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

[larry_vw_1955]

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

i'm a bit skeptical of FTX and any motives they might have since they been in the news with this Voyager scandal: https://cryptobriefing.com/voyager-says-ftxs-buyout-offer-was-misleading-low-ball-bid-sbf-fires-back/

so it's certainly sad that they are involved with bitcoin develpment in anyway.

yep it used to be based on actual bytes not this cludge miscount of vbyte stuff

yeah that always seemed fishy to me how they invented this vbyte imaginary way of determining a transaction's "weight".

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.

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

i never hear or see people saying how great segwit addresses are because they are saving them so much money...segwit addresses are more confusing and less people understand how they are generated. bech32 addresses even had an error detection bug so they had to invent a new bech32m. such ugliness.

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

just another example of something that wasn't needed but got shoehorned into bitcoin by powerful interests?

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

when people do that, they should threaten to remove the upgrade. that would be an interesting occurence to see some BIP that got activated, become deactivated later on down the line.

i hope you are now all caught up on all the dev politics of 2015-2022

sounds like bitcoin got under the control of some bad situation.

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.

The reason bitcoin core people dont get hacked is they are technically inclined and they do check hashes and signatures of the stuff they download. Especially bitcoin core. But people that download electrum are probably more numerous and don't check sigs. Not as large a percentage of them anyway. Signature checking is a bit of a pain in the ass anyway. If they could make it quicker it might help but that's another story. But that's why you hear more stories about people downloading a hacked version of Electrum and poof their money is gone.

[1714024603]

1714024603

[1714024603]

1714024603

[1714024603]

1714024603

[1714024603]

1714024603

[franky1]

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

i never hear or see people saying how great segwit addresses are because they are saving them so much money...segwit addresses are more confusing and less people understand how they are generated. bech32 addresses even had an error detection bug so they had to invent a new bech32m. such ugliness.

yep everyone is screaming that bitcoin fes are too high.. and so core are now pushing people to stop using bitcoin transactions and use other networks as the solution(to a problem THEY caused)

look at the latest funny..
.. they make taproot and pretend "no one can tell its a taproot because it looks like a standard segwit"

standard segwit bc1q
taproot             bc1p
i did laugh

but as for standard segwit
people that want to prove they own an address..after 4 years of segwit use(it wasnt really in used until 2018 due to lack of majority of wallets supporting it (something that should have been in place pre activation in normal pre-core consensus to have majority ready, to then allow an activation)

anyway. 4 years later people cannot "sign/verify a message" using core gui and segwit the same way people can with legacy..
yep segwit is not a finalised feature. all they cared about was activating it to get their gateway bridges to offramp people to other networks.

taproot is also unfinished also cant sign/verify message in core gui. and yet the main dev coder of taproot and segwit (sipa) has stepped aside too.
seems they dont care about actual features people want, nor ensuring features actually fully work(well they did see it doesnt work. but its not on the top of the list to bother with finishing).. yep the so called "other dev" reviewers never bothered to tap the privilieged devs on the shoulder to tell them to finish their job. nor did they even themselves independently finish it for sipa.. they just let him do the small bit he was sponsored to do and not worry beyond that, because they trust sipa done a good job and nothing was needed beyond whatever sipa chose to do

so sipa just done the minimal he could to push in just the things they were sponsored to push through, letting his sponsprs PR team hype it up, oversell its utility, over promise what it will give to other users..  without thinking about the wider communities actual user experience of using a feature they publicised soo much about.. .

one last subtle funny
sipa's own website which show bitcoin stats ..
https://bitcoin.sipa.be/
 asks for donations..(scroll to bottom, on the right) to a legacy address not a segwit address. (he does not use his own sponsored invention address format)