blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy

[jonald_fyookball]

Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting.  If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?

discuss.

[pedrog]

Even more important, how will miners make money?

If they will be getting the transaction fees what's the incentive to mine?

[knight22]

They want to transform bitcoin into an exclusive settlement system for proprietary side alternatives instead of an inclusive P2P cash system. The core dev team is clearly compromised. Working for Core and also for a private company should be regarded as a big no no by the market.

[BNO]

They want to transform bitcoin into an exclusive settlement system for proprietary side alternatives instead of an inclusive P2P cash system. The core dev team is clearly compromised. Working for Core and also for a private company should be regarded as a big no no by the market.

Fully agree here. I think its funny how people claim that Andresen is trying to take over the network. He is trying to protect it from this coup from the new developers which work for Blockstream and have a very biased perspective on this due to the 21 Mio $ they got.... Gavin doesn't get anything out of XT. Now think.

[jonald_fyookball]

They want to transform bitcoin into an exclusive settlement system for proprietary side alternatives instead of an inclusive P2P cash system. The core dev team is clearly compromised. Working for Core and also for a private company should be regarded as a big no no by the market.

Fully agree here. I think its funny how people claim that Andresen is trying to take over the network. He is trying to protect it from this coup from the new developers which work for Blockstream and have a very biased perspective on this due to the 21 Mio $ they got.... Gavin doesn't get anything out of XT. Now think.

people are realizing just now what is going on!  get the word out! 

Blockstream:  you are hereby on notice:  disclose your revenue model with full transparency or we the people will assume your intentions are selfish and nefarious.

[Carlton Banks]

Anyone believe this? It's a great deal more plausible that XT, with it's friend of the state-paradigm in lead dev Mike Hearn, will be the chain that imposes taxes on it's users. Not system "taxes" (aka fees, lol), but actual taxes.

Good attempt jonald, but try picking a topic that doesn't blow the spit back into your own face.

[jonald_fyookball]

Anyone believe this? It's a great deal more plausible that XT, with it's friend of the state-paradigm in lead dev Mike Hearn, will be the chain that imposes taxes on it's users. Not system "taxes" (aka fees, lol), but actual taxes.

Good attempt jonald, but try picking a topic that doesn't blow the spit back into your own face.

Carlton, you've always been one of the brighter minds around here, but with all due respect, what's your point?  How about instead of the banter, try to answer the question: how will blockstream make money? 

don't you think that's a fair question?

[knight22]

Anyone believe this? It's a great deal more plausible that XT, with it's friend of the state-paradigm in lead dev Mike Hearn, will be the chain that imposes taxes on it's users. Not system "taxes" (aka fees, lol), but actual taxes.

Good attempt jonald, but try picking a topic that doesn't blow the spit back into your own face.

Core team reality: Putting the market in a corner imposing their views.

Mike and Gavin reality: Throw some code in the wild and let the market choose.


Like it or not this is the situation right now.

[Carlton Banks]

Anyone believe this? It's a great deal more plausible that XT, with it's friend of the state-paradigm in lead dev Mike Hearn, will be the chain that imposes taxes on it's users. Not system "taxes" (aka fees, lol), but actual taxes.

Good attempt jonald, but try picking a topic that doesn't blow the spit back into your own face.

Carlton, you've always been one of the brighter minds around here, but with all due respect, what's your point?  How about instead of the banter, try to answer the question: how will blockstream make money?  

don't you think that's a fair question?

The answer is that I don't know. If Blockstream were to attempt to impose a fee structure whereby they, and they alone, received the fees, and if the company was simply passively extracting them without it being a part of some network mechanism or other (i.e. the same reasons miners get paid blocks+fees), then I would be just as opposed to them as I am to XT.


However jonald, remember how you started this thread. I am happy to reciprocate your compliments; you're also one of the brighter and more thoughtful members of this forum. But I don't believe for a single second that you actually think your title represents the truth, and yet you composed your title and your post with the most exaggerated language that you thought you could get away with (you didn't get away with it).

My point is also a good one, unlike yours. Mike is a friend of the state-paradigm. He will happily cooperate with anything any state asks him to, he has said as much in the past. Have fun using his coin.

[slaveforanunnak1]

Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting.  If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?

discuss.

[knight22]

Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting.  If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?

discuss.

[img]-snip-[img]

I think you baffled everyone here with such an argument 

[gentlemand]

I assume Blockstream got their dollop of funding by breaking down how investors would eventually make bank. Has anyone seen such a document?

[slaveforanunnak1]

Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting.  If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?

discuss.

[img]-snip-[img]

I think you baffled everyone here with such an argument 

Your OP was so stupid that the gif was the only viable reply. You don't deserve "discuss" starting FUD.

[Carlton Banks]

I assume Blockstream got their dollop of funding by breaking down how investors would eventually make bank. Has anyone seen such a document?

If it does constitute rent seeking (i.e. not adding value), then of course it's not viable. I would be stunned if the Blockstream devs were actually planning that, it's so clearly a non-starter. But then again, here we are debating whether or not Mike Hearn should be lead developer. 

[knight22]

Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting.  If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?

discuss.

[img]-snip-[img]

I think you baffled everyone here with such an argument 

Your OP was so stupid that the gif was the only viable reply. You don't deserve "discuss" starting FUD.

What is the FUD exactly? A private company intended to make a profit actually hires most Core devs which put them in a clear conflict of interest is actually a FACT. Prove me wrong.  

[futureofbitcoin]

My point is also a good one, unlike yours. Mike is a friend of the state-paradigm. He will happily cooperate with anything any state asks him to, he has said as much in the past. Have fun using his coin.

Uh, no it isn't. It's amazing how you can think that because someone has different political views than you do, that they can be completely discredited.

I don't know enough about XT or Mike Hearn to comment about either; but your argument is absolutely horrible.

[slaveforanunnak1]

Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting.  If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?

discuss.

[img]-snip-[img]

I think you baffled everyone here with such an argument  

Your OP was so stupid that the gif was the only viable reply. You don't deserve "discuss" starting FUD.

What is the FUD exactly? A private company intended to make a profit actually hires most Core devs which put them in a clear conflict of interest is actually a FACT. Prove me wrong.  

actually??  Mike? is that you?   Wanna start FUD?

It's not a FACT, whats a FACT is that Mike has consulted with In-Q-TEL and Gavin had a "chat with the nice folks at the cia" and we have NO idea what they talked about! But I can pretty much be sure it wasn't about how FUN and cool bitcoin is! and how it's going to shake things up for the better! if you think that, then you should try to get money back for your brain or trade it for a nice mug.

Like I said, if they powers that be can't shut down bitcoin, unless they wanna shut down TCP/IP, but what they can do is take over the development team.


I trust Adam Back and Peter Todd way WAYYYYYY more than Mike and Gavin!

[knight22]

Blockstream wants to keep Bitcoin from scaling past 1mb so they can force you to use their proprietary side chain solutions while profiting.  If this is not true, then how will they generate revenue?

discuss.

[img]-snip-[img]

I think you baffled everyone here with such an argument  

Your OP was so stupid that the gif was the only viable reply. You don't deserve "discuss" starting FUD.

What is the FUD exactly? A private company intended to make a profit actually hires most Core devs which put them in a clear conflict of interest is actually a FACT. Prove me wrong.  

actually??  Mike? is that you?   Wanna start FUD?

It's not a FACT, whats a FACT is that Mike has consulted with In-Q-TEL and Gavin had a "chat with the nice folks at the cia"

Like I said, if they powers that be can't shut down bitcoin, unless they wanna shut down TCP/IP, but what they can do is take over the development team.


I trust Adam Back and Peter Todd way WAYYYYYY more than Mike and Gavin!

I don't trust any one of these people. Core and XT developers included. I only trust an open code that can stand on its own and that the market will be free to choose. Just like we didn't have to trust Satoshi in the first place. Putting your trust in any devs at all is the wrong way to go.

[SimpleIn]

Good topic. I like!

[Carlton Banks]

My point is also a good one, unlike yours. Mike is a friend of the state-paradigm. He will happily cooperate with anything any state asks him to, he has said as much in the past. Have fun using his coin.

Uh, no it isn't. It's amazing how you can think that because someone has different political views than you do, that they can be completely discredited.

I don't know enough about XT or Mike Hearn to comment about either; but your argument is absolutely horrible.

You're wrong. If Mike didn't let his political views influence his software development, there wouldn't be a problem. I'm not against XT because I disapprove of Mike Hearns favourite colour, it's because I disapprove of him using bitcoin to promote his political views.

Furthermore, the origianl point of the bitcoin project was to create an open access monetary system that is apolitical. Please, I'm begging you all, think through your arguments before you start typing because I really don't see why I should have to do all your thinking for you