So why did the core developers did not attend "New York Agreement" on May 24th, 2017, do they no longer want to solve the bitcoin scalability issue or Aug 1 is the big payday they have been waiting for?

These greedy developers first tried to push Segwit so that their company BlockStream can make money through CENTRALIZED Lightening Network [which destroys everything bitcoin stands for], but when it does not work out, they use all their money to spam the network and take it to the position where the current bitcoin state is no longer acceptable, and now it seems they are not even trying to prevent the hardfork as if they want a big crash and a split in bitcoin chain, resulting in huge loss to bitcoin holders[like me], miners and other bitcoin based businesses.

When there are so many altcoins with so many developers, why cant we have honest bitcoin core developers who can work without any conflict of interest?

When do we move on from segwit and look for other feasible solutions. I know the core developers have been pushing segwit [like their jobs depend on it  blockstream] and do not even want to consider any other solution, for some time. But for how long does it continue? Will they continue pushing it till the end and make sure bitcoin goes down with them?

Most people dont realize the dire state bitcoin is because they are happy with the recent price gains, but for new users, it is worse than paypal and other such payment options which bitcoin intended to replace. Honestly, if you got to know about bitcoin now and realized it can take days to send money even after you pay big fees, will you still consider it useful.
There are already so many real issues like regulations which bitcoin needs to overcome but instead it is focused on stupid issue for the gain of select few.

I do not want to discuss if segwit is good thing or not, I hate segwit because of the way it is being pushed to all bitcoin users and centralization issues, but I am a small time bitcoin user, so maybe I am wrong and my opinion does not matter much. Just want to know,  if the core developers are ever going to consider/propose an alternate solution?

ok, curious to know from where does this rule come from?
I thought users take the decision independently and then based on those decisions consensus is formed, never knew the consensus was formed first and then users need to support the consensus.
Are we now making everything up as we go,  POW/ consensus system/ what next?

ok, to clarify at this point I no longer care so BU or BTC or WTF, all are the same at this point,just different people trying to abuse bitcoin to fulfill their own interest. As per the bitcoin protocol, the miners are allowed to take the decision, and choose what chain they want to mine, if they prefer the BU chain and it becomes the longest chain then that is the bitcoin chain. This is the basic mining system, and from their point of view they are respecting the protocol. Now if you look at the core development team, they are ones who are abusing their position by pushing segwit/lightening network when clearly it has no majority support and it is a conflict of interest due to them being part of Blockstream.

Yes that is one way to look at it, another way is that you want to change the rules of the game because you can no longer win with those rules. Till the time you were winning, rules were fine. Miners have made the biggest investment in the bitcoin system, they secured the network when required and now you simply decide to set all their investments and hard work to zero.

So Satoshi Bitcoin will split to Chinese Bitcoin and Blockstream Bitcoin.

If only core developers were capable/motivated/competent to find a solution to increase block size so that people can continue using bitcoin without paying ridiculous fees and insane confirmation time.
Anyways, if there is a split then BTC will not survive as BU needs 70% miner support and if there is 70% support, even less than 50% of those miners can do a 51% attack on BTC, so BTC will need to change their POW as they are planning now, at that point BTC will no longer be BTC but just another altcoin, and a technically inferior coin to many other altcoins.

So why wait for everything to fall apart when the only option is to choose an altcoin and start using it.
 

I did not say majority supports BU currently, perhaps I even dont care, I just dont want a fork leading to two chains, I want people to wait till there is majority and then accept that chain as bitcoin chain whether it is BU or Segwit.

Agreed that one chain is better option, so I am asking that why not everyone is ready to move to single chain once there is consensus, why not wait till segwit or BU system has consensus as they have set percentage required for each and then take that chain as bitcoin chain and move forward, why do people want to first fork and then see what will happen. Are people so stubborn that they cannot accept that their opinion was not the majority opinion for one time.

so why are we talking about fork leading to two versions of bitcoin, if BU gets 75% concensus then logically BU should be the only bitcoin and the other fork should be killed, just the mining logic of adding  to the longest chain.

ok suppose what you are saying is true and no one supports BCU, suppose by some miracle in few months majority of miners like whatever percentage value they have decided supports BCU then in that case bitcoin core developers must support BCU and BCU must be BTC or will there be a different excuse then.

So apparently the core developers want to change bitcoin POW, I want to ask that when the majority of the bitcoin community is slowly reaching a consensus on BTU then instead of supporting the consensus why are they hell bent on destroying btc?

Is bitcoin no longer a decentralized system where everyone can decide for themselves and then the majority wins?

Finally, if the majority of the bitcoin miners and bitcoin users seem to favor BTU then why they dont support it?

It will be obvious if instead of blindly defending you try and understand with an open mind. In your example both will be same if RED HAT GETS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM IMPLEMENTING A FEATURE INTO LINUX KERNEL AND THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE/INFLUENCE IT, which is true with blockstream which has direct financial incentive to make segwit/lignting network part of bitcoin.

I would suggest you should read some real world examples of "Confict of Interest" so that you can understand, otherwise no matter what I say, it will not make any difference to you , if you have already made your decision.

Also this is not about segwit/lightning, if it is good thing or bad, even if segwit/lightning is perfect solution as you seem to think, the actions of the core developers are completely unethical and wrong.


If you say it is about making an income , so the developers need to be affiliated with Blockstream, I don't agree. No one can deny that bitcoin core developers are one of the top programmers in the world and they can very easily get a job at any of the top companies and make a good income, but choosing Blockstream and then promoting segwit/lightning is just being greedy and dishonest. They are abusing their position and trust that the bitcoin community has in them.

No I am saying you develop whatever you want but you should not have the power to decide or influence whether the feature you developed should be part of an open source project like bitcoin when your company will directly benefit if that feature is added to the open source project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

Not the same, no one should have any issue with the core developers developing segwig or lightning network or anything else they wish. The issue is that they have the power to decide or directly influence if it is part of bitcoin or not.

And then there is calling other solution foolish:
So by your logic Satoshi's concept of halving every 4 years is foolish or the number 21 million is foolish.

Not my quote 

I have not checked in depth and will need to do more research regarding their field of work but a quote from their website:

Also the statement "Additionally Segwit and lightning benefits nearly everyone who uses Bitcoin, not just one company." should not be made, it is your opinion and again you assume it is correct, when we are trying to judge its correctness. If it was as good as you say it is, then you think that a lot of other people are stupid that they cannot see what you see.




So you are saying there is no overlap between Core developers and https://blockstream.com/team/
Just because a person of a company is not working on a project of a company it does not mean he does not want it to be successful. An employee is expected to support the projects of his organisation.

It is related more to having the power to directly influence those who will ultimately make the decision. If they  are not part of blockstream then they have equal right as all other developers but when you are to judge on a product your company is working on, you should not have the power of making/influencing the decision.

So people dont think that this is an issue. How can the person who makes the rules also be expected to judge if the rule is correct or not.

I mean none of the people listed at the link below should have a say in whether to accept or reject the segwit BIP.

https://blockstream.com/team/

I want to know, why some developers who are part of company "Blockstream" which will benefit from addition of Segwit/Lightening network to bitcoin, continue be part of the core bitcoin development team. They cannot be expected to take unbiased decisions for the future of bitcoin, because of conflict of interest between their company goals and bitcoin.


I have no issue if some developers support segwit/lightning network, but I think they are abusing their position/power to force it to everyone involved with bitcoin.


I think the ethical thing would be to step down as core bitcoin developers , giving up git commit access to main bitcoin repository and similar powers. They should like everyone else make a BIP request  for segwit /Lightening network and then let the community/miners and core developers take a decision just like any other BIP.