<p>This is not a question anyone can answer. If you'd asked me 2 years ago what the chances of raising the block size in the future were, I'd probably have said that they were pretty good.</p>

<p>I think we can all definitely agree that CT is unlikely to be merged into Bitcoin Core itself any time soon, if at all, as it would require major wallet changes across the board, and would be a massive hard fork...with all the push-back that goes along with that.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-24T00:15:17.223Z
SegWit allows CT to be done through soft fork. Wallet support would be opt in, I think. Also block size increase is going to happen within weeks now, so you were right 2 years ago.
Jannes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-24T06:05:16.063Z
If it's not enforced on a protocol level it's not even worth discussing. Then it's about as useless as centralised mixers, marred by exceedingly low entropy and full of central failure points. As to the block size, where do you get that there's going to be a hard-fork increase within weeks? Segwit doesn't count.
Riaan Swart
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T10:45:10.583Z
Saying it's useless doesn't make any sense. First of all it would be immensely easier and faster than centralised mixers and trustless. 2nd even if a small but steadily growing number of people start using CT then that's an improvement for the people involved and even others. That's the only way to transition to a mostly CT situation in a backwards compatible manner anyway. Next: i never mentioned hard fork in 2 weeks, i meant segwit which perfectly counts as it literally increases the block size. But this is not a discussion site, so don't bother please.
Jannes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-25T10:53:26.507Z
Don't bother with the blocksize debate, is what i meant there. Valid points on the topic of this question+answer are welcome of course.
Jannes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-23T21:11:54.200Z
2016-05-23T21:11:54.200Z
Riaan Swart
<p>Pretty good actually as it has become a lot easier after SegWit allowed for new script opcodes through soft forks. It might still be a few years out, as there are other priorities, but Gregory Maxwell is pretty active on CT.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2016-05-24T00:12:31.987Z
2016-05-24T00:12:31.987Z
Jannes
<p>I have seen discussion of CT being used on the a side chain. What are the chances it will be applied to Bitcoin Core itself?</p>

<privacy><confidential-transactions>
Confidential Transactions on main chain
Jamal Wilson
# Confidential Transactions on main chain

(Asked by: username_0 on 2016-05-23)

I have seen discussion of CT being used on the a side chain. What are the chances it will be applied to Bitcoin Core itself?

**Tags:** privacy, confidential-transactions


---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2016-05-24. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

Pretty good actually as it has become a lot easier after SegWit allowed for new script opcodes through soft forks. It might still be a few years out, as there are other priorities, but Gregory Maxwell is pretty active on CT.


---

### Answer by username_1 on 2016-05-23. Score: 2

This is not a question anyone can answer. If you'd asked me 2 years ago what the chances of raising the block size in the future were, I'd probably have said that they were pretty good.

I think we can all definitely agree that CT is unlikely to be merged into Bitcoin Core itself any time soon, if at all, as it would require major wallet changes across the board, and would be a massive hard fork...with all the push-back that goes along with that.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: SegWit allows CT to be done through soft fork. Wallet support would be opt in, I think. Also block size increase is going to happen within weeks now, so you were right 2 years ago.  
> **username_1**: If it's not enforced on a protocol level it's not even worth discussing. Then it's about as useless as centralised mixers, marred by exceedingly low entropy and full of central failure points. As to the block size, where do you get that there's going to be a hard-fork increase within weeks? Segwit doesn't count.  
> **username_2**: Saying it's useless doesn't make any sense. First of all it would be immensely easier and faster than centralised mixers and trustless. 2nd even if a small but steadily growing number of people start using CT then that's an improvement for the people involved and even others. That's the only way to transition to a mostly CT situation in a backwards compatible manner anyway. Next: i never mentioned hard fork in 2 weeks, i meant segwit which perfectly counts as it literally increases the block size. But this is not a discussion site, so don't bother please.  
> **username_2**: Don't bother with the blocksize debate, is what i meant there. Valid points on the topic of this question+answer are welcome of course.  

---

