Bitcoiners, get your priorities straight.

What is the number one priority for every participant in the Bitcoin ecosystem? Keep this ecosystem functioning properly. Without a functioning ecosystem, the value prospects of Bitcoin as a whole dwindles. People over the past two years have been engaged in an unbelievably contentious debate over what is necessary to keep this ecosystem functioning. This debate, when setting aside the massive egos driving it on one side, comes down to priorities. One side of this debate has let their priorities fall completely out of whack because of arrogance and ego.

Roger Ver in this post completely attacks malleability fixes as non-critical or not a priority. He specifically makes the point that BU claims it will address these issues in future, but does not prioritize them now, and that he agrees with this assessment. Notice how he does not even mention in what regard by its own rights BU is superior to Segwit. Notice the childish comparison to relative adoption numbers between BU and Segwit, in an attempt to paint Segwit supporters as an impedance. All he does is use de-prioritizing malleability fixes as a selling point for Bitcoin Unlimited.

To promote his own interests, Roger Ver completely de-prioritizes fixing something that is a fundamental bug in Bitcoin. A malleability fix isn’t only needed to enable more functional payment channels, or second layers, its a fix that optimizes and makes things running now more secure. The recent malleated block mined by Bitclub is proof of this. Blockchain.info and Bither essentially stalled at that block because their software was not capable of handling a block with malleated signatures. The largest wallet service in the ecosystem, and another wallet presumably using their API, became useless because of signature malleability for a time(And who knows how many other services using their API were affected as well).

The largest wallet service in the ecosystem was made temporarily unusable because of signature malleability. How is this not a priority to fix?

This is without mentioning the limitations businesses face with chaining transactions together, this is without mentioning the services current businesses(or new businesses altogether) cannot implement, this is without mentioning the limitations it places on secondary layers. When something can knock offline the biggest wallet service in the Bitcoin ecosystem, and such an influential figure such as Roger Ver can honestly say with a straight face fixing it is not a priority, something is wrong.

Bitcoiners, get your priorities straight.

ADDENDUM: There have been numerous stories circulating calling Bitclub’s blocks an attack, and equating confirming a malleated transaction with a doublespend. This is a point blank lie. A double spend involves sending a transaction, and double spending those outputs to a different destination. A malleated transaction does not change the destination address.