Bitcoin Forum

Congratz for Blockstream and the Core Devs.
http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-55-million-series-a/ (http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-55-million-series-a/)


I'm pretty sure the big block/Classic supporters will not like this news.

https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/694883528937439232 (https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/694883528937439232)


So I think it's clear who Barry is supporting.
I just love this guy.He is smart and always a great ambassador fot Bitcoin!

Great news! Until someone in the opposing faction expresses distrust or some angst against the act of Core devs, this is great news! Also, $55 mil is no joke for investing in a tech which is on its infancy. A daring and bold move, I must say.

That does not surprise me at all. It was obvious there would be many millions of dollars put into this technology sooner or later. Let's hope this news may hepl accelerate the process of development of the bitcoin blockchain.

Corporate backing for bitcoin/Bitcoin developers. No one else sees a problem with this?

Not if we can get a quick pump on the news, no.
Bit sad 'coz not yet working :(

Right, Because this is not good news.

The more development the better.

I also hope that there would be some sort of crackdown so the tech can be battle-tested, and price swings to have more entry-points for investors who missed out the $250 levels.

What this also means is that there is much incentive backed by millions of dollars to keep the blocksize at 1 MB. Blockstream will try to bury Classic. It ain't gonna be pretty.

I agree more development is better. And there's not necessarily a problem with developers being paid either. With corporate money, comes corporate influence.

Still better, than let's say shill influence ;D you know like on the US social media

But this big amount of dollars has been rised in order to advance the sidechain solutions right? It does not seem the market has reacted too well to this as price has gone down a bit today.

Nah, fine news. Bitcoin's growing up, shedding some youthful naivete & idealism. Our Pumpkin's almost ready to take some girthy banker D.
Soon...

now they can start to work on 2 MB blocks  :P


Congratz Blockstream.  :)

Before we get too excited about this, let's first find out who these venture capital firms are.... Anyone have more details on  AXA Group; Digital Garage

and Horizons Ventures? I tried to Google them and find very little information. I like the roadmap for the Blockstream development more than the

Bitcoin Classic proposal, but I would like to know a bit more about the people pushing for the Blockstream and their motives behind that... You do not

invest that kind of money, if you not expecting some kind of return on it.  ::)

Only the code matters.

I don't see a problem with gigantic infusions of capital for Bitcoin development.  Back/Maxwell/Wuille/Corallo/Russell/Timon/etc are Bitcoin All-Stars!   8)

Take the anti-capitalist paranoia back to your Bernie Sanders MeetUp; we don't need it here.

This money will mostly be used to develop off chain solutions to scaling, not scaling the Bitcoin blockchain directly itself. Fortunately Bitcoin Classic will also be receiving more support in the form of developers paid for by various companies within the ecosystem.

That's some serious money. I think it's good that it's going into an actual bitcoin company but, yep, it makes me feel a little uneasy too.

I'll take my anti-capitalist concerns wherever I want. This is a move toward centralization.

Its great news indeed!The $55 million funding raised,will it be in bitcoins or fiat.I'm sure the core developers would like to have it in bitcoins.Finally some reward to the developers.Hope it doesn't turn as a sellout to the commercial streams which may dissolve decentralization,I'm afraid.

Huge problems, we need trusted, community based methods to keep the code free and independent.

Things are moving in the right direction, as expected when people have to put money where their mouth is, they will go for the talent and for the time tested developer team (Core team) and not the other wannabes that have proven nothing of value worth making them the leaders of the project (Classic, XT).

Already stacking up on this cheap Bitcoin before the halving.

It's unclear exactly what Blockstream's business plan is supposed to be; however, we can infer that it involves private blockchains and consultations on blockchain technology. R3 (Hearn's employer) is also working on private blockchains, so Blockstream must be evil, right?

The difference is that Blockstream's solution can tie these private blockchains directly to Bitcoin via 2‑way pegs; this makes BTC an extremely valuable common medium of exchange amongst all the private systems that wish to be so connected—in fact, it's better than that; because of the guiding principles of robust decentralization above all else, it serves as a refuge to store value when there's doubt in the rest of the system.

Blockstream's solution makes Bitcoin the backbone of an Internet of Money.

The transactions of the world are not uniform in their requirements; there are various profiles of risk and cost and speed and payload—and any other property you can think of! Indeed, there is more trust in the world than Bitcoin assumes, and that trust can be used by some profiles in order to benefit everyone.

No single system can simultaneously cater to all profiles.

The profile that Bitcoin was designed to serve entails decentralized, trustless processing of "small casual transactions"—and of these properties, decentralization is paramount; after all, you can construct an inexpensive high-volume transaction system on top of a decentralized core system of nearly any sort, but you cannot construct a decentralized system on top of a centralized core system of any sort.

The Core of the ecosystem needs to be correct.

Above all else, the Core of the Bitcoin ecosystem must provide decentralized, trustless processing of transactions; once that goal has been met, an overlay network (like the Lightning Network) can be used to construct Bitcoin transactions in a way that is smarter than simply using Bitcoin directly. Furthermore, Bitcoin's token, BTC, can be pegged to the tokens of other systems that cater to all manner of different profiles.

In this way, every possible profile can be serviced and yet tied together with a common token, BTC; when there is doubt in the ecosystem, users can retreat to the safety of the cold, heartless, trustlesss core that is Bitcoin.

This makes Bitcoin the Core of an Internet of Money.

Great news!! $55 Million is not a joke and it's huge amount to invest in a technology. That shows the trust of the loyal fans of bitcoin and also shows the future potential is huge. Good news indeed!

https://blockstream.com/2016/02/02/blockstream-new-investors-55-million-series-a/

when a blockstream shill who has tried portraying himself as an anti-capitalist, then goes and tells anti-capitalists to shoo off.. you know for certain that blockstream really is capitalist, and the cover of secrecy is finally being unveiled

I, for one, welcome our Blockstream overlords.

Where did I portray myself as anti-capitalist?  Anti crony-capitalist to be sure, but I'm no pinko.

You are so far off base you might get captured by the Taliban.   :D

Only the code matters.

Do you disagree, or have you found a way to indict the code with your paranoid guilt-by-association conspiracy theories?

Where is this money coming from? nvm oh venture capital firms and banks?
And how will the money be used? oh 'targeted toward the bitcoin network'

This sounds like great news, they sound like they want to build out the Bitcoin network so these parasitic in nature service providers can run their services on top of our network, using us for security.
This is an improvement over the old strategies of dividing the community and tricking the community into forking the code into oblivion.

I'm fine with parasites using the blockchain for security as long as they keep the bulk of the data they want to protect off the main chain and pay fees like the rest of us.

Not sure about the money, but here is the "tech stuff":

Read the whitepaper, Enabling Blockchain Innovations with Pegged Sidechains, to understand the science.
https://blockstream.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/sidechains.pdf

Only the code matters. Who is writing the code? We know this information. Who is influencing the people writing the code, and what are their intentions? To not question this would be stupid. To say that +$50 million has no influence would also be stupid.

How this is good news, that a bitcoin development is virtually controlled by one commercial company? Do you think that the investors gave the 55 mils now, as a charity? They will expect return on their investment. Blockstream will be doing what's best for the investors and itself to make a profit for them.

Bitcoin is no longer about free, community driven and community centric development, free of any financial bs like this. No surprise Satoshi left, if he forsee this coming.

Good point!  I agree.


I don't care.  Only the code matters.


I don't care; that's none of my business.  Only the code matters.

So you're just blindly following a company? That is opposite of what bitcoin is.

I think the answers were sarcastic.

Wish this block size debate could be put to sleep for good. So tiresome.

War. What is it good for? Absolutely nothing :(

Sorry, the debate isn't just going to disappear because you "wish" it would.

If you are tired, try taking a nap.

selling with the news!

The commercial use of blockchain could expand the user base and the value of bitcoin!

I think this could be a strong news! 

Only down ~$6 today. Meh.

Like this one ?....

https://i.imgur.com/SBbCHdD.png

https://i.imgur.com/Er1BzkZ.png

I don't have any problem in principle with 3rd party corporates doing initiatives around bitcoin - people can do what they like.

But if the ultimate deciders - the miners - adopt the Blockstream model then you can kiss the original ideals of bitcoin goodbye. All it is a bank in reverse. JP Morgan is putting a poxy blockchain at the heart of their corporate brokering monolith to act as the clearing mechanism. Blockstream are building a corporate brokering monolith around a poxy blockchain which will, by then, also be no more than a clearing layer.

Same result, different path.

Talk about taking a bold vision and taming it with legacy baggage. No wonder the price has taken a dump.

Bitcoin works fine as a backbone to the cryptocurrency economy without welding it to other chains.

In fact I doubt if anyone with different idea are still reading this forum  ;)

Gawd dammit, Ice, I agree with you for once.  >:(

Only. The. Code. Matters.

So true.




btw - I;ve searched the coindesk article and blockstreams PR for mention of bitcoins ( as in the currency) and I cant find it. Am I missing something? Litecoinguy, when are they buyin all the coinz??   ???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8mduTEvnU0

Crikey, isn't that a sign of the Bitpocalypse?    :o

But ya, only the code matters.

All of this anti-Blockstream FUD fixating on who wrote the code, why they wrote it, where they wrote it, what they were wearing when they wrote it, what they ate for breakfast, what club they went to last night, and where their pets' vet went to elementary school is an irrelevant distraction.

yet your 19page topic flaming anyone who wasnt blockstream, was relevant?

im guessing you, carlton, Lauda and ciyam are getting a nice bounty win from that $55mill

I don't recall such a topic.  Link please...

Oh wait, shouldn't you already be busy digging up all those old posts where I supposedly "portrayed myself as anti-capitalist (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1351536.msg13767392#msg13767392)?"

Or are you so butthurt about Blockstream's $55MM war chest that you are resorting to just making shit up?

This is perhaps the most egregious example of "Conflict of Interest" in recorded history.

~~

A 2MB blocksize (BIP 102) is not in the best interest of Blockstream, therefore it ain't gonna happen folks.

Nope, none of that. And there is no fud or anti-blockstream.
Just asking people to question the motives of people who now have over $55 mil of corporate backing.

to answer your 2 questions,
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1330553.0

 

No it doesn't. And don't fool yourself that this is remotely 'capitalism' either.

The sad hypocricy of these developments is that Adam Back asserted back in 2013 that he thought that Bitcoin was a "one off event" and that he didn't hold much store by altcoins.

Then he goes and starts a company to build altcoins - just not ones that the market can value independently of bitcoin.

So what will happen now is that bitcoin won't be bitcoin any longer as far as markets are concerned. It will be a heterogenous, unfungible cludge of every kind of chain you can think of, all welded together like siamese x-tuplets where liquidity or value in any sector is a lottery, not subject to the indigenous  supply and demand of that sector but at the mercy of the economic fortunes of every other.
 
"The market" will simply value it accordingly. "Sidechain warts" and all where every sh*tcoin has the same value as bitcoin because a bunch of programmers said so.

There's already a precedent for this - it's called the Euro, where if Germany sneezes, all the Mediterranean countries catch a cold.

Not what the doctor ordered ;)

ROFLMAO I LITERALLY CANT EVEN

Unusual for you to be that stumped for a reply. Just as well you keep those quotes handy for emergencies  ;)

I believe what you are referring to is more commonly called the fullblocalypse. You don't spend much time observing walls, do you?

http://puu.sh/mV8Pq/20d3725cfb.png (https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/693839577371561987)

https://twitter.com/rogerkver/status/693839577371561987

~~


Welcome to Blockstream's new and improved,  SideChainCoin™ - "The Coin with the Tiny Blocks!"

These VC's are so generous.

They just grow Bitcoin by building it out in the best possible way, one immune from rent seeking. 

No, the fullblocalypse was last year during the stress tests.  That turned out to be a giant nothingburger.  All that hype and then...Bitcoin just kept working.  Boring!

The Bitpocalypse is much worse.  sAt0sHiFanClub and I agreeing is only beginning!   :o

https://i.imgur.com/hrRVGcJ.png

^But we're afraid. Because we don't want more people on the plane. Because it's fragile. Send the teeming [people] to [altcoin].

"I'm pretty sure the big block/Classic supporters will not like this news."

i think quite the opposite.. the big block/classic supporters will LOVE this news and use it to say that the core sentiment.

the blockchain is a revolutionary technology yet it is not designed as a solution to everything in one type of thing, and it should not be.  there should be programs and features built on top of the blockchain and not inside bitcoin itself.. bitcoin is meant to be SMALL, USEFUL, and DECENTRALIZED.  yes they can make bitcoin do everything but that is not the point, nor should that be the goal.  bitcoin makes payments available to all, across all borders, and without limits.  

let others develop the technology that will work with the blockchain and add whatever features they want.

hooray to blockstream for their efforts and congrats on their funding.

i know for a fact that with the proper fee i will ALWAYS be able to send money TO ANYONE I WANT, WHENEVER I WANT.  if you want to send a few satoshis in 10-20 years you will have to use a 3rd party service like blockstream.  

SUMMARY
if you want to send .0001 btc you can do it on the blockchain, if you want to send 1 satoshi, maybe a 3rd party service is more appropriate for you!

If all these side chains operate like tentacles of a Octopus and Bitcoin will be the head, I will be happy. I see all these other proposals as a mere power grab without any innovation or special features. We need a team of strong developers, with a clear road map for Bitcoin and the Blockstream guys are bringing it.

They made provision for manageable scalability and they opened the door for side chains for people to innovate and customize their own technology. That is true innovation, not just a quick temporary patch to gain control or whatever hidden agenda they are pushing.

No dev team can continue without money. It is not like we are paying them to code on bitcoin right?

We need to accept that there will be investments from big corporations and venture capital. It is the only way to gather enough funds to see this true.

The risk may be that the new code will be something they would like to see for some product or services, but that is alright if it is not sneaky business and trying to slide it past everybody imo.

Normal people do have a problem. I have a problem. Blockstream is there to destroy Bitcoin, doing it for bankster's dimes. So obvious it screams.

The Monero Trolls and other Altcoiners of course welcome all addition capital invested to cripple Bitcoin.

They have leveraged the work of countless people over 7 years to build out a ledgering system that has proved itself to be largely unbreakable.( all the scams/thefts from bitcoin have been a result of human failings rather than anything in the protocol, but i'm open to correction). The last few holes in such things as 0-conf and tx malleability are being patched up as we speak.

But what some of the flag wavers fail to realise is that it is just about the code - not the bitcoins themselves. Banks obviously want to make money, but their main business is simply the accurate accounting of transactions. And that is what the blockchain provides. The idea that a 2-way peg with bitcoins implies that a $1m transaction on a sidechain will require $1m worth of bitcoin is naive.  The peg will simply act in the same manner that a government stamp has when conveying title on a land deed. It gives the underlying transaction legitimacy by virtue of its existence. The stamp itself is of nominal value. This is why a strict limit is important - its the fee paid that signifies the value, not the transaction amount.

I think this announcement signifies a clear line in the sand as we move from seeing bitcoin as a peer to peer electronic cash system to it simply being an accounting backbone for multi-billion dollar financial institutions. Make of that what you will, and what impact it will have for the value of bitcoin.

When is the last time you heard much discussion of rolling out payment solutions for the public or multi million dollar investments in the firms working on them?

Do you think the Blockstream/PWC/AXA Softfork will be the winner against the hard fork proposals? Will the miners upgrade to Blockstream/PWC/AXA 0.12 instead of Classic/BU?
By the way: my car is insured by AXA.

The more pragmatic miners support Classic because its their best bet to secure the value of Bitcoin into the near future. They currently realise most of their income from the sale of bitcoins as a value token, whereas the blockstream model could very well kill that off in favour of artificially induced fees. With no clear indication of how this will work, I imagine they will opt to preserve bitcoin as peer-to-peer cash system for the time being.

The part of AXA involved with this appears to be a €250m fund from their reserve pool that they are dedicating to VC projects. Exactly how much they have committed has never been stated. They haven't mentioned it on their website yet.  Oddly enough, they posted a list of 'Top 10' bitcoin projects in 2016 - Blockstream is not mentioned, but Ethereum is.  :D

First they laugh at you, then they insult you, then they toss wads of sweaty money at you and you lap it up like a poodle. Way to cypherpunk, Blockstream!

Please be advised the Bitcoin community, being mostly libertarian/minarchist/anarchist/agorist in nature, is overwhelmingly pro-enterprise.

Your appeals to anti-capitalist sentiment and class/wealth envy will fall on deaf ears.

Save the Bernie Sanders schtick for the trendy Reddit progs and SJWs.  It has no power here!   :)

WOW, that is very very cool and I am glad to hear. Great news for them  :D

https://news.bitcoin.com/the-curious-case-of-gregory-maxwell-and-the-lightning-network/

Who would be considered the controlling parties? This might imaginably fall back on the developers, in particularly the core developers. The responsibility to incorporate, it might be argued, falls back on the development team for not incorporating. (https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitcoin-as-a-corporation/)

Bitcoin!

You know what? It wont make a blind bit of difference.

gmax could just come out and say "Fuck you buttcoiners, my options are worth $8m now!!!" and the same accounts will reply with:

Bullish!
 

Thread should be titled:  ( Re: $55 Million for Blockstream to build sell out Bitcoin! )

Only. The. Code. Matters.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8mduTEvnU0

"You're payin' 5 bucks and I'm makin' 10,000 baby, so screw ya!"--Iggy Pop

Come on please! That's just biased bs!!And you post that crap in almost every thread here.Ridiculous!
This is someone's written opinion and far away from being neutral news!!!
But hey what to expect from this site right? Nothing!!

I think this is a good sign, anything to expand and improve bitcoin is a positive

You talkin' to me??

Okay, split away the bias, the opinion and the non-news - what was inaccurate on the substance of the exchange on the subredit?

What specific points do you feel were misrepresented?

(and I'm not condoning the article)

Where did you see that biased Bitcoin article, Sweety?
http://s9.postimg.org/ivyexjeu7/0300_whitmore_descher.jpg

-Manish Agarwal, general partner at AXA Strategic Ventures


http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-investors-see-commercial-use-cases-for-bitcoin-blockchain/

Neither is Blockstream. Problem?

yepp very much so, blockstream is a bait an switch game
first bait an switch
years ago gavin said he was going to retire in 2016. so lets assume blockstream gave him a nice retirement package to take some flack an distract bitcoin users with one corporate debate.
hearne got another payday and handed bitcoinj over to someone else.. he was willing to take one for the team blockstream, to distract users.. both implementations are designed to fail, and people are suppose to concede in defeat that blockstream should be their overloard. but they didnt want to reveal their corporate hand until it was too late.

second bait and switch
when in dominance. they will promise more capacity with segwit. but then bloat up blocks with features, opcodes and payment codes (estimated at 250bytes)
 then they will continue to refuse to increase the blocklimit. and instead switch users over to their premined sidechains. which have a hashrate electricity cost of about $10 for 15million coins. but priced 1for1 against bitcoin..

the plan would be good if it wasnt so obvious

Remember when you and Gmax were going on and on about Cypherdoc’s lack of integrity? That was cute compared to this.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/53763203.jpg*



*Integrity is what you do when nobody is big blockers are watching.

So they're more interested in using sidechains than hodling BTC. What's your problem with that?

I don't have a problem with that.  IMO it's all good, bro.

All I did was reiterate, as a point of law, Honey Badger does not give a shit what "Manish Agarwal" "general partner at AXA Strategic Ventures" (rofl) is or is not "interested in as a currency."

Honey Badger has his own ideas about what is or isn't interesting as a currency.  You (and Manish) would do well to remember that.  Or don't, and put all your money into sidechains.  IDGAF, and neither does Honey Badger.   ;D

iCEBREAKER, sure it's all good. Was asking croTek4 why he quoted that line out of context, seems like he's implying something.

There's a lot of FUD swirling about Blockstream in this thread. I don't see any real conflicts of interest between their business model and Bitcoin's principles. They're under the spotlight when it comes to such things. If there were any real problems, we'd know.

Out of context? Seriously?  Try reading the thread ( protip: start at the title) again and then come back to us.

Manish has just bought your house. When you track you muddy hooves across his nice clean carpet again, you will know all about it.

As for Honey Badger - AXA just called the exterminators.

Maybe blockchain is not the panacea the bankers hope it will be:



Maybe we should just focus on the things we know Bitcoin is good at - peer to peer cash:


source (http://www.americanbanker.com/bankthink/blockchain-wont-make-banks-any-nimbler-1079190-1.html)

Its not out of context. AXA Strategic Ventures is a major part of said $55 million that was just invested in blockstream.

invests millions of $$ into company to develop bitcoin. Same investor is not at all interested in bitcoin as a currency. What does that tell you about bitcoin development.

It tells us your reading comprehension is atrociously poor.

"Bitcoin development" is not the only thing Blockstream is doing.

Many people are more interested in bitcoin-the-blockchain-technology than Bitcoin-the-first-crypto-currency.  Nothing wrong with that, but you FUD machines try to spin it as something to panic about.

ok icebreaker we get it. your not interested in bitcoin or blockchain. your only interested in defending blockstream.

kind of funny, im guessing they promised you that monero would be one of the sidechains?

that way you can pretend your not getting a payday, but secretly are when monero is pegged 1for1 with bitcoin

I'm sorry, but I have no way of interpreting that statement that doesn't involve you being an idiot.

There is no such thing as bitcoin-the-blockchain. The fact that you can even begin to conceive that this may be a thing makes me very certain that you are shit out of arguments in this debate.

Blockchain - anyone can create: can use it to support currency, dns, registries, etc.

Bitcoin - is a digital currency that employs blockchain rules.

Trying to paint bitcoin as some tech-for-hire is a new low - even for you.  

You couldhave a point there - Ive updated the AXA statement with this in mind:


Holy shit, they have hit the motherlode....  ;D ;D ;D

im just wondering if icebreaker would still be devoted if he found out blockstream were actually blockstR3am

tim swanson and Raja Ramachandran of R3.. at a PwC conference all talking about bitcoin (https://youtu.be/cQ6KjVP5E-4)

Bitcoin's blockchain exists.  You may download it here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1310261.0).

You don't need to hold Bitcoins to use Bitcoin's blockchain; you only must spend enough to use the blockchain as an immutable ledger (ie, it's tech for hire).

Soon we will have Layer 2 things built on the blockchain's Layer 1, like sidechains and payment channels, which abstract, standardize, and (hopefully) commodify/commercialize/professionalize those processes.

Accounting firms like PwC are very excited to use bitcoin-the-blockchain's technology and infrastructure to do their jobs better, but crypto-currency speculation is beyond their remit.

You really are adorable.

You have conned $76m from those poor trusting, hard working VC's and investment types for something they could have downloaded for free via the link you posted? Nice work!

So whats in the blockchain that they are interested in? Isn't it just full of transactions of bitcoins? ( that they are not interested in)

Come on, that was a very weak effort. You will need to invent a better story about your bitcoin-the-blockchain concept....

I think this is the most revealing statement you have ever made.

I'm just quoting it now for my own records, but I will come back to it.

For now, I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to figure out just what that statement means, and how it impacts the value of their bitcoins.

it sounds like classic news to me, roll on the big investors....ye ha  ;D

Here is Manish Agarwal's full quote:

”We believe that the blockchain technology has the potential to dramatically reshape the financial services landscape. The public blockchain is a key part of that, in my view. We are not that interested in the actual bitcoin as a currency, but the tech is the key.”

Quoting only a part of someone's statements, particularly in a way which twists their intended meaning, is called quoting out of context. Pro-tip: stay calm and think things through when replying to people. If you let emotion cloud your reason, your responses may appear foolish.

AXA sees business advantage in the public blockchain so they're funding the premier experts in that technology. These experts will use that money to further develop Bitcoin, in ways which benefit all users.

What is there to be upset about? If you take off your Classic goggles for one minute, you'll see that this is a very promising development for Bitcoin!

Wat?!?! Why? How??

Oh hooray!!@  we can finally give up on the dream of a decentralized currency where concensus, and freedom are key, and give the keys to a corporation. 

What a relief😥.

Welcome to the Bitcoin part of the Internet.

COMPLAIN ABOUT ALL THE THINGS!

I really don't get all the complaining. So these financial services want to put their doings onto public blockchains (presumably Bitcoin sidechains), instead of messing about with private blockchains. Surely this is good news for customers of these services? They'll get a measure of transparency, quicker processing times and lower fees, probably better security too.

Surely it's also good news for Bitcoin? Having corporate sidechains dependent on the blockchain will raise Bitcoin's status and value, while giving major financial players a reason to defend it against attackers. Once the banks are dependent on Bitcoin's blockchain, we have far less to fear from them. Better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in, yes?

I do believe we need to keep a critical eye on Blocksteam's future moves. But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin, as well as bringing freedom-enhancing stuff like Confidential Transactions, it's ridiculous to accuse them of selling out.

This is the question mark.

Who are they 'fixing' it for and why? Does it need to be 'fixed'? and does this 'fixing' help their clients more? the community more? How do the core devs balance this dizzying conflict of interest?

Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems.

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem.

Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap.

How does the rest of the quote change anything? He is still saying that they dont want bitcoin the currency, just the ledger mechanism.  Thats the point we are making - bitcoin is effectively being asset stripped in front of our eyes. The diminution of bitcoin from a real life currency that you can buy real things with to being little more than a pow stamp on a transaction will have enormous impact on the community - but very few realise the true implications of this.

I fail to see how you can honestly believe that this is a positive development for bitcoin and those who have invested both time and money in its evolution as a peer to peer cash system. 

And dont believe for one minute that they will allow their money to be used  "to benefit all users" - it will only benefit them. Most of the proposed changes to bitcoin have little to do with general utility, and everything to do with making it attractive to corporate users.

Of course - and all those things, especially CT, are being demanded by corporate users.

The current bitcoin community has not been screaming for CT now, have they?  CT is the result of push back from the VC's you have been hawking Bitcoin to for the last few months. The roadmap is the result of a fine tuning of Bitcoin to appeal to Big Business.

https://i.imgflip.com/yor64.jpg

Actually, a lot of us have been screaming for added privacy for a long time, due to taint analysis/blacklisting by big businesses. Why would confidental transactions appeal to big businesses? If that were true, why have do companies like Bitpay, Coinbase and Circle blacklist customers/vendors based on the source of their bitcoins? It seems to me that confidential transactions would hamper any efforts by the big corporations that are currently trying to monetize bitcoin transactions to comply with certain regulations, like the Bank Secrecy Act.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190707.0;all

Core's roadmap puts a great deal of emphasis on decentralization (as opposed to anything offered by the Classic team). Could you explain how it appeals to Big Business? Or are we just making claims based on zero evidence, as I suspect?

Is Bitpay flagging addresses and blacklisting transactions from addresses??

Yes, they are:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3mea6b/bitpay_is_blacklisting_certain_bitcoins_rejecting/?ref=search_posts

and also they are working with chainalysis company, for this purpose:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4012hu/bitpay_is_actively_cooperating_with_chainalysis/

We are very far from that possibility. I'm apologetic on the matter as it may make me seem pessimistic.

CT and segwit are parts of the scaling roadmap.  It all works together.

Before increasing the size of the blocks, we make sure the blocks are optimal.

Well that shit ain't right either.  >:(

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1354483.msg13789116#msg13789116

Oh for christs sake, you people are hopeless.

CT only obfuscates the amounts and nature of the transaction. It does fuck all to hide who you are, other than the usual tricks already in bitcoin and the remaining whiff of pseudonymity left after normal data mining of the blockchain.

 Banks dont care about being anonymous, just that the details of the tx remain confidential. If CT truly hid you, how long do you think it would last up against AML/KYC? I mean seriously, answer that.

This is just another stupid attack on the few things left in bitcoin that gives it any little bit of utility. If you want to buy cp or drugs and not get caught, find some other way.

How does it appeal to Big Business? $76m not enough reasons for you?

Yes, those 55 Millions will be used to adapt the Bitcoin codebase for the production of permissioned/censored bankster chains, which is their core competence. They must have realized that they are not able to privatize Bitcoin. That coup failed.

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 Nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

translation
Segwit fixes transaction malleability and proposes to increase capacity

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem, while reducing the capacity segwit proposed(250byte extra data bloat per confidential tx)

bitcoin needs 2mb+segwit (to have more capacity and all of blockstR3ams dreams come true)

but blockstR3am wont deviate off the one way road to wall street, kicking normal people to the curb(offchain) along the way

Great news!! $55 Million is not a joke and it's huge amount to invest in a technology. That shows the trust of the loyal fans of bitcoin and also shows the future potential is huge. Good news indeed! Before we get too excited about this, let's first find out who these venture capital firms are.... Anyone have more details on  AXA Group; Digital Garage and Horizons Ventures? I tried to Google them and find very little information. I like the roadmap for the Blockstream development more than the Bitcoin Classic proposal, but I would like to know a bit more about the people pushing for the Blockstream and their motives behind that... You do not invest that kind of money, if you not expecting some kind of return on it. Congratz Blockstream.