Schism Developing Between Lightning Network and Bitcoin Core Developers

[jonald_fyookball]

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/schism-developing-lightning-network-bitcoin-core-developers/

 

[HabBear]

That's exactly what Core needs - another schism.  [Read with heavy sarcasm]

The article mentions that that talks between Lighting and Bitcoin Core devs has gotten nasty and those from those opposing Bitcoin are claiming that Bitcoin Core, without change, is stagnant and dying "as a project."

I suppose there right. When different groups constantly attack Bitcoin Core, rather than work to improve it as Bitcoin Core (not some alternative that will f*ck over users), there's no hope for resolution. The only remaining question is whether Bitcoin Core is Israel or the Palestinians.

[Lauda]

Some Bitcoin Core developers have called the proposal as “technically sound,” while others have used the general argument against soft-forks and applied it to extension blocks. Overall, it appears opinion among Bitcoin Core supporters, including developers, is mixed.

Basically this destroys your* theory that Blockstream controls everything and other kind of nonsense propaganda which you fail to reject on BTU channels.

“This latest move is technically very clever, and politically brilliant.” – Emin Gun Sirer, Cornell Professor, told Forbes.

Why does anyone quote this person?

If he does merge, as he did segwit despite it clearly being highly controversial, then the Cryptowar may be over.

This is an example of why this article is clearly paid for. Segwit was everything besides controversial in the development community. Not to mention the bullshit assumptions that "No extension blocks" -> "Bitcoin is dead."

[AngryDwarf]

Interesting read, but perhaps I'm confused 

Hard forks are bad !!!
Soft forks are bad !!!

No change then.

[jonald_fyookball]

Basically this destroys your* theory that Blockstream controls everything and other kind of nonsense propaganda which you fail to reject on BTU channels.
 

I don't recall saying 'Blockstream controls everything' per se...
 
What really hit me in this article is this quote.  Decide for yourself if it is meaningful, credible, etc:

In semi-public discussions, Poon said yesterday that “the extension block proposal is… a litmus test for corruption in the Bitcoin community.” He further added that “Core is getting what they want (soft fork plus malleability fix), but oppose due to nonsensical reasons.”

[pawel7777]

...
 What really hit me in this article is this quote.  Decide for yourself if it is meaningful, credible, etc:

In semi-public discussions, Poon said yesterday that “the extension block proposal is… a litmus test for corruption in the Bitcoin community.” He further added that “Core is getting what they want (soft fork plus malleability fix), but oppose due to nonsensical reasons.”

Give them some time, they're probably brainstorming the reason to reject the proposal as we speak. Shifting narratives on such short notice ain't easy.

Corallo said that “extension blocks are a very bad idea,” before adding that “much of the western businesses I’ve asked have no interest in any extension block proposal.” He was asked to name the businesses by a discussion participant but failed to do so.

Fucking LOL. I'm sure Corallo's first reaction was to rush to businesses to ask for their opinions. He just forgot who had he spoken to, it happens, there was so many of them... Fucking liar.

Meanwhile, the proposal is supported by purse.io, an actual bitcoin business:

https://medium.com/purse-essays/ready-for-liftoff-a5533f4de0b6