Bitcoin’s longest-serving Lead Maintainer calls it quits, names no successor

[hZti]

this is where thousands of devs over the years ended up leaving bitcoin to do their own projects. as they were pushed out of the bitcoin community

Well thats what you get when the guy that makes the decisions simply leaves from one day to another. It is a great myth that satoshi left and never used his coins, but if I read news like this I wonder if it will hurt bitcoin in the long run. If there will be no new features then bitcoin will be replaced. Already since a few years bitcoin is not the most modern coin anymore and just lives from its name.

[1714819496]

1714819496

[1714819496]

1714819496

[1714819496]

1714819496

[1714819496]

1714819496

[mindrust]

Why isn’t it a good look for bitcoin?

Because he seemed somewhat disgruntled and leaving with a somewhat bad taste in his mouth. Was he even paid? Or he just did everything for free? If he did everything for free, he got taken advantage of. Used and spit out.

I don't know about all bad taste. It seems to me you are making assumptions.

Was he even paid? Who cares? Who is going to pay him anyway? Wouldn't it make the matters worse? Let's say Binance is funding this dude. Did you know back in the day when Binance was hacked, CZ wanted a chain reorg? You draw the rest of the picture.

Bitcoin always has been all about voluntarism. Everybody has a chance to fix the bugs, voluntarily.

Bitcoin’s success is not dependent on other people anymore.

Why not? If people stopped using bitcoin then it would be worthless. If they stopped putting it on websites so others could download it, then bitcoin couldn't grow. If smart people like van der Laan didn't keep putting in their time and energy into maitaining it, presumably that would be a disaster and bitcoin would die a slow death. So yeah it depends on other people but what if it didn't have to? Wouldn't that be better?

That's why I suggested bitcoin should be a smart contract so that the smart contract can't be changed. No one would ever have to touch the code again. People could just use it and that's it! That's the only way that bitcoin wouldn't need to be "dependent on other people anymore".

People will always be using bitcoin and there will always be some people who would want to develop it further. Bitcoin is now too big to fail.

There will always be someone else who is going to maintain/develop bitcoin when somebody quits.

How do you know that? Can you prove it?

See above.

Bitcoin is decentalized. Even if all the devs quit right now, bitcoin would still survive.

Bitcoin software distribution is not decentralized or trustless. neither is its development model but it's harder to do that in such a manner maybe not even possible.

Bitcoin, as is, would survive with no devs for decades probably. Maybe it would need some minor tweaks.

Everybody needs his/her retirement at some point. Nobody can work forever. We should thank and congratulate him. We can’t do anything else.

Did he even get paid? I agree no one can work forever for free. of course you should thank someone for working for free but congratulating them? i think that's a bit over the top. who wants to be congratulated for working their butt off for free? hopefully bitcoin has a better retirement plan for its devs than that.

See above.

We congratulate him for his passion for bitcoin. Something you would never understand. A dev like him would find a job in any major company he wants, instantly. If he needed money I am pretty sure he would have done that. How do you even know if he is poor? Stop making assumptions it is the mother of all fuck ups.

[franky1]

I don't know about all bad taste. It seems to me you are making assumptions.

Was he even paid? Who cares? Who is going to pay him anyway? Wouldn't it make the matters worse? Let's say Binance is funding this dude. Did you know back in the day when Binance was hacked, CZ wanted a chain reorg? You draw the rest of the picture.

Bitcoin always has been all about voluntarism. Everybody has a chance to fix the bugs, voluntarily.

check more into blockstream, chaincodelabs and brink.. which then shell company back to DCG as the main source of dev funding/sponsorship

it pays to do research to know who are the true managers of bitcoin development

However Bitcoin Core is a software project run by a team of people working together, on an open source basis. People who choose for themselves who they want to work with, and who they don’t want to work with.

There comes a point when it is time to break ties with certain individuals which were formative in the beginning but have, over time, ossified and even come to be seen as a toxic influence

note the closed door approach not the open door approach
where open source is just about READING code. not what you think it means. of a open door involvement in code

EG an open newspaper. is just a newspaper that is unfolded and easy to read the inside pages. it does not mean anyone can become a reporter

[DooMAD]

the point of blockchains and bitcoins invention 13 years ago was the solution to the byzantine generals problem where different people had different idea's of what direction to go forward(the problem)

a:(not the solution/purpose of blockchains)
it was not to have a commander/chief deciding, where all his captains follow and all the troops follow the captains
(one source of protocol, multiple source of litewallet, thousands of users)

b: (the solution/brilliance of blockchain purpose)
it was suppose to be multiple brands in operation, cooperating on same level playing field where any of them can pitch an idea/mission plan. and all brands at same level would announce the mission plan to their loyal troops and the idea/plan that rallied enough troops combined from all loyal brand bases towards that same cause, meant that the majority accepted mission moves forward in that direction.

instead it became a contentious battlefield where anyone not following the core mission was to be cast aside and treated as a outsider, spy, opponent, saboteur. where they need to become the enemy in single brans loyal troops eyes. and then fought off the fields and if they survive to have them in a completely separate playing field(altcoin)
(research REKT campaigns circa 2014-17, research mandatory deployment circa 2017)

this is where thousands of devs over the years ended up leaving bitcoin to do their own projects. as they were pushed out of the bitcoin community.

Translation:  franky1 thinks everyone has to listen to and seriously consider stupid and dangerous ideas that have the potential to damage Bitcoin.  People promoting stupid and dangerous ideas should be encouraged to stick around, even their their ideas could never be implemented because they aren't remotely compatible with the direction the project is taking.

I'm sorry, but that's just not practical.  Development becomes a hassle if everyone involved is trying to pull in different directions.  And you are in no position to tell anyone who they can or can't refuse to work with.  Not your call.  Go be a dictator somewhere else.

Also there's absolutely nothing preventing another dev team forming.  You could do it yourself.  In fact, I've suggested before that you need to prove your ideas work by building them, rather than just constantly whining about how no one does it the way you want it done.  Do it.  Form a dev team.  Create some code.  Make whatever ridiculous, broken, mind-numbingly stupid shit you want.  No one can stop you.

But you won't.  All noise, no action (or sense).  That's the franky1 way.

[franky1]

Also there's absolutely nothing preventing another dev team forming.  You could do it yourself.  In fact, I've suggested before that you need to prove your ideas work by building them, rather than just constantly whining about how no one does it the way you want it done.  Do it.  Form a dev team.  Create some code.  Make whatever ridiculous, broken, mind-numbingly stupid shit you want.  No one can stop you.

your mindset is for anyone whom wants to develop outside of the core dev team, can do so by forking off and creating an altcoin and see who joins the new network created
(that seems to be your only warped view of how you think decisions should be made)
(you: "alow core to control bitcoin. and anyone not on the core hymn sheet should go make an altcoin)

If we don't like the rules in Bitcoin, we even have the power to fork ourselves off the network and start a brand new currency of our own.

 If you really felt that strongly about your purported moral high ground, you wouldn't have stuck around.  But you know in order to stand by your beliefs, you would have to sacrifice the security and the network effects we offer you.  Your alternative would be to form a weaker network.

You want different rules?  Create a fork and do it.  So others did exactly that.

you do not tolerate any dev team to create an implementation that runs on the bitcoin network that has its own upgrade proposals for the bitcoin network that differ from the core roadmap

I don't know where you get this perverse notion that developers need permission from the community before they are allowed to code something.  And crucially, if you start making the argument that it should work that way, then you will totally destroy any opportunity for alternative clients to exist.  Would the community have given the green light to the developers of that client you're running right now?  I find that pretty doubtful.  You think "REKT" is bad?  See how much you complain if no one was even allowed to code anything unless the community gave their blessing first.  That's how you ruin decentralisation.

funny how you want core to code what they like,, not have the community decide if they want it first. before it activates(or if they want it, then allow activation) where instead you prefer core to just mandate a activation to occur even if the community isnt ready doesnt want it.. all because you want core to just do as they please
.. now its actually YOUR mindset that is destroying decentralisation by promoting centralisation

you are a politics protector not a protocol protector

you have no idea about the byzantine generals problem or how bitcoins blockchain came as a solution to it
where instead of telling opposing minded generals to f**k off instead different generals(implementations) proposed their plan/mission and the majority would decide which mission is best and go with that mission. in a cooperative manner where generals work side by side not opposite from each other

..its called consensus. coming to an agreement.. not contention

as for core, you have show many times that you believe core should be allowed to upgrade the network unopposed, and allowing core to do as they please because its their code and no one should tell them what to do.

that is the same mantra of an authoritarian/tyrant supporter who thinks a leader should be ahead of all and no one should advice him to step aside, or change the leaders mind.
..
thus you love the idea to be an authoritarian and unopposed dictator where everyone should just follow core (central point of failure)

you prefer to defend a group of dev via politics. rather than protect the protocol from politics

[DooMAD]

*wants a fork but doesn't want a fork*

You've made it abundantly clear that your ideal version of Bitcoin (which only exists in your imagination right now) wouldn't be compatible with the current consensus rules.  You ask for shit that would cause a fork and then you piss, whine and cry when people suggest you go ahead and create that fork.  What the hell do you want, you raving psycho? 

Follow the consensus rules or don't.  Just shut the fuck up whining that the consensus rules are not what you want if you aren't going to do something about it because you're a spineless and impotent little bitch.  You're pathetic.

[larry_vw_1955]

Was he even paid? Who cares? Who is going to pay him anyway? Wouldn't it make the matters worse?

I don't know I just thought software engineers got paid. I didn't know they work for free.

Let's say Binance is funding this dude. Did you know back in the day when Binance was hacked, CZ wanted a chain reorg? You draw the rest of the picture.

Why would Binance fund bitcoin development? And even if they did, why should they expect any favortism? No one would expect them to receive any, you know.

Bitcoin always has been all about voluntarism. Everybody has a chance to fix the bugs, voluntarily.

There's a difference between fixing a little bug here or there versus working on something full time.

Bitcoin software development remind me alot of Linux Kernel. People did it for free, the business world never took Linux too seriously. Linux never took over in mainstream. There's more to the story than that but that's the TLDR of it.

Do you think people that program Microsoft Windows software devs would do it for free?

Bitcoin, as is, would survive with no devs for decades probably. Maybe it would need some minor tweaks.

A bug fix is not a minor thing if it could render bitcoin worthless if it wasn't fixed. But assuming no critical bugs popped up then maybe it wouldn't need any devs.

We congratulate him for his passion for bitcoin. Something you would never understand.

Well I don't understand someone working full time and not getting paid. If that's what you're talking about.

A dev like him would find a job in any major company he wants, instantly. If he needed money I am pretty sure he would have done that. How do you even know if he is poor? Stop making assumptions it is the mother of all fuck ups.

I'm not assuming anything about him. I don't know where you got the idea I thought he is "poor".

[DaveF]

We congratulate him for his passion for bitcoin. Something you would never understand.

Well I don't understand someone working full time and not getting paid. If that's what you're talking about.

A dev like him would find a job in any major company he wants, instantly. If he needed money I am pretty sure he would have done that. How do you even know if he is poor? Stop making assumptions it is the mother of all fuck ups.

That could be a large part of it too. There are a lot of unpaid interns out there (probably not for that long) but as of now showing what he did for as long as he did he can now not only find a job anywhere but also tell them how much he wants to make. If it is a solid company when the HR person asks why he thinks he should be paid that much he can respond 'because' and when the HR person starts to object the only other sound in the room would be the CIO / CTO slapping the HR person in the head and then asking Wladimir if he wants a company car or just a dedicated driver to take him to work.

Possibly a bit of an exaggeration but I have seen a lot of engineers and programmers work insane amounts of time for almost no pay just to get their name / reputation out there so they can really get the big money when they move on.

Side note, I am from NY and we had Fairchild Aircraft and Grumman and a bunch of other big government contractors here big time for years and I saw it 1st hand. Engineers would make very little money for what they did, get their name on a few patents and then move off to the 'civilian' market.

-Dave

[BlackHatCoiner]

i mean using multisig directly not without realizing it.

There are dozens of things some users don't realize but utilize. Multisig, Pay-to-public-key-hash, Pay-to-script-hash, Segwit, ECDSA, Locktime, UTXO-based money, extended keys and their derivations paths, seeds, PSBT, encryption schemes etc.

so with a hacked version of bitcoin core, they would create a fake website and create the hashes and fake signatures for the file. so when you download it, check the hash and check the signature it will all check out. they'll also provide you with the public key or fingerprint of the signer. so when you add that person to your keyring and check the signature, it's gonna check out just fine.

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood how verifying signatures ensures software integrity.

If bitcoincore.org is not compromised, but an attacker wants to create a duplicate of that site with their binaries, you should first of all not visit it. Weird URLs aren't trustworthy (e.g., bitcoinc0re.org). Second, if you're ignorant on that part, you should always import Bitcoin Core developers' public keys from elsewhere, for instance github, OpenPGP key server etc.

If bitcoincore.org is compromised, and the attacker changes the binaries, they can't add valid signatures, because they can't alter public keys that are outside bitcoincore.org.

so if you been paying attention, that's why i had said they need a new way of distributing bitcoin core. one that is decentralized and trustless. until then bitcoin isn't fully decentralized if you have to download it from some website.

The way I described you is the safest.

[franky1]

You've made it abundantly clear that your ideal version of Bitcoin (which only exists in your imagination right now) wouldn't be compatible with the current consensus rules.  You ask for shit that would cause a fork and then you piss, whine and cry when people suggest you go ahead and create that fork.  What the hell do you want, you raving psycho?  

doomad you only see me mention how consensus works. because its YOU that keep getting it wrong so i then repeatedly correct YOU, so its YOU that see me doing it..
because im directing it at you., because you get it so wrong

maybe take a wild chance on yourself. roll the dice and play a different game

consensus does not cause a contentious fork. GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD!!!!
because true consensus the way that bitcoin invented it when he released bitcoin and blockchains
is that upgrades DO NOT EVEN ACTIVATE until there is majority acceptance. meaning there would be no contentious fork

YOU are the one that admires adores and want contention and contentious forks by upgrading the network without consensus

get a dictionary and realise consensus is about agreement of the majority
LEARN what it means

stop telling people that they need to fork off if they have a proposal outside of CORES roadmap

however recent events when core done update they CAUSED contention by doing mandated updates before majority. just to fork people off to the fake majority for secondary update.

YOU KNOW THIS AND EVERY COUPLE YEARS YOU REALISE IT AND ACCEPT IT. then you go through a stupid game of forgetting it and then you get upset when you get corrected AGAIN

now i know you will play games about show proof.
where i will show you the bips of the mandated code that caused a contentious fork. which you will then say you never used bitcoin at that time to realise it. then you will cower down and be quiet about the topic for a while..

so skip the usual drama games of ignorance and get to the point where you actually bother to read code and data and history again. and not just use your forgetfulness as a defence of why you have no understanding yet again just so you can show how emotional and silly you can be just to protect the politics of you favoured developer. even when their tactics went against the purpose of the protocol..

so go read something for once instead of telling people to leave the network and shut up about core centralisation..
REALISE even the lead maintainer is calling out on the centralisation and al the toxic crap of the last 7 years. so accept it happened and move on

[DooMAD]

realise consensus is about agreement of the majority

You are not in the majority you raving fruitloop.  You are a lone wingnut.

stop telling people that they need to fork off if they have a proposal outside of CORES roadmap

I tell people to fork off if their ideas are moronic, like yours.  And if you want examples:

stop letting the devs put cludgy code into bitcoin that causes a 4x of tx fee's, stop the devs from removal of old fee formulae, then insist the devs put in cleaner stuff that actually helps make bitcoin more useful day to day(on the bitcoin network),

This would cause a contentious hardfork you ignorant dumbfuck.  So yes, please fork off.

if the rule was actually 4m of proper maxblocksize rule without the cludgy math, then more transactions could be allowed
best estimates of average blocksize is 1.3mb

This would cause a contentious hardfork you ignorant dumbfuck.  So yes, please fork off.

if they remove the cludgy 'witness scale factor" bad math. and allowed say 2mb real byte tx utility
bitcoin can go to $1.6m for a $2 (250byte average tx)

This would cause a contentious hardfork you ignorant dumbfuck.  So yes, please fork off.

so remove the cludgy code that still insists portions of data stick in a redundant 1mb space. and actually utilise the 4mb space to allow 4x transaction capacity compared to 1mb

This would cause a contentious hardfork you ignorant dumbfuck.  So yes, please fork off.

Stop pretending you want consensus when what you want is a divisive hardfork and a split community.

[franky1]

yawn yawn yawn.. bored of the idiot wanting to defend a dev not the protocol

it wont cause a fork... because you use the consensus mechanism.. eg activates only once majority have the code ready to accept it
(you keep forgetting that part!!)

guess he thinks bitcoin is not code, but a song sheet to sing him lullabies about how devs are kings and how he is the princess that devs love.
where bitcoin does not run on rules but instead runs by devs that need to be protected so they can give orders

its funny that for years doomad has been defending devs.. and then the devs themselves admit the problems of core. so he goes cry "must have been franky that done it"

social drama is boring. doomad you're boring

remember is one thing. if its the only thing that you can ever manage to remember more than one month

the consensus mechanism as designed by satoshi. is that features do not and should not activate unless the majority run the code to allow the feature to function without contention..
this does not mean activate feature A to cause a contentious fork to remove core opponents so that only core loyalists remain to fake a 100% acceptance of feature B (cores main feature they want pushed into activation).
it does not mean only rely on core as the central point of failure so that there is always 100% acceptance.

it means we need to actually decentralise and allow for choice and options and have cooperation to ensure that changes that are made are actually for the benefit of the community and not the politically aligned dev team sponsored by corporations

[larry_vw_1955]

I think you've fundamentally misunderstood how verifying signatures ensures software integrity.

No I understand how it works.

If bitcoincore.org is not compromised, but an attacker wants to create a duplicate of that site with their binaries, you should first of all not visit it.

Don't visit a fake site? of course not but people fall victim to fake sites all the time. so saying the solution is to just "not visit it" well, that's not really a solution, it's just general advice which everyone would agree with. kind of like "don't step in dog poop".

Weird URLs aren't trustworthy (e.g., bitcoinc0re.org).

ok then how about bitcoin-core.org? or btccore.org? btc-core-satoshi.org? the varieties are as endless as the grains of sand on a beach. they all might sound somewhat legitimate especially if they look professionally done. you can even have decentralized websites that cannot be taken down. unlike with .org.

Second, if you're ignorant on that part, you should always import Bitcoin Core developers' public keys from elsewhere, for instance github, OpenPGP key server etc.

Nothing is stopping a hacker from creating a repo on github with a text file with a list of fake developers along with their key fingerprints and then putting those same keys on an openpgp server.

If bitcoincore.org is compromised, and the attacker changes the binaries, they can't add valid signatures, because they can't alter public keys that are outside bitcoincore.org.

they just change the link to a fake repo on github or somewhere else that has a list of fake keys. but they might even be so bold as to host the fake list of keys on the fake website to make it even easier for naive newbies.

if they can compromise bitcoincore.org and change the binaries they can probably do that too.

The way I described you is the safest.

i would think alot of people who download bitcoin core do not check signatures. so a fake website might just leave out the signatures altogether and just provide detailed info on how to check the hash. to make it easy for the victim to think things are legit.

the way bitcoincore distribution is setup now through a website and signatures and hashes is not decentralized. and subject to many viable attacks. i'm surprised it doesn't happen alot more than i have heard since i havent heard of people getting scammed by fake bitcoin cores.

which ties back in to Van Der Lan or whatever his name is advocating for bitcoin distribution to become less centralized but if he thinks that just putting it on more websites solves the problem he is sadly mistaken.

[franky1]

which ties back in to Van Der Lan or whatever his name is advocating for bitcoin distribution to become less centralized but if he thinks that just putting it on more websites solves the problem he is sadly mistaken.

putting the same software on many websites is not about decentralising bitcoin
its about distributing core. by making core more available

decentralising bitcoin is about having not just 1 software distributed. but several software that work cooperatively to ensure if one fails, gets corrupt, buggy, injected with a trojan. the network can still function because other software of different languages/brands can continue running..

however with the position of one software on one website. is not enough to just have the official file hash publicised everywhere so that people dont just trust the filehash on the website that is distributing the software. because as you say if someone can hack a website or create a variant website they can just push their own file hash for their trojan version of the software. and people will believe its real because they match

there needs to be more then just matching file hash. more then just 6 peoples PGP signatures for the same file

there are other flaws aswell not just having the coders themselves PGPkey sign their own software which they also reviewed(their own software)

it requires independent devs to review it that are not paid(sponsored) at all and definitely not if rare case they are paid.. be paid by the same sponsors of the core hierarchy

funny part is .. core say they have hundreds of devs. but looking at the commits its the same half dozen that do the main code of features and the others are just little snippet fixes of grammar of comments and small little things like translations.

and then its the similar same few main devs that are showing PGP sigs of the final release candidate that people then are suppose to trust that its all been independently verified/reviewed/tested

even though all of that stuff is done by the same small group of people. just agreeing with each other, unopposed or un independently reviewed outside the group

as wlad hinted at. not only bitcoin but core both need to decentralise more

[larry_vw_1955]

funny part is .. core say they have hundreds of devs. but looking at the commits its the same half dozen that do the main code of features and the others are just little snippet fixes of grammar of comments and small little things like translations.

and then its the similar same few main devs that are showing PGP sigs of the final release candidate that people then are suppose to trust that its all been independently verified/reviewed/tested

even though all of that stuff is done by the same small group of people. just agreeing with each other, unopposed or un independently reviewed outside the group

that should be slightly concerning to the bitcoin community if it is really true. because a single dev could then theoretically re-introduce a bug that was fixed in the past in order to sabotage bitcoin at some future point in time, once their commit got integrated into core and enough people were using that version. or they could figure out a new bug that people never saw before if they were creative enough.

but as you say, that's why they need multiple implementations of core in different languages but i would imagine that the bitcoin core reference client is the one that is used by the vast majority of nodes and miners. probably 90%. so what the other 10% do probably makes no difference.

why would a developer re-introduce a bug that got fixed in the past or put in a never before seen bug? well why do employees steal from their company? maybe there was an argument, maybe they got fired. maybe they want revenge. maybe it's not about money.

i mean if multiple people are not reviewing every single code change and understanding what exactly it is for and only one person is doing it well...there you go. big problem.

[franky1]

it gets more interesting when you look at the sponsors of the devs

there is 3 main sponsors
https://brink.dev/sponsors
Chaincodelabs
blockstream

which behind them is the DCG

DCG started with blockstream as the main funder of developers..
after a couple years blockstream founders split off and set up a sister company chaincodelabs
which then they made brink

brink pretends to be an outsider. but then you look at the few top main donators to brink. there is chris hammel of coinbase
then there is the business FTX
forth on list is coinbase again
then we have kraken
which can all be found in https://dcg.co/portfolio/ list

you see that DCG invented and declares it their product to own Liquid sidechain(via blockstream) https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
and the Lightning network subnet https://dcg.co/portfolio/#l

and then you look at the 2 main features that were added to bitcoin since 2015
segwit(needed to create locks to then be reference points to allow sidechains and subnets)
and then there was taproot which allows things that were in liquid

and you will see how as soon as both segwit and taproot got activated , certain devs then 'retired"
sipa (segwit and taproot main coder) also was another one that retired recently.

now what you have to realise is
segwit made promises of more transactions per second on the blockchain. and cheaper fees.
what they actually done was make transaction lengths of traditional formats be counted as 4x he length(weight) thus made a premium cost. where by they then discount the new segwit format by not counting the true length of a transaction..
yep it used to be based on actual bytes not this cludge miscount of vbyte stuff
also when segwit was not going to get its threshold to activate from november 2016-june 2017.. the teams of devs needed to try a new trick.
part of it was the ceo of DCG barry silbert) contacted the main bitcoin merchants and some pools. to create a contract campaign that those merchants want a 2mb block+segwit. where by a dev from Bloq will code this as the compromise.
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
this contract petition/campaign was called the NY agreement
https://dcgco.medium.com/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77

where by segwit had to activate first to then have a 2mb base block limit for the legacy tx format users.
this however along with the blockstream devs desire to push a mandatory fork that even if the main merchants or mining pools dont have the software to actually support segwit. they need to flag in their blocks that they support segwit or they will have their blocks rejected in july..
which occured and thus by july they got the 100%(yep 100%(impossible in true decentralisation) 100% support to want to activate segwit

oh and the funny part 7 years later
transaction fee's are not cheaper than 2016 levels
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/fees-usd-per-transaction.png?timespan=all&h=405&w=720
look at the low fee flatline 2009-2017. and then look at the spikes after 2017 and the low levels higher then the pre2017 flatline

transactions per block are not 2x 4x of 2016 levels
https://api.blockchain.info/charts/preview/n-transactions.png?timespan=all&h=405&w=720
look at the amount of transaction in late 2016-mid2017(before segwit activation)
then look at the transactions since.. yep plateau and slightly decending now. not climbing


oh and segwit has not finished because core devs dont care about user utility of segwit to "sign message" at GUI level. they couldnt even finish implementing segwit for actually community use of all the features a transaction can do. all they wanted was the part that allowed the locks to then offramp users away from bitcoin into LN or liquid

and then we move onto taproot. well that helps integrate liquid into bitcoin more.
and as soon as taproot activated. instead of those devs staying to maintain and bug fix their inventions. they decide its time for them to step aside and step down

now thats the politics side certain people want to protect and not have mentioned
the dev politics that has affected the protocol for corporate agenda of DCG

its this messy stuff that has caused social campaigns by the politial dev defenders to shout out how they feel that bitcoin is
'not fit for purpose', to then advertise people should move over and use LN
'cant scale' to advertise LN
'expensive' to advertise LN
'not private' to advertise LN and liquid

yep they are showing how chain analysis is linking peoples use of coinbase kraken, gyfts and many exchanges. to break peoples privacy when transacting bitcoin
well guess who owns chain analysis
yep https://dcg.co/portfolio/#c

so now you can see why core has become a central point of failure in regards to the political decisions of the protocol changes
and its only now that DCG has got the features they want. that they are happy to let bitcoin go a little. but not too much. as they will pretend blockstream are going. but still using the chaincode lab/brink sponsors to appear more decentralising paying for devs salary less directly

again. this is a big reasons we should not be letting core be the sole repository of decision making for the protocol. things really need to become decentralised more

and if you want to look at the other social drama dev politics
again we have bloq another implementation pretending to rival core..
yep DCG own it
https://dcg.co/portfolio/#b
and guess who worked for bloq
https://www.finextra.com/pressarticle/64273/blockchain-firm-bloq-appoints-gavin-andresen-to-new-board-of-advisors
yep gavin andresen took the job when he started the drama with the scammer..
yep got hired in march 2016 by bloq(dcg) and then retired from bitcoin-qt when it was rebranded to core(blockstream(DCG)who took over the main github from gavin. in may 2016

so it all goes full circle
..
i hope you are now all caught up on all the dev politics of 2015-2022

[2stout]

If this was private industry or proprietary code as opposed to open source, then perhaps we may have been in a world of shit.  However, this is part of the beauty of decentralization, in that the show doesn't stop with one individual, at least hasn't happened yet and this won't be an exception either.

[BlackHatCoiner]

Don't visit a fake site? of course not but people fall victim to fake sites all the time. so saying the solution is to just "not visit it" well, that's not really a solution, it's just general advice which everyone would agree with. kind of like "don't step in dog poop".

Well, if you want to avoid stepping on dog poop, the first thing you should know is look where you step.

ok then how about bitcoin-core.org? or btccore.org? btc-core-satoshi.org?

As I said, it doesn't matter as long as you look after your software's integrity, by verifying the signatures according to the public keys that are outside the possibly compromised site.

Nothing is stopping a hacker from creating a repo on github with a text file with a list of fake developers along with their key fingerprints and then putting those same keys on an openpgp server.

Visit the original repository. Visit multiple PGP servers, check that the public keys match. Visit web archive, and make sure these keys aren't altered. Visit bitcointalk.org. Visit stackexchange. You can even wait for a few days, just to make sure there is nothing compromised the day you downloaded the binaries.

if they can compromise bitcoincore.org and change the binaries they can probably do that too.

IF they compromise bitcoincore.org, and IF they compromise github.com too, and IF they compromise every single PGP server that you'll look for the keys, and IF they compromise every single site that contains the fingerprints, then you're highly likely to be ripped off. I hope you understand how stupidly difficult it is to do all those, assuming you have a clean OS.

i would think alot of people who download bitcoin core do not check signatures.

Their bad. I always check for signatures' validity when I download open-source software. I haven't lost a 'toshi.

[DaveF]

i would think alot of people who download bitcoin core do not check signatures.

Their bad. I always check for signatures' validity when I download open-source software. I haven't lost a 'toshi.

And I think you are both overestimating how many people actually use core. I have a few good friends that use BTC a lot I have a few others that dabble in it, and know a bunch that trade. On top of that I know 2 people who were programmers for a major exchange that now work for other places in the crypto world. How many run core? Including me? Doing some math...... 1. Yes I have several nodes on different platforms and so on.
Everyone else I know are all running lite wallets on their phones or PCs.

We are are very small group here who are very into BTC and so on. But most people don't want to spend the time / money and everything else to deal with it. Electrum is fine or a host of others quick and simple wallets.

-Dave

[franky1]

Don't visit a fake site? of course not but people fall victim to fake sites all the time. so saying the solution is to just "not visit it" well, that's not really a solution, it's just general advice which everyone would agree with. kind of like "don't step in dog poop".

Well, if you want to avoid stepping on dog poop, the first thing you should know is look where you step.

average joe does not have time or patience to spend time to validate the website they look at manually. and well most websites in crypto are proxy protected and such so people cant really see any thing that can be considered real or true verification of website ownership anyway

but say they trust the website.. then they dont have the patience to validate the gpg sig then validate the hash in the sig matches the file hash of the downloaded exe file
nor do they have the basic knowledge to know they could/should do that

heck there used to be internet safety advice for people that do online banking to look at the web address of the bank and make sure its not a redirect to a similar sounding website

however people in the UK trust bank names like barclays,hsbc,natwest or halifax
so when they go to halifax website. and then click login. instead of being just brand followed by .co.uk it changes to halifax-online

yes thats the official site but halifax did not stick to the rules of using its actual known brand website domain. and thus some could think its phishy

people then end up having to trust web browser extensions that officiate websites with little green padlocks and ticks that suggest its official or end up using malware/antivirus software and such

take a look at the google play and apple store site, where they dont just list apps but have become certifiers and validators of the apps.
.. because.. average joe cant, dont want, dont have time [insert excuse] to independently verify
and malicious people play on the naivety of others