And? What's the problem?
Is BTC's security undermined?
Are the odds of double spends increased?
Is there some other kind of vulnerability for malicious players to exploit?
Under Segregated witness, isn't all of the accounting going to be reconciled within a relatively short period of time? It's not like segregated witness causes ongoing unresolved transactions. Is it?
And. Perhaps many. Maybe. I think so. Yes, see link below. I don't know how long. I think the answer is that it does.
Rather than reiterate, I point you here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.13197163Maybe my fears are unjustified. I don't yet know enough about it to know. What I do know is that I don't trust that all those crowing about how this SegWit is going to save us have really looked at it to the point where they understand it.
I believe that you have kind of answered your question in a couple of places by asserting that you don't really know if the points that you raised are issues are not.
Well to draw a bit of an analogy, there are a quite a few areas related to bitcoin that I do not understand or claim to understand - for example, cryptography, math, economics and politics (to name a few), but in the past two years, I have been continuing to invest in bitcoin because I have some faith that the various bitcoin contributions are filling niches that are not otherwise filled by mainstream traditional (and often centralized) institutions, and I am continuing to investigate various dynamics and contributions of BTC.
Even though on an ongoing basis, I continue to learn about various bitcoin dynamics, I frequently read, see and hear people who appear to be much knowledgeable than me in some of the areas that I lack knowledge causing me to maintain a positive view of bitcoin and to continue to be fairly bullish about the future performance of bitcoin.
Accordingly, it does not hurt to ask a large number of questions like you have done, but contrary to what you seem to be doing, I would not assume without specific evidence and/or examples or even proposed scenarios that various contributors to bitcoin's code are sloppily leading us down some perilous doom and gloom path.
In fact, it seems to me, that in the whole scheme of things, we should feel some comfort in the opposite, that is if a bunch of battling coders are currently appearing to compromising and agreeing to such compromise, there must be some mutually agreeable aspect regarding such compromise that causes the battling sides to be gravitating towards intermediate consensus (at least for the short term). So it makes little sense to me if someone seems to be assuming, without evidence that they are a bunch of fuck-ups.
