 Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans. You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen?
|
|
|
|
You - brg444 - captured this thread with 18 (!) posts this morning alone. Not funny. Do you really think it's necessary that you comment everything?
You wouldn't be trying to censor me would you?  |
|
|
|
From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.
Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin, just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.  I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper? Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper: We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered. That sounds like scaling features to me. |
|
|
|
I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.
I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).
Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.
But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.
I may be completely wrong, but probably not.
Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true. If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth. The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth. Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50. By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature? Yes, in part. From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate. |
|
|
|
I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.
I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).
Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.
But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.
I may be completely wrong, but probably not.
Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true. If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth. The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth. Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50. By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature? |
|
|
|
I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.
I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).
Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.
But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.
I may be completely wrong, but probably not.
Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true. If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth. |
|
|
|
Bruce Wagner : When was the last time you chatted to satoshi
Gavin Andresen: Um… I haven't had email from satoshi in a couple months actually. The last email I sent him I actually told him I was going to talk at the CIA. So it's possible , that…. that may have um had something to with his deciding. Possible ? |
|
|
|
The issue is not whether they will succeed or not.
Obvious fallacy. Thats the only thing its about. Its about wresting control from a compromised few to the many. It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda.
Thats exactly what you are trying to do - your just not doing it very well anymore. As a shill, I'm afraid you really need to up your game. Everything you have written is designed to instill fear - it just doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Calm and informed rebuttals are weakening your case with every post. See post above. It's more about wrestling control from a compromised few to..... Mike Hearn. Now about accusations of being compromised, let's compare the facts : http://trilema.com/2013/and-gavin-moves-on-to-the-dark-side-the-bitcoin-project-is-officially-hijacked/ |
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
Central authority like the bitcoin core devs? The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork. Explain how this works exactly. Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT. Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will. The issue is not whether they will succeed or not. It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda. The original decision model Satoshi designed is consensus through POW based mining as representative of individual voting. You think consensus among devs somehow means something, it doesn't. The reason you and others are throwing so much venom at XT is you are fighting bitcoin's built in consensus mechanism, thinking it should be something its not. Maybe you tell that to your friend Mike  |
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
Central authority like the bitcoin core devs? The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork. Historically, perhaps. But that was history, and that was certainly before Blockstream. Now their interest is to preserve a bottleneck in Bitcoin that makes up the only value proposition for their sidechain alt coins. They have $21m reasons to fight this. And as people begin to realise this, they are getting behind the fork, something most (including me) wouldn't have countenanced just a few months ago. Thank you for yet another demonstration of your group's lazy argumentation The fact that this debate has turned very early on into character assassination and personality contests tells the whole story.
Gavin, Mike & their supporters have made it a political battle that necessarily undermine their arguments and ultimately weaken their position.
About sidechains: they will be of very little use under current block size constraints so you're really grasping at straws here. You'd think they are goddamned stubborn at Blockstream. Why worry about innovating zero-knowledge proof to scale their sidechain when we can just inflate the block size to infinity!
|
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
You're joking, right? Is there anyone that really thinks that Satoshi wrote that? Even though I largely agree with what was written, it should be considered simply "anonymous". The beauty of the message is precisely the presence of plausible deniability so as to let the ideas stand on their own |
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
Central authority like the bitcoin core devs? The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork. Explain how this works exactly. Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT. Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will. The issue is not whether they will succeed or not. It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda. So gavin and Mike are using "fear and propaganda" to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will. Wow. You guys are stooping to new lows, just when I thought you couldn't get any lower. You should make peace with this because I have much worst thing to say about Gavin & Mike. A lot of ugly will come out of that story and you should eventually feel very sorry your ever held USGavin in esteem |
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
Central authority like the bitcoin core devs? The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork. Explain how this works exactly. Will gavin and Mike visit each miner, put a gun to their head, and force them to switch to XT. Explain what mechanism they will use to force miners and users to upgrade to XT against their will. The issue is not whether they will succeed or not. It's about undermining the value of the original decision model using fear & propaganda. |
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
Central authority like the bitcoin core devs? The core devs have historically worked using a consensus based model of decision making. Gavin & Mike are the ones attempting to force through a contentious fork. |
|
|
|
Satoshis recent comments were right and I agree that bitcoin wasnt designed to be at the whim of central authority which is what it is trying to destroy. So with that im with bitcoin original thick or thin.
The fact that this debate has turned very early on into character assassination and personality contests tells the whole story. Gavin, Mike & their supporters have made it a political battle that necessarily undermine their arguments and ultimately weaken their position. Fortunately this will only serve to make Bitcoin stronger as their failure shall serve as a cautionary tale to any personalities trying to mold Bitcoin to their image. |
|
|
|
Sentiment is in flux. That statement was made months ago. If the rest of the community adopts XT, they'll move over too.
You think that sentiment changed? F2Pool admin Wang Chun said:
“We will wait and see what other core developers think of Gavin's proposal. But we will certainly not switch to the altcoin called 'Bitcoin' XT. It could set a very bad precedent if we do that. No matter who you are, you cannot make a new coin and declare it is 'Bitcoin' simply because you do not agree with other core developers.”
1 month ago: Update July 7: AntPool, accounting for some 20% of hashing power on the Bitcoin network, sent us the following response:
"We like the idea of increasing the maximum block size, but if Bitcoin XT is too contentious, we also don't want the community to be divided. |
|
|
|
I think cypher is counting all nodes not just the top 5. the metric to watch is, 1 and 2 are they dropping? 1 /Satoshi:0.11.0/ 2229 (36.30%) 2 /Satoshi:0.10.2/ 1158 (18.86%)  Something you might want to consider; is of the massive mining power in china only one node (from the 105) is actually running XT https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?page=1&q=ChinaChina has already said they won't support XT Oh yeah? All of china? Who speaks for china? Or just some pools? Just some pools who control more than 50% of the network  |
|
|
|
I think cypher is counting all nodes not just the top 5. the metric to watch is, 1 and 2 are they dropping? 1 /Satoshi:0.11.0/ 2229 (36.30%) 2 /Satoshi:0.10.2/ 1158 (18.86%) Something you might want to consider; is of the massive mining power in china only one node (from the 105) is actually running XT https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/?page=1&q=ChinaChina has already said they won't support XT |
|
|
|
From reddit Wish I had seen this sooner. http://xtpool.xyz is syncing the blockchain right now but should be ready in a couple of hours. More pools always welcome, but yes there is an xt specific pool already. PPS with 1% (yes I know that's not sustainable long term, fee will probably have to increase once reserves run dry), no registration required just point your miner and use your payout address as your worker name. Don't worry, we'll see blocks soon enough. The great thing about bitcoin is how censorship resistant it is, there is no thermos to protect you here. Bring em  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
