Blockstream has no special control of Bitcoin Core-- except by being the _only_ company in Bitcoin directly contributing to maintaining the infrastructure.
Blockstream provides companies with the most mature, well tested, and secure blockchain technology in production – the blockchain original protocol extended via interoperable sidechains – along with one of the most experienced teams in the industry. This is AXA's distillation of the message from Blockstream over several weeks of presentations and complex due diligence. Is their understanding inaccurate? |
|
|
|
Re: Blockstream's strategic alliances; I don't know if this is a popular idea around here, but I see Bitcoin as a public good. Are you in a position to reveal the precise nature of these new relationships? Are you inclined to? Are there contracts?
AXA SV have updated their site with this: Blockstream provides companies with the most mature, well tested, and secure blockchain technology in production – the blockchain original protocol extended via interoperable sidechains – along with one of the most experienced teams in the industry. Sounds to me like they have bought Bitcoin. I wasn't aware that Blockstream had an alternative implementation that they were flogging, so I assume they mean Bitcoin Core. Were Blockstream in the position to do that? I guess core feel they were, if AXA can feel justified in writing that on their website. |
|
|
|
Maybe blockchain is not the panacea the bankers hope it will be: What cannot happen is bitcoin's blockchain benefiting the intermediation that the digital currency was meant to replace. Maybe we should just focus on the things we know Bitcoin is good at - peer to peer cash: Meanwhile, banks don't have a great track record in applying earlier technological advances for their own use. While JPMorgan Chase's CEO Jamie Dimon was touting blockchain technology in Davos last week, his bank's Open Financial Exchange interfaces — a technology from 1997 to provide aggregators a central database of customer information — had been down for two months.
In contrast, the bitcoin network was born from the blockchain design two months after Nakamoto presented the technology. To this day, it has been operating uninterrupted and growing to more than $6 billion worth of bitcoins. The blockchain was the solution to the electronic cash problem. Because it worked, it grew quickly while Nakamoto worked anonymously and only communicated curtly via email for about two years. It did not need investment, venture capital, conferences, or advertisement.
source |
|
|
|
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."
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Jeff registered this very forum.
Nah, the forum was kicked off Bitcoin.org in 2011 due to concerns about the lax moderation-- even I was part of that discussion. In terms of commits: Matt and Luke predated Jeff on the project (by months in Luke's case). Pieter came nine days after him, Wladimir 51 days after that. I was 8 months behind on the commits, though most of what I do has never been coding-- I my logs show that I was the most active person in the development discussion channel the same month as Wladimir's first commit. Characterizing someone who came later or who was earlier by mere days and less involved as "senior" is a bit of an insult. I too have no time for seniority dick measuring. Its a vague appeal to authority that gets us nowhere, and moves the discussion away from the primary issues.. Everyone who contributes to making bitcoin a viable peer to peer cash system into the future should have their voice heard. |
|
|
|
You could say it is implicit.
Any other efforts you have to skew this are just spin.
You can say it's "implicit" -- but there are also many other lies you can tell. The paper describes a mechanism where nodes verify and enforce the system's rules for themselves, using POW for ordering. It doesn't describe a system where nodes stop enforcing their rules if the are overpowered, nor is that how Bitcoin was written. OK - you accept that it is implicit - but why then go off on the "many other lies" tangent? I'm not interested in the "many other lies" that can or cannot be implied from a loosely worded whitepaper. We were discussing the issue of consensus and what it means - Core have nurtured a false understanding that somehow it is written that consensus within Bitcoin means 95% or better. But this is not the case. Without any explicit definition of what consensus means then we can fall back to the default - in this case the whitepaper - where it is very obvious that the idea of consensus within Bitcoin is that of a simple majority. The fact that any hardfork is designed with a threshold of 75% should be considered a bonus. |
|
|
|
I took it directly from a website long ago; now I've found it again. Take a look for yourself. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here nor how it is relevant to OP? It wasnt relevant to the OP. It was relevant to Carltons post. He said 'quadratic' was raising to the "fourth power" Now, for any particular x, f(2x) need not be /exactly/ equal to 4f(x) in order to be called quadratic. However, as x gets larger, f(2x) must get arbitrarily close to 4f(x). |
|
|
|
51% is explicitly defined as consensus
The myth that a supermajority is needed needs to be dispelled.
The consensus mechanism was defined like it is to *exactly* deal with the situation where there is contention. Let hashrate decide.
If some people want to try and undermine this by trying to trick miners into following different chains, let them do so now. Let them reveal their hand. Then we can see who is truly being 'irresponsible', and who is truly 'trying to destroy bitcoin'.
Where is 51% defined as consensus? The whitepaper? Cite please! Remember the Nakamoto Consensus The network is robust in its unstructured simplicity. Nodes
work all at once with little coordination. They do not need to be identified, since messages are
not routed to any particular place and only need to be delivered on a best effort basis. Nodes can
leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the proof-of-work chain as proof of what
happened while they were gone. They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of
valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on
them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism No figures needed - voting with their feet is just simple majority - 51% You could say it is implicit. Any other efforts you have to skew this are just spin. |
|
|
|
So "4 times" = x4 by your logic?
Never said such a thing, just wanted to post the definition of it that I've used in the past. It might be useful for Carlton.
"f(x) scales quadratically with x" means, in a rough sense, that f(2x) is about four times as large as f(x)....
I wouldn't quote that (incorrect) titbit to Calrton, it will just confuse the old duffer even more. |
|
|
|
I wonder what make him lose enough self-respect to put up with being bossed around by a bigoted, copyright-trolling shitlord like Olivier Janssens?
Oh please tell me you didn't just use that word against someone else, you jackbooted, FN-loving, MP-shilling, GoldmanSachs-lackying hypocrite!!!  |
|
|
|
What? Quadratic means 'squared'. Where are you getting x4 from?
"f(x) scales quadratically with x" means, in a rough sense, that f(2x) is about four times as large as f(x), and f(5x) is about twenty-five times as large as f(x).
Which is what the hashing problem O(n^2) is about. So "4 times" = x 4 by your logic? You do know that the relationship 5x : 25 is actually 5 2? The way it is now, the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change. |
|
|
|
the amount of processing needed scales quadratically, i.e. to the fourth power every step change.
What? Quadratic means 'squared'. Where are you getting x 4 from? |
|
|
|
^What is it good for  too lambie? plea in mitigation: I'm hurt, but I try to hide it. |
|
|
|
I don't think so. I doubt he would approve of subversive altcoin garbage like "Classic" and the chumps behind it.
... as you and your shills sell out bitcoin to the very people it was conceived to bypass. And not even as an altcoin implementation - but bitcoin itself. Look at what you have done:  |
|
|
|
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!! 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) |
|
|
|
The routing problem is further complicated because they don't only want to route transactions. They want to take a slice and collect a fee for doing so. This is a fee that will come directly out of the pockets of miners and will make Bitcoin less secure. Blockstream hobbles bitcoin, gives it a crutch and then tries to take credit that it can walk. If Core loses their position as reference client developers, they should try a career in government. Greg would make a pretty good banker. Why not give it a try?? Looks like he's making the same mistakes bankers made in the early 2000s as well. Introducing products he doesn't understand and/or doesn't understand the consequences of. Ha! Bankers don't make mistakes - they still make money either way. And Greg is just realising that he doesn't really need to 'sell' anything now - the deal is done and dusted. But what I cant get with is the fact that he knows he has no solution to routing, but is willing to pretend otherwise. Seems a dangerous strategy. But maybe its the only game left. And it seems to be working - getting Horizons and AXA onboard ( albeit with a lot less money than they are letting on) is no mean achievement. But it will be the death of Bitcoin as the vast majority of its community understand it to be. Satoshi might post his opinion backed by his PGP key to stop his creation mutating into something he opposes. His voice could change attitudes faster than anything else. Most of the community would back his opinion because he is the instigator of the Bitcoin project. If he's alive he must be following what's happening to Bitcoin. He has probably expressed his opinion many times, but was banned for 'trolling core'. |
|
|
|
The routing problem is further complicated because they don't only want to route transactions. They want to take a slice and collect a fee for doing so. This is a fee that will come directly out of the pockets of miners and will make Bitcoin less secure. Blockstream hobbles bitcoin, gives it a crutch and then tries to take credit that it can walk. If Core loses their position as reference client developers, they should try a career in government. Greg would make a pretty good banker. Why not give it a try?? Looks like he's making the same mistakes bankers made in the early 2000s as well. Introducing products he doesn't understand and/or doesn't understand the consequences of. Ha! Bankers don't make mistakes - they still make money either way. And Greg is just realising that he doesn't really need to 'sell' anything now - the deal is done and dusted. But what I cant get with is the fact that he knows he has no solution to routing, but is willing to pretend otherwise. Seems a dangerous strategy. But maybe its the only game left. And it seems to be working - getting Horizons and AXA onboard ( albeit with a lot less money than they are letting on) is no mean achievement. But it will be the death of Bitcoin as the vast majority of its community understand it to be. |
|
|
|
Only. The. Code. Matters. "We were one of the first companies that painted a vision for interoperable blockchains, that there wasn’t going to be one blockchain, but many of them, all building off the bitcoin codebase to deliver the technology." In particular, Hill cited the recent decision by blockchain startup Digital Asset Holdings to use Blockstream’s tech as part of its Open Ledger Project, an open-source blockchain initiative being overseen by the Linux Foundation, as an example how the bitcoin codebase can become more relevant for commercial applications. As such, Hill suggested Blockstream’s value proposition will be in its ability to adapt bitcoin’s codebase for other production use cases https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8mduTEvnU0 |
|
|
|
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! ) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
