This does appear to be a potential conflict of interest.
One approach is to make the Bitcoin blocksize larger and adapt it through a fork to process more transactions by itself.

The other is to implement Bitcoin features through the use of sidechains but keep the max size the same for now in effect creating a system of Altcoins that are perfectly intergrated with Bitcoin also known as sidechains and thus becoming a true part of Bitcoin.

If this becomes a question of Bitcoin development then discussion should be moved towards what the majority of users would prefer to have, one option would be to fork with the potential to improve Bitcoin through intergration into sidechains or to fork and increase the blocksize for now, my main question is why a bigger transaction size would interfere with the blockstream idea in the first place and why both couldn't be done in one fork.
__

"The implementation of lightning networks would also require appropriate tweaks to Bitcoin core. Some developers have noted that there is a certain degree of affinity between sidechains and lightning networks.

The deployment of sidechains interoperable with Bitcoin requires the implementation of suitable hooks in Bitcoin Core. That will inevitably take some time, but it’s worth noting that some Blockstream team members are also Bitcoin Core developers.

The Bitcoin Sidechains paper envisages an ecosystem of “sidechains” separate from the main Bitcoin blockchain but interoperable with it. A sidechain can carry bitcoin as currency, in which case users will be able to seamlessly transfer bitcoin between the sidechain and the main blockchain. At the same time, the sidechain can implement changes from Bitcoin Core. For example, a sidechain can implement more powerful scripting features or more watertight privacy.

“Other approaches seek to modify Bitcoin protocols in various ways,” wrote Robert McGrath. “For example, Sidechains aim to create alternative blockchains hanging off the main blockchain, which would help limit the costs of the main blockchain. Another variant is the Lightning network, which aims to allow some transactions to be performed “on the side,” and on send the results to the main blockchain.”

___

We can have a network of arbitrarily complicated transactions, such that they aren’t on the blockchain (and thus are fast, cheap and extremely scalable), but at every point are ready to be dropped onto the blockchain for resolution if there’s a problem,” he said. “This is genuinely revolutionary.”

__



If I read the above quote correctly Eastwind it would send a message to the Blockchain but the sidechain would have its own client and do the work external to the main chain in most cases, instead we would see a shift of weight in the sense that Bitcoin is used as a ledger to track and record transactions with complex instruments moved off the blockchain with the results recorded on the main ledger. It also would be  possible  to have merged mining supplement Bitcoin fees and blocks based on the presumption that Sidechains have their own value in and of themselves.

In other words an interesting article when you consider some of the implications of it.
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

Based on that definition it sounds like XT is an experimentation or Beta and Core would be the Alpha any ideas that would be disregarded because of risks could safely be tested in the XT ecosystem and given the time to develop in a bit of a shell, then when the changes are determined to be safe and non detrimental to Bitcoin it would move to the main client and core.

In that case perhaps the two system idea isn't so bad as it would be a way to avoid lengthy debates about installing new code into that core client that could still be risky while allowing code trials to be experimented on in a relatively secure environment I presume that is what you meant by potentially detrimental to Bitcoin security, so perhaps having both is the best answer or did I fuzz it up somewhere.

That was a beautiful post Febo
I had a good laugh at that one that said it's always good to have celebrities talking about Bitcoin and its related components such as the blockchain as it increases awareness of the technology even if it is a small bit of positive news its good to hear.

So the real poll option should be for XT to be implemented into Core instead of one over the other
Sounds like a good option fuze them together
My question then becomes why isn't that possible presently?

Based on this article it seems like a development choice to work on a second route without the full team behind it.
As it is I see no issue with following different routes
Consensus will be reached through multiple paths but until its needed people will use Core and if it proves to be a significant issue move to XT if this is a two route fork then it could become one of Bitcoins first splits.
We will see though if unity is kept or not.

It is a bit concerning that Bitcoin is centralized in a sense on the reliance of one particular dev but that aside I can understand Gavins role and it does remain important.

I didn't know we were having a name change
That said since it could be related to a fork it makes sense to name it differently so people are more aware
My vote goes to XT for the third gen and back to our trend of two letter names
QT - > Core -> XT

I'll probally have to look at it later though to get more info on it seems like there is some issues here that I need a better background of.
http://qntra.net/2015/05/gavin-threatens-to-quit-bitcoin-development-and-join-hearns-fork/

Neutral
If were talking about underground markets the price is impacted by the amount of working exchanges and their are still quite a few out there, what happened to a dealer may not impact the underground much, for new users it could be seen as either positive in that dealers are caught or negative if they percieve it as a risk of using Bitcoins.

He wants people to watch the spelling bee to distract everyone from the Bitlicense news
Well his last tweet anyways two more days to go.

This seems like an interesting enough guess
I'll estimate a value of $688.25 American on April 1 2016
With a blockchain halving and a rally later into that year.

I haven't heard about the company but giving the article a read but not bad getting 3.5 Million.
That said this company seems familiar to the E-Gold hopefully they don't end up with the same type of ending.

"At BitGold, we solved this problem by developing a platform that is part gold exchange, part payments technology and part custodian, resulting in a powerful user experience that advances gold from a physical element to an instantly accessible unit of account and store of value for the Internet, an operating system for gold.”

The increased media attention to Bitcoin will likely increase awareness
Whether that will result in a price increase is another question
That said it would make sense to go up if the press did stories on what's happened since the last time they did articles on Bitcoin and did adoption stories on the other hand if they highlight Silk road trials etc than the common users might be passive.
We will see hopefully the Nasdaq Winkeveli ETF, Retailer adoption news is highlighted.

I remember someone was giving away free Bitcoin for signing up
Think this is a revival of an old circle campaign its good for new users though to get started

He still could be charged since he arranged a murder order
That said as an operator of a drug site he would have been charged commission or not.

Haven't looked at activemining in ages
Assuming its still dead though

Trendon Shavers (aka pirateat40)
Bitcoin Savings and Trust
http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-ponzi-scheme-operator-pleads-not-guilty-to-fraud/

No court time yet pending letigation

I have never heard of Agar.io so I went to check it out
That was fun I enjoyed playing as an Ameoba haha and eating Doge

I can see this working if people all started at the same time put a bet on and the winner or top 5 if there are a lot of players got to keep the pooled prize.

It tentaitively** Could be the bottom but it's been a constant that the price has dropped over the last year, whether all the hands have finally been shaken or if the market is planning an upward or downward rally is hard to say.
At the least it seems stable and its down a fair percentage from its all time high so it could be going up from here or waiting for news on how other developments are going before a pattern amongst buyers is settled.
A third option is that its finally settled at its operating range for a long time to come still a while to go on this one.

*Bottom has been called countless times and it kept dropping
*Stability here could still go up or down until a trend breaks

It depends on the Bank, if its a Central Bank that can be different than a private bank, while both are privately owned the Central Banks main objective is to control monetary policy, while some banks are just to hold deposits etc.
It's been a while but if I recall correctly there are a lot of regional banks in the US but only one Federal reserve that controls the whole system.
In my opinion the best bank is a credit union since it spreads its profits among its owners although for some convinences a balance in a traditonal bank account is better.
(As for money creation its been done a few times QE spending but I might have misunderstood your point on that.)

That's a good note as more countries stop relying on the US dollar as the mechanism of trade for petroleum trading, the importance of the US dollar as the means to exchange goods and services decreases.

We have seen some agreements being established amongst different countries to trade with their own currencies amongst each other and bypass the US dollar from China, Europe, Latin America and Asia but for now the US is still recognized as the lingua franca of oil trading.


It would depend on how tied they are to the US economy, countries that are less reliant on the US will experience less correlations than those with strong bonds, example Canada US trade tends to follow each other economically, except when you get a nice oil boom and Alberta acts as the engine of growth keeping the economy in good shape, or Canadian Banks don't own Subprime and take less risks so don't get burned as badly in a financial crisis, otherwise their tends to be fairly similar correlations.

On the other hand countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezeula, Qatar which do not trade as often with the United States except in oil resources would feel less effects from the US economy tanking directly but would feel some of the effects from the changes in commodity prices such as oil.  

In the cases of Venezeula Saudi Arabia and Qatar they could easily enough move their oil to China, while Canada would have pipeline issues and be less capable of doing that, (The Brent Price vs West Texas Intermediate), so that helps to determine the level of effect it has on their economy and the % of trade they have with another country and their reliance on them are correlated.

Trade is a double edge tool an isolated nation like North Korea in theory has no dependance on other countries trade (But in exchange most people live like crap as we keep hearing) Versus a small open economy that is dependant on trade and takes a serious hit when other countries have problems like the EU news we keep hearing about.
Contagion is a pain.

Throws in another source
http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2015/5/29/silk-road-ross-ulbricht.html