looks like a centralized, private, permissioned, plain multisig driven transaction log sink for me.
what kind of innovation i am missing here, the mutation into blockripple/ripplestream?
the first private blockchain with cryptographically enforced proof of reserve pegged to BTC. |
|
|
|
To be expected from small men like Hearndresen. Gavin literally told dude to kick rocks  |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company. I imagine that many, if not most, core devs are employed by various Bitcoin-related businesses, ALL of which, presumably, are capable of having a conflict of interest - indeed, I would imagine that such conflicts are absolutely unavoidable, given a long enough time-frame. Why single-out Blockstream? Just because they disagree with a change that you want? It is the nature of all critical systems that one has to be very, very conservative about making changes to vital components, and Bitcoin is no exception. That necessity for conservatism is advantageous to anyone whose interest is served by maintaining the status quo, and I think that is unavoidable. It seems to me that your argument assumes a priori that increasing block size is the correct and proper solution to the scaling problem (and a superior solution to the Blockstream/LN solution), and also assumes that the only reason many devs (Blockstream employees AND others) might oppose that solution is because it serves their business interests to oppose it - even though I have not seen you present much in the way of actual facts to support either of those suppositions. It does not seem fair to me to just say "the possibility of a conflict of interest exists, so therefore they are wrong". It seems to me possible that the Blockstream solution does a better job of maintaining decentralization while still allowing scaling of Bitcoin performance. We should always be wary of conflicts of interest; however, as I point out in the first paragraph above, those possibilities will ALWAYS exist - and we shouldn't presume that just because a potential conflict of interest exists that any solution proposed by the possibly conflicted party are immediately wrong. If you really want to change people's minds, then you should make it clear why increasing block size is a technically superior solution to the problem at hand, rather than just screaming "conflict of interest!" ad infinitum. The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation. I am not and never will. Of course you wouldn't adress this question: I imagine that many, if not most, core devs are employed by various Bitcoin-related businesses, ALL of which, presumably, are capable of having a conflict of interest - indeed, I would imagine that such conflicts are absolutely unavoidable, given a long enough time-frame.
Why single-out Blockstream? Just because they disagree with a change that you want? Because the Blockstream one is the most obvious at the moment. If you know any other conflict of interests I would like you to expose them. Well there is Gavin getting paid by MIT, a known NSA farm. Who knows what their handlers interest toward Bitcoin are? Did you know he is also sitting on the board of Coinbase who themselves have several traditional banking ties? Mike Hearn himself sits on the advisory board of Circle. Who can tell what their interest are? What about those of their banking investors (Goldman Sachs)? |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company. I imagine that many, if not most, core devs are employed by various Bitcoin-related businesses, ALL of which, presumably, are capable of having a conflict of interest - indeed, I would imagine that such conflicts are absolutely unavoidable, given a long enough time-frame. Why single-out Blockstream? Just because they disagree with a change that you want? It is the nature of all critical systems that one has to be very, very conservative about making changes to vital components, and Bitcoin is no exception. That necessity for conservatism is advantageous to anyone whose interest is served by maintaining the status quo, and I think that is unavoidable. It seems to me that your argument assumes a priori that increasing block size is the correct and proper solution to the scaling problem (and a superior solution to the Blockstream/LN solution), and also assumes that the only reason many devs (Blockstream employees AND others) might oppose that solution is because it serves their business interests to oppose it - even though I have not seen you present much in the way of actual facts to support either of those suppositions. It does not seem fair to me to just say "the possibility of a conflict of interest exists, so therefore they are wrong". It seems to me possible that the Blockstream solution does a better job of maintaining decentralization while still allowing scaling of Bitcoin performance. We should always be wary of conflicts of interest; however, as I point out in the first paragraph above, those possibilities will ALWAYS exist - and we shouldn't presume that just because a potential conflict of interest exists that any solution proposed by the possibly conflicted party are immediately wrong. If you really want to change people's minds, then you should make it clear why increasing block size is a technically superior solution to the problem at hand, rather than just screaming "conflict of interest!" ad infinitum. The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation. I am not and never will. Of course you wouldn't adress this question: I imagine that many, if not most, core devs are employed by various Bitcoin-related businesses, ALL of which, presumably, are capable of having a conflict of interest - indeed, I would imagine that such conflicts are absolutely unavoidable, given a long enough time-frame.
Why single-out Blockstream? Just because they disagree with a change that you want? |
|
|
|
"Currency has to be backed by something" Let's just stop there |
|
|
|
Hmm..
I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?
I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.
I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.
I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.
BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?
because that day WILL come.
that day's already here. The community wants bigger blocks. they are stonewalling. old news. Oh please... you people are straight up delusional   Looks to me like it is the community of nodes who's stonewalling bigger blocks |
|
|
|
Even if the tech will be able to achieve new features, you will never see bigger and/or faster blocks from Blockstream (this until they are required for a something that only they will be able to provide) How much can be the usefulness of Liquid if blocks are bigger and/or faster? Indeed, you won't see larger blocks from Blockstream Core until the economic majority agrees to it. Meanwhile you can shout and run in circles as long as you wish it won't change anything. |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. This lie has repeatedly been debunked. The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem. Straight from the mouth of your god I don't trust Gavin as much as you do. What's your point? I don't trust Gavin either. The point is it is absolutely false to pretend that any developer can veto a proposal that is approved by a super majority of other devs, unless they have cogent objections on scientific & technical grounds. If it happens that their objections are valid then it is more likely that they succeed in convincing a certain number of other developers to reconsider the way forward. |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. This lie has repeatedly been debunked. The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem. Straight from the mouth of your god  |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. This lie has repeatedly been debunked. |
|
|
|
Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?
Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are. But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team? Don't bother with him, he's just another disingenuous troll. |
|
|
|
Hmm..
I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?
I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.
I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.
I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.
BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?
because that day WILL come.
When the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will Gavin go for MIT's (USG) wishes, or the bitcoin community ? When the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will Mike go for Google's/NSA/Circle (USG) wishes, or the bitcoin community ? |
|
|
|
What part of "resources are limited" you don't get? Seriously, is not that hard. *There's no way in earth that we can deal with a competitive amount fo transactions per second if it all happens on-chain if you want to keep the blockchain decentralized*, period.
Raise the blocksize, and we will then need to raise it again, and again, and again, and it will be impossible to run a node, and Bitcoin will become totally centralized. You seem to ignore this part.
If we don't let miners to compete for these resources, efficiencies will never improve. What part of the word "competition" you don't get? Your logic and reading comprehension: it's broken. |
|
|
|
Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.
BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.
In Bitcoin Core 0.10 we are migrating transaction signing, and only signing for now, to a cryptographic library we're currently developing-- libsecp256k1-- which is intended to provide a high-speed, sidechannel avoiding, and high-assurance implementation of the underlying public-key cryptography used in Bitcoin. Doing this allows us to deliver safer and more reliable software that better fits Bitcoin's specific needs. The library is mostly the work of Bitcoin Core super-contributor Pieter Wuille (sipa), though many other people are working on it too-- software created alone tends to be inherently unreviewed. This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_toScaling: check Bitcoin blockchain: check Blockstream originated: check Wake me up when it is implemented. Conflict of interest? still check It is implemented as of Bitcoin Core 0.10. Are you not tired of moving the goal posts? Must be pretty heavy. |
|
|
|
Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.
BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.
In Bitcoin Core 0.10 we are migrating transaction signing, and only signing for now, to a cryptographic library we're currently developing-- libsecp256k1-- which is intended to provide a high-speed, sidechannel avoiding, and high-assurance implementation of the underlying public-key cryptography used in Bitcoin. Doing this allows us to deliver safer and more reliable software that better fits Bitcoin's specific needs. The library is mostly the work of Bitcoin Core super-contributor Pieter Wuille (sipa), though many other people are working on it too-- software created alone tends to be inherently unreviewed. This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream. https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_toScaling: check Bitcoin blockchain: check Blockstream originated: check |
|
|
|
Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?
It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap
well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to. No one is forcing them. Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin. Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain. I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited. It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity. Can you explain? By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many. Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges. The block size has nothing to do with it at all. It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services. Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity. Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core. Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases. The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they are proven to be compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions). They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing centralized services operating under private databases closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem to improve its liquidity and value. Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit. I wouldn't mind about Blockstream if they worked as an independent company but the fact that they are also responsible of decision making of Core development is the worst thing that could happened to bitcoin. They will never work to scale the bitcoin blockchain properly no matter what solution there is. Too bad you're too much of an idiot to see the conflict of interest here. Blockstream is not solely responsible for decision making in Core development. Here is a non-exhaustive list of current Core contributors pulled from most recent release notes, Blockstreams employees in bold: - - Adam Weiss - - Alex Morcos - - Casey Rodarmor - - Cory Fields - - fanquake - - Gregory Maxwell- - Jonas Schnelli - - J Ross Nicoll - - Pavel Janík - - Pavel Vasin - - Peter Todd - - Pieter Wuille- - randy-waterhouse - - Ross Nicoll - - Suhas Daftuar - - tailsjoin - - ฿tcDrak - - Tom Harding - - Veres Lajos - - Wladimir J. van der Laan As I've previously stated they have already worked tirelessly to scale Bitcoin blockchain properly. You're just too dumb to realize that there's more to scaling Bitcoin than raising the block size. |
|
|
|
Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?
It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap
well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to. No one is forcing them. Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin. Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain. I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited. It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity. Can you explain? By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many. Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges. The block size has nothing to do with it at all. It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services. Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity. Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core. Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases. The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as more distributed alternatives to the array of closed source, centralized private databases currently in use and should prove to become testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they it is demonstrated that they are compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions). They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing financial activity already occurring inside walled gardens closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem in order to improve its liquidity and value. Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit. |
|
|
|
Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?
It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap
well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to. No one is forcing them. Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin. Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain. I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited. It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity. Can you explain? By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many. Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges. The block size has nothing to do with it at all. It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services. Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
