Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons.
Pedantically, it's 1 out of 5 now. But yes, it just shows the dishonesty and the hippocracy of the attacks. They claimed I was the problem. I _left_ and now it's still "blockstream controls bitcoin core". It's just going to be bullshit lies and threats until the end of time. You _left_ for a month, and magically your email to the mailing list became core's official roadmap. So yes, there are some more than tangential connections here. Your visible agitation towards having to deflect this isn't encouraging. Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it. Part of the answer is that there are lot of people who do not want any work done improving Bitcoin. There are people who do not want sidechains to exist; because it undermines their plans with altcoins and, especially, "spinoffs"... or want there to be drama in bitcoin so they can peddle their "hardfork upgrade to ethereum's design" as the grand solution. There are people who do not want strong personal and commercial privacy to exist: They run services predicated on undermining the privacy of users or they own an interest in competing systems that bill privacy as their advantages. There are people who don't care if Bitcoin is decentralized at all, but have raised millions on promises to store random third party data for practically no cost into the Bitcoin ledger. And so on... More stories you've concocted to explain away criticism in your mind. They want some clean on-chain scaling so they must be altcoiners, anti privacy agents, or the same people that had us pinned at the 1MB limit for years with data storage and spam... Look, everyone wants LN and sidechains to exist and be functional, they just want them to compete on an even, not heavily slanted playing field. I don't believe there are many of each of these type; but there are some without scruples who don't mind faking it. And they're super busy spinning up lies like one of the only companies funding bitcoin tech development _ at all_ somehow "controls" Bitcoin core because they employ one person that has commit access, or pay a half dozen people who have contributed out of several dozen while other companies pay no one to contribute. And that is why we see that forums that are easily sockpuppeted like reddit are overrun with fabricated "increase blocksize at any cost" yelling, places like here less so.. and in person gatherings or [cryptographic measurements]( http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) see far less. All this fabricated noise, right out of a GCHQ playbook (not that really think any state actors are involved)-- and it just may win: Because at the end of the day, the few with the courage to stop it gain nothing but the preservation of a dream of decentralized currency that changes the world; and too many others sit too quietly, hoping that others will take the heat. Dreams only go so far. Everyone just has it out for Blockstream simply because they contribute to development [does that make sense to anyone?]... could be GCHQ (just kidding). Calling people who honestly disagree with you a sockpuppet campaign is a surefire strategy for success, not a sign of ego enabled self-delusion or anything. And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by.
Exactly. Well put. |
|
|
|
Pretty reckless to risk your investment (and Bitcoin protocol) to fix the non-existent problem of full blocks.
Some would say allowing a company to capture the protocol, steer it to their will, while selling lackeys on the idea that it is all in the name of safety and decentralization... would be pretty reckless. I guess it's all a matter of perspective. I find it ironic that you bigblockers keep mindlessly repeating these propaganda points... While it's pretty clear to everyone with even half a brain that such propaganda was produced and fed to you by corporations whose only interests is in centralizing Bitcoin. Like Coinbase and a bunch of other centralized services. Now, talk about attempt to capture Bitcoin and bend it to narrow corporate interests... Narrow corporate interests... Now, if Coinbase had 9 Core developers in its pocket, and was quickly moving to roll out 20 MB blocks, whether miners wanted it or not... I would expect some pushback. I think the debate is mostly over, we'll see how many Classic nodes spin up in the coming weeks, and how many miners mine signal blocks in the coming months. If nothing else, it will be an emergency "escape from Blockstream" lever. |
|
|
|
I doubt many, if any, of these people will actually dump their coins. And, if they do, be prepared to catch the falling knife.
I'm pro core and classic, but for now I'm throwing my chips on classic. I've fired up a Classic node and turned on all of my old mining HW to Slush to vote in favour of the HF.
If the HF destroys Bitcoin, then so be it.
Pretty reckless to risk your investment (and Bitcoin protocol) to fix the non-existent problem of full blocks. Some would say allowing a company to capture the protocol, steer it to their will, while selling lackeys on the idea that it is all in the name of safety and decentralization... would be pretty reckless. I guess it's all a matter of perspective. |
|
|
|
well, I'm not suggesting I actually want you to change it to something else, but just to give it some more thought. I like what you said about multiplicity of voices, and it's more than welcome to get new people coming to bitcointalk, so don't be offended if I come across a bit didactic. But as I said, and as it seems you already know, we have a problem with very insidious bankster trolls over here.
A problem?... It's a downright infestation of bankster trolls up over here. Some have even been lying in hibernation for near half a decade, just shows you how super cereal our opponents are... A quick way to identify them is if they talk about "native scaling", or "outright suicide" if you have your head screwed on straight. A PoW change may be necessary to shed the fleas for good, via decentralization and censorship resistance. |
|
|
|
|
These VC's are so generous.
They just grow Bitcoin by building it out in the best possible way, one immune from rent seeking.
|
|
|
|
don't forget everyone! BITCOIN CANNOT SCALE! until it does then it still doesn't ... its only been EIGHT MONTHS of arguing over it. #GimpedCoin
Technological progress actually ...ensures that bitcoin not only can scale, but will indeed scale. It's not a matter of if, only a matter of when. 1995 = Pentium 75-100MHz / 8-16MB ram / 1-2GB disks / 14.4kbps - 128kbps connections. 2015 = 4-8core CPUs at 4 GHz / 4-16GB ram / 1-4 TB disks / home connections in the mbps to gbps (for fiber). Everything has gone upwards like 1000x in 20 years. Processing power, memory, storage, network connections etc. And I'm not counting processing breakthroughs in GPU power or storage speedup like SSDs. If the trend continues, by 2035 the technology will allow >5000tx/sec, without even improving the software. If the software gets improved (and it constantly is getting scaling improvements), we are talking multiple that - so we'll be seeing VISA-like capabilities way before the 2030's. Bitcoin is ...doomed to scale, except if some catastrophic failure of our civilization destroys the IT industry. And we won't have to wait for 2035 for scaling, that's just a number. There are incremental steps in hardware and network capabilities all the time. We just want too much, too fast. And that's good because scaling solutions will have to be devised faster. Although one thing will never be overcome: The necessity for fees. It is impossible to have near-zero cost txs AND protect the network for abuse at the same time. Free txs = attack vector possible for free. Near free txs = attack vector possible for peanuts. Cool, so it's time to bump the DoS limit from 2010. I see Blockstream tripling its War Chest has investors all hot and bothered up in here. |
|
|
|
|
Nah, seems perfectly reasonable that the "reference" software of the decentralized future of money would share the roadmap of a company with direct and growing ties to the past of money.
Besides, we all know that a beautiful 76 million dollar saddle won't chafe too much. It doesn't have to, consider it a down payment on lots of riding through the verdant countryside together [altruistic work on open source software for the benefit of everyone].
A wonderful day in Bitcoin history, my friends.
|
|
|
|
...
How does Participating in a signature campaign arise to the level of desparation? About two months ago I started participating in various signature campaigns, which seems to be very useful in obtaining a few bitcoins for free, and I really doubt that it has materially affected the contents of my posts.
Dunno. Has that sour stench of failure, that feel when a 90s shitbox (something burgundy, maybe a Taurus) pulls up next to you at a light, and the driver makes eye contact. With windows rolled down & Brian Adams playing on her shitty radio. Know what I mean? Sorta? There's like maybe a some plushies on her rear window package shelf, or one of those orange cats stuck with suction cups to a side window? It's like equal measures of pity and and revulsion, you just feel so bad for her, so your day is ruined, basically. I just feel sorry for the 3 partially soiled children jostling around the back seat. Having a certain confidence that they have fully acclimated to the aroma of decade old cherrios and cheetos remnants growing something in the carpet.  And with a click, the light turns green. |
|
|
|
Blocks full with no stress test seem only good to me, I don't like the price movement lately. That's a concern.
Yeap, it's not a stress test now, it's just stress. Feels good man. Pay up suckas, and grok my ethos. When we get to $7 per tx we're golden, and that's a sure thing because no competition. http://getmonero.org |
|
|
|
Instead of increasing the size of the blocks, it would be better to reduce the size of the transactions inside the blocks. Hence SegWit.
Instead In order to of increas inge the size of the blocks, it would be better to reduce the size of the transactions inside the blocks break a portion off into a separate part, and make that part cheaper to use for signature heavy transactions in preparation for LN, there is no reduction of transaction sizes of any sort. Hence SegWit. ftfy |
|
|
|
The blocks are full again. I have been waiting a hell of a long time for a single confirmation. It took an hour to find one block, then the next few blocks afterwards were all full so my transaction's still in limbo. Until somebody fixes this I don't think the price will moon.  Shhhh, friend. Sounds like you don't like the smell of sweet, sweet success and rapidly increasing competitive advantage. Bitcoin is high powered Central Bank reserve monies. Poors may use dog-coin. ~Moderators are standing-by to provide assistance with your technical consens-o-tron.~ |
|
|
|
Thanks for the reconnaissance about the predictable, yet still hilarious, internal division at Classic HQ. I suspect the optimally bad 75% is being enforced for reasons which are not yet public. Perhaps like XT, Classic is only a probing attack, not intended to succeed but only for gathering info on the Core Defense Network and small block militia. Garzik, as you note, has a brain, so he seems like a bad fit over there. Who is this Olivier Janssens assclown, and why would he have "final call" authority above Garzik's? Oh I see, he's some toxic, bigoted, ratfucking VC schmuck that plays sugar daddy to the anti-Core insurgency. I look forward to seeing his head mounted in Mircea's trophy case, right next to Hearn's. How big is this trophy case? http://trilema.com/2015/theres-a-one-bitcoin-reward-for-the-death-of-pieter-wuille-details-below/ |
|
|
|
The $7/tx subsidy only illustrates how ridiculous the coffees-on-the-blockchain idea is, and how critical it is that BTC become high-powered money rather than yet another retail payment rail.
Those four tps are the most precious rare things in existence. The ability to store and/or transfer value quickly, securely, and without permission is unprecedented. A gigawatt is a small price to pay for the provision of such a modern miracle.
It's adorable you think Honey Badger cares about ignorant Gavinista fuckwit ramblings and desires for a contentious hard fork and governance coup.
Please take your Negative Nancy 'zomg Bitcoin is GOING TO DIEEEEE WITHOUT 2MB RIGHT MEOW' bullshit over to BitcoinObituaries.com.
Posts like this give reminds me we have (some) intelligent people left on the forum. Thank you  Posts like this give reminds me why we have vastly fewer intelligent people left on the this forum. The one island of intelligence, the old gold thread, was committed to the memory hole for grievous thought crimes… for your protection. Let's admit it, they just didn't jive with a forum filled with sig ad penny farmers, boot lickers, and budding central planners. ~The technical consens-o-tron begins to emit a soothing glow, its speaker crackles with static before a voice begins to come through…~ Grok. Grok. User, miner, business… have you begun to Grok the Ethos? Things are desirable because they are expensive. Central control is censorship resistance. Meritorious Monarchy Dissenting opinions are a sign of disloyalty and fragility. 1MB is a holy number. Changing it = Changing 21 million coins Segwit is not a change, your node won't even know it happened. Soft Fork = Safe Fork Do you want loss of funds? Do you Cypherpunk? Do you write Code? [To have it promptly ignored/broken by Wizards] Do you central plan? Conflict of Interest is only a conflict if you won't shut up about it. Stagnation = Growth Competition is a Sin. Altcoins do not exist. Techno Experts are expert. The price is rising, and will continue to rise as we ascend to the Moon at 2.7 tps. Hub and Spoke [Peer 2 Peer] Vaporware is Complete, and is already accepted by the market. Have you REKT a Gavin today? Trust Everyone™ ~message repeats~ |
|
|
|
Gentlesirs? You requested a delivery?  |
|
|
|
♫ People don't fear the creeper. ♬ You hear that sucking sound?  You gonna let your lunch get eaten by... etherbutters??!  |
|
|
|
How does Blockstream plan on ensuring an ROI for its investors? I understand there is some time-locked bitcoin involved... but this is a business, right?
Sure, discussed at some length in posts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhn1hlIf you look out there, there are major technical problems in using Bitcoin and applying Bitcoin-like technology to broader industry-- for an example that couldn't be included in the above write-up, though it's surprising to many the #1 cited complain is the lack of commercial privacy in Bitcoin: No one wants their competitors tracking their books, or their customers criticizing their margins. So, Adam Back and I went out and created confidential transactions; which specifically solved that (currently for private sidechains, but hopefully someday its successors will be available in Bitcoin proper). Who else is going to do that kind of original powerful work? If you don't see the business case for solving the hardest problems in this space, and or enabling the reach of Bitcoin more broadly, then you may be underestimating how powerful and world changing cryptocurrency can be. Fortunately, our investors aren't. And _ensuring_? There are no guarantees in investment. But even ignoring all that... lets just assume for a moment that Blockstream is really malevolent, and that the protections we built into it (described on that Reddit thread) all failed. What then? We're just a part of Bitcoin Core; and the message I'm giving you is also held by the vast majority of the non-blockstream contributors. I applaud paranoia, but it wouldn't make sense to dismiss the work of the hardest working independent people in the space because of an unsubstantiated maybe about a generous contributor they have collaborated with. If you're going to go down that route, you'll find yourself jumping at every shadow. After all, blockstream could have been kept completely secret-- why would you assume someone really out to serve a private interest wouldn't do so. It is, sadly, not unheard of for people working on Bitcoin to fail to disclose their affiliations. Ironic that some would attack those who disclose them without asking any questions of the rest. In terms of revenue, you've mentioned private side chains, I assume either by subscription or fee? Some would infer that a somewhat expensive and crowded main chain environment might incubate such services, for transactions generally, not just those seeking confidentiality. Why are they wrong? Gregory, I'm not trying to diminish the work you've done, which is much more than I will ever do. Some people just have some questions, and I sincerely appreciate your responses. |
|
|
|
You mean the cold storage I bought @ $10? Yeah, I'm really agitated it's currently worth 3600% more than I paid for it.
I don't care if I'm the bad guy. Somebody has to be or the story is really boring. If it doesn't scale, my coins are for sale (at the right price, of course).
Opportunity cost... the frustration is not alien to me, friend. Edit: Your southern charm's a bit much.  |
|
|
|
I feel I shouldn't need to go into this-- But I know it's being said I feel I should confront it head on: Some of the advocates of Classic claim that Bitcoin Core is somehow controlled by my company, and that we somehow hope to profit from stifling Bitcoin.
-snip-
As I've already revealed my bias, perhaps I'll ask the question others won't. How does Blockstream plan on ensuring an ROI for its investors? I understand there is some time-locked bitcoin involved... but this is a business, right? |
|
|
|
I'm smarter than you. If you don't agree, keep pumping and prove me wrong. If you can.
 Yeap, that cold storage bag gettin' him a little agitated.  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
