard-fork change that is adopted by a majority of the miners also creates a permanent split
of the coin.  Normally one expects the minority to adopt the change too, so the minority branch
will immediately die.  However, if a significant minority of the miners insists in rejecting the change,
each client will have the option to refuse it too, and continue using the "old" coin.  Or use both
coins, independently, by running both versions of the software. 

With a soft-fork, users do not have this choice.  Even if 45% of the miners hate the change to the
rules, they cannot force a split of the chain, and must adopt it. The users will have to accept it too,
whether they are aware of it or not.

[JorgeStolfi]

the second miners increase the block reward or change any fundamentals of why we love Bitcoin we can quickly discard them

That is the point: with a soft-fork type of change, old clients would not even be aware that the change was
deployed and activated, unless they read about it somewhere.  How many bitcoin users follow the forums
(and know about the reward schedule)?

and switch algo's.

And would use the garlic spray and silver bullets in case of a vampire attack...

Switching the PoW algorithm will not jam the miners' equipment.  They would
continue mining as always, and every user or business will continue to
use their blockchain by default, "secured by a network with 1.5 PH/s
of mining power". 

What "switch the algo" actually means means  is that the Faithful will create
a new altcoin, say "TruCoin", that starts off with the current state of the bitcoin
blockchain, but has only a modest amount of CPU/GPU mining; and will ask
everybody to ditch their bitcoins and use only TruCoin. 

But, to  do that, users would have to download a new version of the software. 
How many do you think will bother?  My guess is fewer than 5000 bitcoiners...

[/quote]

[JimboToronto]

Good morning Bitcoinland. Wow, big surprise... it's $430.

[BitUsher]

With a soft-fork, users do not have this choice.  Even if 45% of the miners hate the change to the
rules, they cannot force a split of the chain, and must adopt it. The users will have to accept it too,
whether they are aware of it or not.

Users never have to accept it and can instantly veto any SF or HF introduced by the miners simply through inaction.

When that happens,
the receiver would have to download the new wallet software to get access to those coins

Downloading a wallet to refund some counterfeit altcoin doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the original bitcoin chain or software. There would only be a problem if the user or merchant wasn't bright enough to actually check or ask why the coins weren't accepted before swapping out their old wallet.  

In unlikely even such a scenario existed their would be a very loud and widespread warning declared and developers would likely implement some emergency patch to disqualify the mining cartel trying to hijack bitcoin. Sure there would be a few people accepting some counterfeit tokens , but this is no different than a 51% attack and much less of an issue than all the fraud that regularly occurs within Fiat.

[JayJuanGee]

What are the origins of segwit? Was it long proposed as a nice idea by multiple people or did it arrive out of nowhere from a single source and tickle everyone pink?

SegWit was presented by Blockstream's Pieter Wuille to the world at the end of the second Bitcoin Stalling conference in Hong Kong.  The video of his talk should be on YouTube. Apparently it was a surprise to most people there, except Blockstream folks of course.  Indeed I would say that Blockstream planned the conferences to be just a stage for the SegWit announcement.  

According to Pieter himself, he thought of SegWit some time ago, but put it aside because he believed that it would require a hard fork.  But then Luke Dash Jr. found a way to make SegWit into a soft-fork type of change, by using a script hack and redefining one of the NOP opcodes. That made it possible to deploy it in Blockstream's favorite "stealth mode".  (That is, the change is effective as soon as a miner majority adopts it, whether full nodes, users, and businesses like it or not.)

AFAIK, the only significant improvement that SegWit brings is to fix various malleability problems in one go.  Even that benefit could be obtained much more cleanly by other means, without changing the block and transaction format; but this cleaner solution would require a hard fork, and also the discarding of Pieter and Luke's ingenious hack -- so obviously it could not happen.

I haven't heard of the "fraud proofs" in a while.  In the initial description, they seemed to be more "hints" than "proofs"; and it was never clear how they would be used, and for what.

One interesting "benefit" of SegWit was to make people aware that soft forks are actually more dangerous than hard forks.  With SegWit's "extension record" trick, a soft fork can achieve many of the taboo changes that were thought to require a hard fork; such as increasing the block reward (and therefore the 21 million issuance cap) or confiscating coins. As soft forks, those changes would require only the agreement of a mining majority, without the consent of the rest of the community.  However, for that same reason, there is nothing that the community or the developers can do to prevent non-consensual soft forks.

I find your above post a bit confusing. 

Are you talking theory or is there anyone of import (besides you and some members of the bitcoin community who actually bought bitcoins) who is actually opposed to seg wit?

My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic).

So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit? 

In other words, if there is no meaningful opposition (besides some whining voices of non-users or even users), then it seems that a softfork would be preferable to a hardfork, no?


 In other words, are you whining for a hardfork when a hardfork is not actually necessary?  how could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit?

[BitUsher]

the second miners increase the block reward or change any fundamentals of why we love Bitcoin we can quickly discard them

That is the point: with a soft-fork type of change, old clients would not even be aware that the change was
deployed and activated, unless they read about it somewhere.  How many bitcoin users follow the forums
(and know about the reward schedule)?

No, its akin to a seller telling a merchant that they have been paid/ them checking their bank or paypal account and not seeing the funds, and the seller socially engineering the merchant to go to a different site and login to a fake bank. Of Course some idiots will fall for this , but most will be alarmed and do a speck of research before accepting the fraudulent software.

Switching the PoW algorithm will not jam the miners' equipment.  They would
continue mining as always, and every user or business will continue to
use their blockchain by default, "secured by a network with 1.5 PH/s
of mining power".  

What "switch the algo" actually means means  is that the Faithful will create
a new altcoin, say "TruCoin", that starts off with the current state of the bitcoin
blockchain, but has only a modest amount of CPU/GPU mining; and will ask
everybody to ditch their bitcoins and use only TruCoin.  

But, to  do that, users would have to download a new version of the software.  

You are quite correct that the ASIC mining cartel will be left with a pathetic 1.5 PH/s of hash power(Did you forget what year it was?) because their new alt they created with higher inflation will be practically worthless. The other alt, you call "trucoin" would certainly also take a massive hit, but could recover in time.

How many do you think will bother?  My guess is fewer than 5000 bitcoiners...

21 million is so intrinsic to the identity and contract of bitcoin most would move over, but for the sake of argument lets assume only 100 people move over... Do you really think we care? You are making an assumption that we are only greedy speculative traders who have no principles. I will never accept or use a bitcoin alt that changed the inflation rate.

[BitUsher]

Segwit pull request in main repository -

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/7910

April ETA Deadline Met!

I expect Segwit to remove from segnet testnet to the bitcoin testnet this month and enter mainnet early may for activation in June/July depending upon the miners hitting 95%

[JorgeStolfi]

With a soft-fork, users do not have this choice.  Even if 45% of the miners hate the change to the
rules, they cannot force a split of the chain, and must adopt it. The users will have to accept it too,
whether they are aware of it or not.

Users never have to accept it and can instantly veto any SF or HF introduced by the miners simply through inaction.

That is the point: users who do nothing automatically accept any soft-fork type of change, even if they are unaware of it.

When that happens, the receiver would have to download the new wallet software to get access to those coins

Downloading a wallet to refund some counterfeit altcoin doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the original bitcoin chain or software. There would only be a problem if the user or merchant wasn't bright enough to actually check or ask why the coins weren't accepted before swapping out their old wallet.  

That would be the position of a fanatic receiver: "As a matter of principle, I do not accept as valid those extra reward coins, nor any coins that were tainted by being mixed with them, no matter when or by whom."   But of course the newbie who sent him those coins will not have to agree.  If he did not receive the corresponding goods yet, he will want his coins back, "or I will call the cops".  If he received the goods already, he may say "I have no other coins, I got them from my exchange and are good for other merchants; if you don't like them, it is your problem".

It would be like if a merchant rejected any dollar bills printed after 2008, "because they are fake"; and also any pre-2008 dollar bills that the customer may have got as return change when he bought a coffee and paid with a post-2008 bill.  If there are many who take that stance, it may make some sense.  If only a few do that, it would be just stupid...

In unlikely even such a scenario existed  [ ... ] developer would likely implement some emergency patch to disqualify the mining cartel trying to hijack bitcoin.  

They could do that, but the users would have to download that software to get back the old rules.  More crucially, it will violate the most basic priciple of bitcoin.  Namely, there cannot be any authority that decides which miners are good or bad.  Anyone can mine, and the blockchain that you should use is the one that your client software accepts as valid and has the most proof of work.

this is no different than a 51% attack

Indeed, there is no technical difference between a soft-fork and a 51% attack.  Both are changes to the rules that are deployed without users's explicit consent or cooperation, exploiting the "majority of work" rule. 

The difference is only whether the change is considered "good" or "bad" by the community; but that may depend on people's relation to bitcoin, the context of the change, how it is presented, etc.

Take my favorite example: postpone the next halving by 2 years, but then shorten the halving time to be every 2 years instead of every 4.  This change would not increase the 21 million limit; it would keep the current rate of inflation until 2018, but the inflation would drop much faster after 2020, so that issuance would be complete in half the original time.

Would this change be "good" or "bad"?  All the miners should love the idea, since it postpones the 50% drop of revenue next July.  Holders who were hoping to cash out in 2019 may hate it, but those with a longer outlook may love it.   And the miners could point out that, without that change, many of them would have to shut down, which would cause the hashrate to drop, which would be bad for bitcoin's security and very bad for its image...

[BitUsher]

That is the point: users who do nothing automatically accept any soft-fork type of change, even if they are unaware of it.

In your example users who chose not to switch over to the invalid alt software would definitely not accept those coins. You just admitted so yourself.

That would be the position of a fanatic receiver: "As a matter of principle, I do not accept as valid those extra reward coins, nor any coins that were tainted by being mixed with them, no matter when or by whom."   But of course the newbie who sent him those coins will not have to agree.  If he did not receive the corresponding goods yet, he will want his coins back, "or I will call the cops".  If he received the goods already, he may say "I have no other coins, I got them from my exchange and are good for other merchants; if you don't like them, it is your problem".

It would be like if a merchant rejected any dollar bills printed after 2008, "because they are fake"; and also any pre-2008 dollar bills that the customer may have got as return change when he bought a coffee and paid with a post-2008 bill.  If there are many who take that stance, it may make some sense.  If only a few do that, it would be just stupid...

Or the merchant could simply suggest they don't accept the new alt, patch their wallet, download the High inflation wallet on another device (for security) to conveniently refund the few customers during small window when the mining cartel instituted the changes. The merchants coins are not tainted at all as all they would be doing is refunding an alt on another forked chain. There would essentially be 2 forks created.

They could do that, but the users would have to download that software to get back the old rules.  More crucially, it will violate the most basic priciple of bitcoin.  Namely, there cannot be any authority that decides which miners are good or bad.  Anyone can mine, and the blockchain that you should use is the one that your client software accepts as valid and has the most proof of work.

Incorrect. Has the longest chain of Valid Proof of Work. Lifting the 21million limit would instantly make that chain invalid in the hearts and minds of most bitcoin users. There has always been an authority who decides what miners are good and bad , the users. Bitcoin has always maintained as being an open source project where even individuals can veto miners and other developers and fork off on there own. Where do you think most the alts came from?

Take my favorite example: postpone the next halving by 2 years, but then shorten the halving time to be every 2 years instead of every 4.  This change would not increase the 21 million limit; it would keep the current rate of inflation until 2018, but the inflation would drop much faster after 2020, so that issuance would be complete in half the original time.

Would this change be "good" or "bad"?  All the miners should love the idea, since it postpones the 50% drop of revenue next July.  Holders who were hoping to cash out in 2019 may hate it, but those with a longer outlook may love it.   And the miners could point out that, without that change, many of them would have to shut down, which would cause the hashrate to drop, which would be bad for bitcoin's security and very bad for its image...

Every user can individually make that decision for themselves. Their vote can be made with as little of effort as inaction. Ultimately users control their currency. Of course their currency may or may not be worth more dependent upon how much of the community follows them but the more important principle is the user is in control of their currency and choosing to branch off on another chain doesn't even necessarily have to hurt them financially as they could recover their investment by slowly or quickly dumping their old coins while simultaneously using the new coin.

[JorgeStolfi]

Are you talking theory or is there anyone of import (besides you and some members of the bitcoin community who actually bought bitcoins) who is actually opposed to seg wit?

My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic).

So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit? 

How could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit?

There is no known obvious flaw in SegWit, even implemented as soft fork with Luke's script hack (as Blockstream is doing).  It does fix those malleability problems.  The other alleged benefits are small: it saves a little bandwidth for simple clients (only for them; not for full nodes) and may give a little more block space (depending on how many clients adopt the new format). 

SegWit is just a disgusting hack.  The same benefits could (should) have been implemented in a cleaner way, with a hard fork, without having to change the format of blocks. 

I have seen complaints from wallet developers about the extent of changes that it will require to their code.  Others have complained about the huge risk of having such a pervasive change (more than 500 lines of code, last I read) made to the core of the protocol, with relatively little critical review, and under such pressure. (Testing can reveal accidental flaws; but one will not know about security flaws until it is implemented, and malicious hackers try to break it.)

Others are unhappy that Blockstream is putting so much effort into deploying SegWit, instead of other things like fast block propagation.  The reason for the hurry is that SegWit is needed for the LN (or some other thing that Blockstream is planning and did not tell).

Hard forks are not more dangerous than soft-forks.  One can argue that they in fact safer, because they must be executed openly and be accepted in advance by a large segment of the users. 

Last July there was a 6-block reorganization of the blockchain, the third largest in bitcoin's history.  It was caused by a blocthed soft fork.

Besides, there will be some hard fork in the future, for other reasons (such as increasing the min block size).  The alternative malleability fix (that does not require the split-block format) could be deployed in the same hard fork.

SegWit makes bitcoin more complicated: the split blocks and transactions, Luke's script hack, the fee formulas, etc.
Increasing the complexity of the protocol makes it harder to explain and master (many docs will have to be edited) and harder to maintain.   Increased complexity means that fewer people will qualify to maintain the code, and to write applications that depend on the format.





[/quote]

[BitUsher]

Last July there was a 6-block reorganization of the blockchain, the third largest in bitcoin's history.  It was caused by a blocthed soft fork.

Nope, It was caused by SPV mining which is insecure and at minimum ill advised.

Hard forks are not more dangerous than soft-forks.  One can argue that they in fact safer, because they must be executed openly and be accepted in advance by a large segment of the users.  

While we may disagree with the intrinsic dangers one can compare between HF and SF's from a technical perspective, I can also add that it is a fantastic precedent that we are making HF's rare and difficult to accomplish from a "governance" perspective. soft forks which allow upgrading without throwing old users/software/Hardware off the network is a fantastic precedence.

I would like to thank you for your contributions Jorge Stolfi. It is extremely re-assuring that a buttcoiner who hates bitcoin* is so angry at the direction we are headed. We should all be bullish.

*Yes, I know you insist you don't hate bitcoin and are merely offering "helpful" guidance and advice. Your history and actions suggest otherwise however and it is pretty easy to verify you get sadistic pleasure off of attacking bitcoin on the buttcoin subreddit.

[BitUsher]

There are 5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network. First one( Dryja’s Lightning Network) is expected this summer.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424


EDIT-
P.S... As quick as you buttcoiners can create new shill newbie accounts I can ignore them. At least Jorge Stolfi has something slightly technical/valid to discuss (with a few misguided and ignorant statements thrown in --   "secured by a network with 1.5 PH/s
of mining power" .... LOL, really? Have you been asleep for the last 3 years Stolfi? We are in the  Exa Hash/s Era if you haven't been paying attention)

Troll Harder and try buying/developing some shill accounts that are outside of newbie status to make it more subtle newbie buttcoiners.

[road to morocco]

There are 5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network. First one( Dryja’s Lightning Network) is expected this summer.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424

Correction: "Maxwell noted, “At least five companies as well as many individuals are actively developing Lightning, and much of the code and development is open in a similar model to Bitcoin.”

Please list the "5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network" here:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

... Your history and actions suggest otherwise however and it is pretty easy to verify you get sadistic pleasure off of attacking bitcoin on the buttcoin subreddit.

Isn't this what you Bitcoin cognoscenti call ad hominem? Why do you find it so difficult to stick to the issues without dragging in butthurt & conspiracy theories?

[JayJuanGee]

With a soft-fork, users do not have this choice.  Even if 45% of the miners hate the change to the
rules, they cannot force a split of the chain, and must adopt it. The users will have to accept it too,
whether they are aware of it or not.

Users never have to accept it and can instantly veto any SF or HF introduced by the miners simply through inaction.

That is the point: users who do nothing automatically accept any soft-fork type of change, even if they are unaware of it.

Yes... that is the point... so long as the change does not undermine the currency (store of value) in any way, then it can be made without any significant objections from users.  Many technical changes are going to result in no meaningful perceived change.. but if there were an attempt to change something fundamental, such as the number of total coins (or the governance to allow for easy take overs), then users may well decide to vote with their feet.

Take my favorite example: postpone the next halving by 2 years, but then shorten the halving time to be every 2 years instead of every 4.  This change would not increase the 21 million limit; it would keep the current rate of inflation until 2018, but the inflation would drop much faster after 2020, so that issuance would be complete in half the original time.

Would this change be "good" or "bad"?  All the miners should love the idea, since it postpones the 50% drop of revenue next July.  Holders who were hoping to cash out in 2019 may hate it, but those with a longer outlook may love it.   And the miners could point out that, without that change, many of them would have to shut down, which would cause the hashrate to drop, which would be bad for bitcoin's security and very bad for its image...

If this scenario were to occur (which is highly speculative - and likely would not occur), this kind of change is a significant material alteration of the value that would likely cause users to lose confidence in the value of the currency (storage of value) because fundamentally (in the short term) it has just been manipulated by a small segment of the population... again, this is really speculative, very unlikely that any good intended group would attempt such, and because of it's high degree of improbability, not really worthy of an indepth discussion.

[JayJuanGee]

Are you talking theory or is there anyone of import (besides you and some members of the bitcoin community who actually bought bitcoins) who is actually opposed to seg wit?

My understanding is that even "developers" Gavin and Jeff Garzik are in favor of seg wit, and Gavin and Jeff Garzik are the only two "developers" who had been proposing a need to hardfork (through XT and Classic).

So, what's the deal, is there someone else who is notable who is opposed to Segwit? 

How could a softfork be more dangerous in the deployment of seg wit and in such actual real world circumstances, if there is actually no opposition seg wit?

There is no known obvious flaw in SegWit, even implemented as soft fork with Luke's script hack (as Blockstream is doing).  It does fix those malleability problems.  The other alleged benefits are small: it saves a little bandwidth for simple clients (only for them; not for full nodes) and may give a little more block space (depending on how many clients adopt the new format). 

Who fucking cares how much value it adds?  The main point is that seg wit is not controverted by any significant player.  There are people whining about seg wit, but in the end, no one of significance disagrees with its implementation, so therefore, it can be implemented as a softfork.

Regarding value and how much it adds to blockchain capacity, we will see about that, once it is implemented.  Currently, there is a lot of speculation about how much it will add and whether it is enough, and in that regard, it seems very reasonable to let it go live (since it is not controverted), and then to determine thereafter whether additional measures will need to be taken in order to accomplish additional objectives (such as further increasing capacity).

 

SegWit is just a disgusting hack.  The same benefits could (should) have been implemented in a cleaner way, with a hard fork, without having to change the format of blocks. 

Could have, should have, so what!!!!

no one really disagrees about seg wit.. so why continue to make it an issue, except for the purpose of spreading FUCD.    The point is it is already done.. been agreed to and in the process of going live... the only likely way of stopping seg wit from going live is if there is some kind of significant problem that is discovered before it actually goes live.. so why continue to cry over spillt milk?

I have seen complaints from wallet developers about the extent of changes that it will require to their code.  Others have complained about the huge risk of having such a pervasive change (more than 500 lines of code, last I read) made to the core of the protocol, with relatively little critical review, and under such pressure. (Testing can reveal accidental flaws; but one will not know about security flaws until it is implemented, and malicious hackers try to break it.)

Others are unhappy that Blockstream is putting so much effort into deploying SegWit, instead of other things like fast block propagation.  The reason for the hurry is that SegWit is needed for the LN (or some other thing that Blockstream is planning and did not tell).

OK???   Besides a bunch of whiners on reddit or some other bitcoin forum, who of significance is actually opposed in any meaningful way to seg wit?  Name someone, or cite to their objections.  As far as I know, there is no meaningful disagreement to the implementation of seg wit, except for insignificant whiners in various bitcoin forums.  There is no one with a meaningful position in bitcoin, either merchants, developers or miners who are voicing any meaningful objection to seg wit.  They may be complaining about other things, such as also wanting to get a hard increase in the limit, but those are convoluted arguments, and in the end, there is no meaningful objection to seg wit - if so show who that is.

Hard forks are not more dangerous than soft-forks.  One can argue that they in fact safer, because they must be executed openly and be accepted in advance by a large segment of the users. 

They are more dangerous if there is disagreement regarding their implementation, and they are more dangerous if they attempt to change bitcoin's governance in order to make changes (consensus rules) easier to achieve.

.......
Besides, there will be some hard fork in the future, for other reasons (such as increasing the min block size).  The alternative malleability fix (that does not require the split-block format) could be deployed in the same hard fork.

Yes, likely there will be some hardforks in the future, and probably those hardforks will be regarding non-controverted topics (and likely have a very large consensus, such as much more than 95%).

SegWit makes bitcoin more complicated: the split blocks and transactions, Luke's script hack, the fee formulas, etc.
Increasing the complexity of the protocol makes it harder to explain and master (many docs will have to be edited) and harder to maintain.   Increased complexity means that fewer people will qualify to maintain the code, and to write applications that depend on the format.

You keep going back over the point to argue against something that is not controverted, and it does not really matter, at this point how complicated it is, etc. etc.. because it is already in the pipeline to be implemented, and you better come up with some more major flaws in order to cause a reverse of this course of action.  So, you can whine and whine and whine, but it is really not very productive because the substance of your whining does not rise to a high enough level to be material enough to change what's already in the works.  On the other hand, if you were working on solutions to various problems, rather than just whining about the existence of problems, then that would likely be more productive towards the dialogue - rather than attempting to cause confusion amongst people  (but, when by definition you are in the business of spreading FUCD, then I suppose you are not really capable (or you won't get paid) of more meaningful kinds of contributions to the discussion). 

[JayJuanGee]

There are 5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network. First one( Dryja’s Lightning Network) is expected this summer.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/greg-maxwell-lightning-network-better-than-sidechains-for-scaling-bitcoin-1461077424

Correction: "Maxwell noted, “At least five companies as well as many individuals are actively developing Lightning, and much of the code and development is open in a similar model to Bitcoin.”

Please list the "5 independent companies developing their own versions of the lightning network" here:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

That's a good point newbie.... Surely it would be nice to get more specificity rather than blanket statements.

... Your history and actions suggest otherwise however and it is pretty easy to verify you get sadistic pleasure off of attacking bitcoin on the buttcoin subreddit.

Isn't this what you Bitcoin cognoscenti call ad hominem? Why do you find it so difficult to stick to the issues without dragging in butthurt & conspiracy theories?

I doubt that anti-Stolfi posters are engaging in unwarranted ad hominem attacks, especially when it comes to Stolfi.    He genuinely tends to deserve a large number of attacks because purposefully and even sometimes admittedly, he has been in the business of spreading disinformation regarding bitcoin.... Every once in a while Stolfi makes some decent points (just like a stopped clock is correct twice a day), but really overall, he is purposefully aimed at deceiving and misleading in respect to bitcoin.

[BitUsher]

That's a good point newbie.... Surely it would be nice to get more specificity rather than blanket statements.

For your eyes only(The buttcoiner must overt their eyes as because these facts may harm their narrative)-

First four are in the article ...
    1) Poon, Dryja, Elizabeth Stark , and Olaoluwa Osuntokun - Dryja’s Lightning Network
    2) Rusty Russell - Blockstream's LN implementation
    3) AmikaPay LN implementation
    4) StrawPay  LN implementation

This is the fifth one -
    5) http://thunder.network being developed by  Mats Jerratsch at Blockchain