> It's an inefficient hack Sure. The creator of SegWit (Sipa) said in one of his first talks on the subject that if you could re-architect Bitcoin from scratch

> It's an inefficient hack Sure. The creator of SegWit (Sipa) said in one of his first talks on the subject that if you could re-architect Bitcoin from scratch, then you would segregate the witness data. Nodes could potentially throw it away after witnesses were verified, to save disk space. The problem is that it would require a hard fork, which Core wants to avoid if at all possible. SegWit hacks the coinbase and transaction structure in order to be implemented as a soft fork. I'm not sure if it's inefficient or not, but it is a hack. Does the fact that it's a hack mean that it's bad for Bitcoin? That article talks about all sorts of developer troubles and losing coins without ever mentioning the testnet, which exists to allow you to lose worthless coins. If a company is pushing major updates to wallet software without conducting proper testing, then bad on them. Plenty of bitcoin has been lost to the current complexities of the transaction format. Remember those 100 BTC fee transactions? The article's conclusion bemoans the plight of the miners without mentioning the actual users of Bitcoin, other than a hand-wave at "community consensus." I'm not convinced. > Do the Blockstream people even speak out against the censorship on /r/bitcoin? No. Do they prefer to use channels censoring opposing opinions? Yes. Ok, so let's assume the whole lot is rotten and loves censorship. Does that change the nature of the code that exists in the Bitcoin codebase? Censorship sucks, but Bitcoin is what really matters. >> If you're spouting FUD, then go back to /r/btc. >Exactly the narrative Core supporters push. Anyone who tries the path of moderation and reason within /r/btc is downvoted into oblivion, resulting in de facto censorship of that sub. Edit: > Summary of /r/bitcoin, for those wondering. You forgot the roller coaster price gifs :-)