Is Blockstream the reason why 4 core developer won´t increase the blocksize?

[QuestionAuthority]

Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?

No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.
The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.

I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.

I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.  

When this Bitcoin shit was pitched to me almost five years ago I was led to believe that it was about empowering people, about change, about moving away from the tight controls of big business and Wall Street, about true financial freedom and liberty. I bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The more I watch issues like this unfold the more I realize what a complete crock of shit that was. What you have is a small group of developers that are more interested in the concerns of big business than making Bitcoin usable for the little guy. Bitcoin has become the most centralized service I can imagine. Development can be controlled by one guy. Mining is concentrating more and more every day into the hands of people the community doesn't know or communicate with. Exchanges are complying with more regulations and gathering more data on Bitcoin users than banks do for fiat. The private exchange of coins between individuals (like on LBC) is stagnant because of the fear of arrest.

This issue isn't even about moving the blocksize. It's about power and control. Everyone knows that moving the blocksize won't be necessary for a long time. With sidechains it may not be necessary at all or it may be able to happen very gradually over a period of 40 years. I hope no one is living so deep in the emerald forest with the elves that you've deluded yourselves into believing that Bitcoin will come close to the volume of EFT/ACH within the next 30-40 years. The problems being solved currently by development are not the most critical immediate issues. They're the ones that require the least effort to repair and still there's no consensus. When are we going to work on pruning the blockchain?

[RoadStress]

I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.
...
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.  

Finally some common sense! Gavin needs to admit and push the 8MB blocks and Maxwell must let go of the centralization fear and accept that Bitcoin can run ok for now with less than 5k nodes. Consensus achieved! I hope the involved parties are reading this or they are notified somehow. I would like to hear their opinion on this.

[thejaytiesto]

Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?

No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.
The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.

I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.

I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.  

When this Bitcoin shit was pitched to me almost five years ago I was led to believe that it was about empowering people, about change, about moving away from the tight controls of big business and Wall Street, about true financial freedom and liberty. I bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The more I watch issues like this unfold the more I realize what a complete crock of shit that was. What you have is a small group of developers that are more interested in the concerns of big business than making Bitcoin usable for the little guy. Bitcoin has become the most centralized service I can imagine. Development can be controlled by one guy. Mining is concentrating more and more every day into the hands of people the community doesn't know or communicate with. Exchanges are complying with more regulations and gathering more data on Bitcoin users than banks do for fiat. The private exchange of coins between individuals (like on LBC) is stagnant because of the fear of arrest.

This issue isn't even about moving the blocksize. It's about power and control. Everyone knows that moving the blocksize won't be necessary for a long time. With sidechains it may not be necessary at all or it may be able to happen very gradually over a period of 40 years. I hope no one is living so deep in the emerald forest with the elves that you've deluded yourselves into believing that Bitcoin will come close to the volume of EFT/ACH within the next 30-40 years. The problems being solved currently by development are not the most critical immediate issues. They're the ones that require the least effort to repair and still there's no consensus. When are we going to work on pruning the blockchain?

What the load of shit you're spilling, and its not even relevant to LaudaM's reply to your BS previous posts.

You're wrong and only spreading FUD about Bitcoin fundamental design.

Now you're spilling the shit about how you're too stupid to understand bitcoin.

Here is the facts for you to take a second look dumbass, this was clear back in 2010 so if you didnt see it, you're a dumbass:

+ Home mining is only to bootstrap bitcoin network

+ Economic dictates as bitcoin network becomes more valuable, mining will become industrial.

+ Bitcoin exchanges are gateways to the bitcoin network, without them bitcoin will only be fantasy among nerds. Ofcourse when you deal with fiat you will have to follow regulation. What are you? fcking 12?

+ As bitcoin become mainstream, bitcoin exchanges are less important. Merchants and business will transact directly using bitcoins.

+ Blocksize must grow as the bitcoin network grows, or you're shooting yourself in the foot when its more expensive to use than WU.


Now, i expect you to sell all your bitcoin and come back as a hater because you had 5 yrs and still dont get it.

Yeah, I don't get whe people do those critics when even satoshi pointed out from the begining that mining would end up done by professionals and not amateurs on their computers except for the very begining. He also doesn't are about equality of distributed BTC.

[RoadStress]

Maxwell's fear is ridiculous. Let the economy dictates if we will reach 20mb or not.

I dont see that in near future because with current infrastructure, miners wont fill 20mb block.

No. His fear is that some bad intended group will artificially create 20MB blocks and that the numbers of the total nodes will fall below 5k.

[beatleap]

Gmaxwell is steering away from what Bitcoin was used for whilst gavin is trying to prolong the Bitcoin economy as well as allow merchants easier accessiblity. I'm with gavin on this

[QuestionAuthority]

Make all the corrections to a new Bitcoin and use that one. Their are enough potential and known problems with Bitcoin to start over instead of continuing to patch on top of a patch of poorly written original code. If you read the entire article even Gavin said these changes won't be trivial. If you're going to quote something quote Satoshi saying the blocksize needs to be changed in this way. If I believe Gavin is relaying Satoshi's ideas correctly, then the problem was DDoSing the system. That's impossible with the 7tps rate but will that problem return when the blocksize increases?

No, it won't return. Your first post is wrong. The block size isn't something fundamental to Bitcoin while the number of coins and block generation time are.
The block size was changed previously, however it was lowered because there was too much headroom and people could try DDoSing because the network was unable to handle 30MB blocks now.
Gavin's initial calculations are flawed, hence the 20MB fork is FUD.

I've also learned this just recently: It should be 8MB (with corrected calculations), and DDoS isn't really possible at that block size. If I'm correct Luke (?) and Maxwell said that because of the increase they would not be able to run nodes anymore due to their internet. They've concluded from this that the majority won't be able to run nodes either. This is also wrong. There are plenty of places that offer sufficient internet speeds for 8MB blocks. Although their argument is also invalid due to the progressing block size. We might hit 8(originally 20)MB blocks in 2016, or in 2026/2xxx. Nobody can really know when.

I see a lot of people mentioning Satoshi. Please stop. He had ideas however his implementations weren't great (one could say that they weren't even good). He did not code Bitcoin properly as the initial code was quite a mess. Obviously he didn't foresee sidechains, neither did anyone if you back up 5 or more years (prior to Bitcoin). I'm more interested in the actual disadvantages of the lightning network. If there are none, why aren't we proceeding in that direction?
However I do not see much wrong in increasing the block size to let's say 4MB. That would be some sort of compromise for Gavin and the other developers which would also give the whole network more time for better solutions.  

When this Bitcoin shit was pitched to me almost five years ago I was led to believe that it was about empowering people, about change, about moving away from the tight controls of big business and Wall Street, about true financial freedom and liberty. I bought the propaganda hook, line and sinker. The more I watch issues like this unfold the more I realize what a complete crock of shit that was. What you have is a small group of developers that are more interested in the concerns of big business than making Bitcoin usable for the little guy. Bitcoin has become the most centralized service I can imagine. Development can be controlled by one guy. Mining is concentrating more and more every day into the hands of people the community doesn't know or communicate with. Exchanges are complying with more regulations and gathering more data on Bitcoin users than banks do for fiat. The private exchange of coins between individuals (like on LBC) is stagnant because of the fear of arrest.

This issue isn't even about moving the blocksize. It's about power and control. Everyone knows that moving the blocksize won't be necessary for a long time. With sidechains it may not be necessary at all or it may be able to happen very gradually over a period of 40 years. I hope no one is living so deep in the emerald forest with the elves that you've deluded yourselves into believing that Bitcoin will come close to the volume of EFT/ACH within the next 30-40 years. The problems being solved currently by development are not the most critical immediate issues. They're the ones that require the least effort to repair and still there's no consensus. When are we going to work on pruning the blockchain?

What the load of shit you're spilling, and its not even relevant to LaudaM's reply to your BS previous posts.

You're wrong and only spreading FUD about Bitcoin fundamental design.

Now you're spilling the shit about how you're too stupid to understand bitcoin.

Here is the facts for you to take a second look dumbass, this was clear back in 2010 so if you didnt see it, you're a dumbass:

+ Home mining is only to bootstrap bitcoin network

+ Economic dictates as bitcoin network becomes more valuable, mining will become industrial.

+ Bitcoin exchanges are gateways to the bitcoin network, without them bitcoin will only be fantasy among nerds. Ofcourse when you deal with fiat you will have to follow regulation. What are you? fcking 12?

+ As bitcoin become mainstream, bitcoin exchanges are less important. Merchants and business will transact directly using bitcoins.

+ Blocksize must grow as the bitcoin network grows, or you're shooting yourself in the foot when its more expensive to use than WU.


Now, i expect you to sell all your bitcoin and come back as a hater because you had 5 yrs and still dont get it.

Yeah, I don't get whe people do those critics when even satoshi pointed out from the begining that mining would end up done by professionals and not amateurs on their computers except for the very begining. He also doesn't are about equality of distributed BTC.

I'm glad you quoted him. I would never have seen his post as I put him on ignore long ago. I have no issue with mining being controlled by thousands of businesses worldwide. I've posted many times that I expect that to happen. People can't afford to do it anymore. What I see is a small handful of big farms controlling Bitcoin. That's very different. I have to believe I was misled by people on this forum long ago. I see Bitcoin just becoming a MasterCard and Visa competitor where development is eventually controlled by big business just like mining will be. A multitude of services built on differing blockchain technology that are proprietary and controlled by one business or another. What's so magical about that? You know MasterCard has a forum. I can't see spending much time there though. Satoshi lowered the blocksize for a reason and now it needs to be fixed for a different reason. The first reason was safety. The second reason is adoption and profit. They will eventually agree on 8mb and make the change. Every change they make from this point forward will be for business. Nothing we say here will effect that decision because the users don't really matter anyway.

[Pecunia non olet]

This thread is just more propaganda and ad hominem by Gavin fanboys.

No rethorical trick is spared.

[Lauda]

Finally some common sense! Gavin needs to admit and push the 8MB blocks and Maxwell must let go of the centralization fear and accept that Bitcoin can run ok for now with less than 5k nodes. Consensus achieved! I hope the involved parties are reading this or they are notified somehow. I would like to hear their opinion on this.

They want things to settle on their own when it comes to fees and 1MB blocks, but they wouldn't let things settle on their own with 8MB blocks. The only partially valid reason are increased bandwidth and storage costs. However this might be a problem of today if the blocks get filled instantly (which they won't), but in any case it won't be a problem of tomorrow.

You mean that same group is a sizable miner? because you cant create 20mb blocks.
Also for the cost of doing such will not be sustainable, it makes no economical sense. If they're only after damaging bitcoin, they can already do this by becoming the largest miner and burn money to do so.

btw, its not hard to fork XT to make 8mb limit. If anyone think its a better way to go, do it and let bitcoiners choose.

Why wouldn't you be able to create 8MB blocks? Maybe the exact word for it shouldn't be creating. Also let's stop with the 20MB nonsense because this is false. Gavin made a mistake in his initial calculations. It has been correct to 8MB, so everyone please stop with the 20MB blocks.
You could fill up blocks with endless transactions although it is going to cost you (fees obviously). Although we hope that because a individual can't profit from wrecking Bitcoin (no economical sense), we can't rely on that. Some people are just evil within their core, and some will lose money if Bitcoin continues to grow. It is in their interest to try whatever they can to prevent Bitcoin from succeeding.

This thread is just more propaganda and ad hominem by Gavin fanboys.
No rethorical trick is spared.

You should really stop wasting your time Mircea, as nobody cares about your consent. Protest all you want, your opinion does not and will not matter.

[RoadStress]

This thread is just more propaganda and ad hominem by Gavin fanboys.

No rethorical trick is spared.

We always welcome your insight Mircea Popescu!

You should really stop wasting your time Mircea, as nobody cares about your consent. Protest all you want, your opinion does not and will not matter.

Amen to that!

[PolarPoint]

I think some of the core devs involved in Blockstream must have interfered with the blocksize limit discussions. The inception of sidechains in Blockstream made the devs believe more strongly that sidechains are solutions to the blocksize limit.

I am sure those guys at Blockstream has worked out ways to solve the transactions limit problem and designed ways to add more features. While I would prefer bitcoin to be more loyal to the original design as much as possible.

[nwfella]

this is why it's better to have only one dev in charge of a project, other should be only auxiliary dev nothing else, after all this started with one man only(we presume)

and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?

We don't know if satoshi was a group or a single man.
In any case, where the hell is satoshi? come back man, we need your opinion now more than ever. I hope his accounts didn't got hacked along with his gmx address...

Sadly I wouldn't be holding my breath for this if I where you.

[Lauda]

When side chains were first touted to be the solution to Microtransactions and keeping the block size 1mb i didn't understand. They wanted to segregate the main chain for large purchases with big fees and use a bunch of side chains which has no real benefit and now it is easy to understand because they're planning on making money off the sidechain business. It even seems better just use altcoins for microtransactions then their sidechains, which chains does everyone need to make sure their synced with and how do we keep from an over polluted sidechain network?

You know, having to correct people is getting tiring at times.
Why would you post such nonsense as claiming that side chains have no real benefits? How about actually doing proper research and backing up your words with technical analysis rather than just posting because of your signature campaign? I'm sorry for being so direct, but the number of people doing this is quite high. You are not ignored by DannyHamilton for no reason.

I'm going to disregard hidden agendas in this post, and I'm also going to shorten this as you should do your own research. What is the benefit of increasing the block size? The network will be able to process more transactions. What is the benefit of side chains? The network will be able to process more transactions. If we sum it up only to that point, disregarding the drawbacks of both, you can never state that side chains have no benefits unless you say the same for the block size increase.
It's quite obvious that both have drawbacks. 8MB blocks will definitely reduce the number of nodes if the blocks get filled more quickly that expected, even though storage and bandwidth are quite cheap today.
The drawback of side chains would be added complexity to the network, questionable security model that isn't clear yet in addition to potential issues that might occur with merged mining and all other risk associated with developing and running a new blockchain.



The conclusion that we draw here: Side chains are a very interesting technology that is in its concept stage. Many do not fully understand them or have a completely wrong understanding. This technology could potentially enable new things in Bitcoin. It will be possible to transfer assets from one chain to another and back (this is why it is called a two-way peg).

This might be a good place to start for people who aren't quite sure what the deal is with side chains:
http://gendal.me/2014/10/26/a-simple-explanation-of-bitcoin-sidechains/

[ebliever]

OP brings up a good point - "Follow the money" is an important reminder when listening to the opinions of people in authority or deeply invested in something. If Blockstream has a vested interest in forcing transactions onto sidechains that they have a role in (and can profit from at our expense), it's hard to see how they could throw that away without a fight.

[Lauda]

I am sorry are you saying my so called misunderstanding of the sidechain is due to me having a signature? Looks like you do as well so I guess your just posting for the campaign payout too and you're also ignored by danny hamilton.

What I'm trying to state here that you and the majority of people are fueled by their signatures, even though they aren't probably going to admit this. My story has changed since I left Bit-X. People participating in campaigns are posting without doing proper or any research/information gathering. You've already put me in the same bag as you and the rest stating that I'm only posting for the payout (mine is fixed by the way) and that I'm ignored by Danny. You would know better if you actually looked at his list prior to making your post; located here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=973843.0 . You would know that I'm currently not in the list (I've been excluded for months).

Anyhow we should get back onto the topic itself; I'm hoping that you will understand/improve your habits.

The point is I don't I don't see how sidechains work exactly and I don't see how one pegs a chain and we confirm which chains to follow. Couldn't we be spammed with sidechains constantly, which each major company having its own sidechain?

You should not be posting about it if you don't properly understand it, aside from asking questions. You should definitely look at these links:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/24549/how-is-a-side-chain-merging-back-to-bitcoin-chain-protected-against-double-spend
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/sidechains-bitcoin-2-0-revolution-highlights-reddit-ama/
http://insidebitcoins.com/news/gregory-maxwell-demo-sidechains-to-be-available-in-a-few-months/29531

As I've stated the technology is in the concept stage and we have yet to see in what way it will be implemented. Theoretically we can have a number of side chains however the main drawbacks (as previously stated) would be potential security flaws and added network complexity. I'm having a hard time finding a simple explanation of side chains that could be presented to the public as I lack the skills to make one myself.
The deal is that this would be like a secondary blockchain to Bitcoin. Basically what happens is that you transfer for example 1 BTC onto the side chain which would enable you to do transactions there. The side chain would create an equivalent number of bitcoins (in this case 1 BTC), which would be controlled by the user in the sidechain now while the original ones would be "immobilized" on the main blockchain. In order to bring them back to the main blockchain the user would have to create a special transaction where the coins (in this case 1 BTC) would disappear from the sidechain and become mobilized again on the blockchain.

I've already stated that this would add to the complexity which is also one of the main drawbacks. You can figure this out yourself if you read what I just wrote, however it might be possible to simplify it to some degree with the right software implementation. A side chain could be very beneficial as it can have all sorts of features that Bitcoin currently does not have. It could support fully anonymous and untraceable transactions, smart contracts and more.

Edit: I just read about the 8mb size, even though an initial miscalculation would this not be a more compromisable size?

Gavin made a mistake in his initial calculations by excluding upstream bandwidth (if I remember correctly). 8MB is actually what he is proposing so that should be somewhat acceptable to those that were complaining about potential bandwidth and storage issues.

[tvbcof]

...
Gavin made a mistake in his initial calculations by excluding upstream bandwidth (if I remember correctly). ...

I would be surprised by this were it not the same 'chief scientist' who was not paying attention to the UTXO size until it bit him in the ass...causing one more in a growing list of bizarre and incoherent blog posts.

[Cruxer]

Well, now this is an interesting theory.  If it is true it shows a significant conflict of interest by the people that oppose a bigger block size.  I am not technically versed enough to make 100% sense of this but what does everyone else think?

Indeed nice find, really depresing in a way. Bitcoin should be above personal interest.

[anderson00673]

Well, now this is an interesting theory.  If it is true it shows a significant conflict of interest by the people that oppose a bigger block size.  I am not technically versed enough to make 100% sense of this but what does everyone else think?

Indeed nice find, really depresing in a way. Bitcoin should be above personal interest.

I am trying to post in FUD threads in the hope of calming everyone down.  I wish people would take the time to read up on the issue and realize that there really are two sides of the argument, and believe it or not both sides have merit.  Of course this conflict of interest makes it easy to choose sides.  Blockstream will generate income otherwise it would not be bankrolled with 21 mils.  Where will that money come from?  My guess is not thin air.

[Lauda]

Do you think we have enough time to get sidechains down 100% and a part to the main chain before the 1mb size is full and we start have a confirmation time problem?

Well this is a tough one. I usually advise people not to make long term predictions as the chances of them being wrong are quite high (Andreas Antonopoulos mentioned this in some conference as far as I remember).
Honestly I can say that I do not know.
If I had to express my opinion on the matter right now I would say no. I'm expecting that we're going to start having full blocks sometime in 2016. Side chains are still in the concept stage and we're yet to see proper implementations. Even though they often a great potential, they are unexplored land. If it were up to me (at this point, 01/06/2015) I would increase the block size to either 4 or 8 MB (Gavin's proper calculations) which would give the network enough time before other solutions get developed such as side chains and the lightning network.


Unfortunately (coming back to my previous posts), there are hidden agendas and the money runs the show. My opinion to them is probably worthless.  

[Amph]

Well, now this is an interesting theory.  If it is true it shows a significant conflict of interest by the people that oppose a bigger block size.  I am not technically versed enough to make 100% sense of this but what does everyone else think?

Indeed nice find, really depresing in a way. Bitcoin should be above personal interest.

it cannot, you know, because money are involved, everything where money is involved, always end up like this, where everyone just look at his portfolio

you can't really blame them we are doing the same, but they at least care for other portfolio, seeing how they are in charge for the development...

[melody82]

Well, now this is an interesting theory.  If it is true it shows a significant conflict of interest by the people that oppose a bigger block size.  I am not technically versed enough to make 100% sense of this but what does everyone else think?

Indeed nice find, really depresing in a way. Bitcoin should be above personal interest.

it cannot, you know, because money are involved, everything where money is involved, always end up like this, where everyone just look at his portfolio

you can't really blame them we are doing the same, but they at least care for other portfolio, seeing how they are in charge for the development...

Its not the same though.  This is more like Pete Rose betting against his team when he was coaching.  If I manage my portfolio, or come on here to post about an alt coin that I own, that is ok because it doesn't really matter.  In this case people are getting hurt financially because of this nonsense.  Look at the price drop in bitcoins recently.  I think it is because of fear of this mess.  And this mess wouldn't be a problem if the team didn't have a huge confict of interest.