Quote from: ziiip on June 26, 2016, 11:55:26 PM

Quote from: AliceGored on June 26, 2016, 11:50:53 PM

Quote from: ziiip on June 26, 2016, 11:25:20 PM

Quote from: AliceGored on June 26, 2016, 11:20:15 PM

Quote from: Carlton Banks on June 26, 2016, 11:07:52 PM

gmaxwell > satoshi. Yeah, I said it.

There were some really serious bugs in Satoshi's code; who fixed those bugs? Core team. Give it up, Satoshi was inspired, but not the Second Coming. Someone better than Peter Todd or gmaxwell will turn up one day, too. Inspired by all of them; ruled by none of them

Yes, you did say it. Im glad you did, it helps explain the psyche of the mini-blocker.

Lets just hope that when some bloke > gregory maxwell > satoshi shows up they dont go found a VC/legacy finance funded operation with confessed scammer Austin D. Hill to siphon utility and revenue away from the native Bitcoin network, again.

gmaxwell has still not resolved the malleability issue for ON CHAIN TRANSACTIONS

If you mean non-segwit transactions = on chain transactions, this could be true, I guess.
[Ironically it wouldn't be if segwit was done without the opcode hack and as a HF.]

But he (really his coworker, and contractor, Pieter and luke-jr) HAS solved on chain + segwit malleability, which is critical for payment channel smart contract use of the chain. So you see how Core development really works... everything that Blockstream wants/needs is done straight away, (BIP9, CSV), while even planning for a small capacity HF over a year away is indefinitely shelved.

The main point here is that Bitcoin transaction malleability has never been fixed. ONLY segwit malleability has been fixed, and segwit doesn't even exist yet. . .

Well, to match you in a little pedantry...

That's more of a declarative than a point, really.