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

[Quickseller]

I am not sure that tax is the appropriate word to use, however I certainly agree with the OP's point.

As Bitcoin grows in popularity and user adoption increases, if the max block size does not increase then tx fees will inevitability rise. Eventually tx fees will rise enough so that Bitcoin will be prohibitively expensive to use. This is where things like blockstream's Lighting network and Blockstream's side chains come into play, as people will use them as an alternative, which will allow Blockstream to profit, and will cause Bitcoin to be to expensive to use except when used for very large financial transactions (aka only the big players can afford to use Bitcoin).

The above scenario will happen unless the maximum block size is increased in the near future. The best course of action is for the core devs to all support a larger block size that increases over time (to allow for bitcoin adoption to grow over time, and for technology to become more advanced to support larger block sizes). All of the core devs supporting larger block sizes over time will make it so the decision to support this kind of hard fork would be more obvious to the major economic players in the bitcoin economy.

While there is speculation that Bitcoin will become more centralized with a higher block size limit, it is all but certain that Bitcoin will become substantially more centralized with the block size limit remaining unchanged, probably more centralized then what would happen if such speculation would be true.

[smoothie]

Well, tvbcof has just told us that they are following a common model for companies doing open source development: charging for technical consulting.

I would love to believe that is true, and I wish they would clarify their position.  I still do not understand
why they wouldn't agree to a modest increase like Jeff Garzik proposed.

A hard fork is a difficult thing in the best of circumstances.

Scaling through simplistic and very modest capacity increases is a dead-end, so what's the point?  Scaling through simplistic and sufficient capacity increases promises to mutate Bitcoin into a system which is worse than nothing.  To me at any rate, and I strongly suspect to many of the folks who are now working under the Blockstream banner.  I have no reason to believe anything other than that is nearly the sole reason the organization came together.  If I wanted a job (I don't) I would likely try to hire on at Blockstream because I could be doing something which I believe can make a positive difference.  I imagine that most of the people working under that Banner feel the same way and this is one of the reasons I have more confidence in them than most.

Another reason is that the Blockstream dudes collectively are hugely responsible for getting Bitcoin itself to where it is today and as much as I might bash Bitcoin I find it a remarkable achievement.

In my mind one of the biggest questions which remains unanswered is:  Even if sidechains are nearly completely dependent on their backing store (Bitcoin) as a source of value, what induces them to support the Bitcoin infrastructure?  Can they not just hitch a free ride and hope someone else picks up the slack?  The best answer I can come up with is that they compete with other users of the blockchain not only in fees, but also in supporting mining operations which will get them and their transactions a slot within a reasonable amount of time.  Competition for transaction capacity would have to be a factor.  I doubt I am alone in waiting for scarcity here to finally come into play.  After half a decade at Satoshi's 1MB setting we still are not pushing into this aspect of the system and are still relying almost entirely on currency base inflation.  I'm in no hurry to see a hard fork before transaction fees start carrying a little bit of the support reward load.

Working under a banner or idea (impression) is only as good as the leader's actual intentions allows.

Look at the U.S's armed forces fighting al qaeda ("THE WAR ON TERRORISM" banner).

People are dying and fighting a war stupidly and ignorantly at the cause of "FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTRY" or "SERVING OUR COUNTRY" and at the root of the entire war is greed, not positive difference.

Just because there is a so called "banner" of why a people/company/business/institution/country are doing something does not make it a POSITIVE or good agenda for the common good of all who are involved.

[smoothie]

I am not sure that tax is the appropriate word to use, however I certainly agree with the OP's point.

As Bitcoin grows in popularity and user adoption increases, if the max block size does not increase then tx fees will inevitability rise. Eventually tx fees will rise enough so that Bitcoin will be prohibitively expensive to use. This is where things like blockstream's Lighting network and Blockstream's side chains come into play, as people will use them as an alternative, which will allow Blockstream to profit, and will cause Bitcoin to be to expensive to use except when used for very large financial transactions (aka only the big players can afford to use Bitcoin).

The above scenario will happen unless the maximum block size is increased in the near future. The best course of action is for the core devs to all support a larger block size that increases over time (to allow for bitcoin adoption to grow over time, and for technology to become more advanced to support larger block sizes). All of the core devs supporting larger block sizes over time will make it so the decision to support this kind of hard fork would be more obvious to the major economic players in the bitcoin economy.

While there is speculation that Bitcoin will become more centralized with a higher block size limit, it is all but certain that Bitcoin will become substantially more centralized with the block size limit remaining unchanged, probably more centralized then what would happen if such speculation would be true.

Does "Fee" work?

[Peter R]

There is a ton of inconsistency on the moderators/admins parts on what you wrote above.

Clearly there is another agenda when consistency goes out the window while censorship is allowed into the window.

That is one side.  However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.  Furthermore, Anonymint here suggests that "mega-threads" like Cypherdocs are dangerous because they promote group-think and hurt diversity of the Forum.  So he seems to believe that banning "threads with a broad scope" is necessary--in a certain sense--to restore open and transparent communication.  

You are describing mega threads. BadBear is spot on with his logic on why to ban them unless they are focused on specific topic, e.g. "Economic Totalitarianism" and "Economic Devastation". When grown men can't contain their addictions and it is dragging the diversity and rebirth of the forum down into a blackhole of addiction, then the appropriate action is to force a rebirth. If you guys try again to congregate into the same groupthink morass, then the same needs to be done again.

I'm not saying any of that makes sense to me.  I just find it fascinating how we attempt to contort reason to justify otherwise reprehensible behaviour.  I suppose that it's difficult, without the benefit of hindsight, to recognize the extent to which we are guilty of this ourselves.

[Quickseller]

I am not sure that tax is the appropriate word to use, however I certainly agree with the OP's point.

As Bitcoin grows in popularity and user adoption increases, if the max block size does not increase then tx fees will inevitability rise. Eventually tx fees will rise enough so that Bitcoin will be prohibitively expensive to use. This is where things like blockstream's Lighting network and Blockstream's side chains come into play, as people will use them as an alternative, which will allow Blockstream to profit, and will cause Bitcoin to be to expensive to use except when used for very large financial transactions (aka only the big players can afford to use Bitcoin).

The above scenario will happen unless the maximum block size is increased in the near future. The best course of action is for the core devs to all support a larger block size that increases over time (to allow for bitcoin adoption to grow over time, and for technology to become more advanced to support larger block sizes). All of the core devs supporting larger block sizes over time will make it so the decision to support this kind of hard fork would be more obvious to the major economic players in the bitcoin economy.

While there is speculation that Bitcoin will become more centralized with a higher block size limit, it is all but certain that Bitcoin will become substantially more centralized with the block size limit remaining unchanged, probably more centralized then what would happen if such speculation would be true.

Does "Fee" work?

Yes. Like I said, I agree with the OP's general point, and I agree that the block size needs to be raised.

[tvbcof]

A hard fork is a difficult thing in the best of circumstances.

Scaling through simplistic and very modest capacity increases is a dead-end, so what's the point?  Scaling through simplistic and sufficient capacity increases promises to mutate Bitcoin into a system which is worse than nothing.  To me at any rate, and I strongly suspect to many of the folks who are now working under the Blockstream banner.  I have no reason to believe anything other than that is nearly the sole reason the organization came together.  If I wanted a job (I don't) I would likely try to hire on at Blockstream because I could be doing something which I believe can make a positive difference.  I imagine that most of the people working under that Banner feel the same way and this is one of the reasons I have more confidence in them than most.

Another reason is that the Blockstream dudes collectively are hugely responsible for getting Bitcoin itself to where it is today and as much as I might bash Bitcoin I find it a remarkable achievement.

...

Working under a banner or idea (impression) is only as good as the leader's actual intentions allows.

Look at the U.S's armed forces fighting al qaeda ("THE WAR ON TERRORISM" banner).

People are dying and fighting a war stupidly and ignorantly at the cause of "FIGHTING FOR OUR COUNTRY" or "SERVING OUR COUNTRY" and at the root of the entire war is greed, not positive difference.

Just because there is a so called "banner" of why a people/company/business/institution/country are doing something does not make it a POSITIVE or good agenda for the common good of all who are involved.

As I recall, several of the Blockstream hires wrote into their contract that they could go home and sit on the couch if they felt that Blockstream was going the wrong direction and still get paid.  Quite unusual in the industry.  It's either a devious marketing gimmick or an indication that the principles and investors in Blockstream do not anticipate pissing these higher-end developers off.  Going full Hearndresen would almost certainly do just that.  I suspect the latter, but time will tell.

This would be like me being called to 'fight for freedom' in gulf-I (I was) and finding out that our mission was to re-install a monarch and deliver a replacement gold toilet seat that the Iraqis stole (which is literally what happened) and being able to not only abandon my post because I didn't like the mission but be paid anyway.  That is NOT AT ALL what happened so your military analogy has limited usefulness in this particular case.

[jonald_fyookball]

 the Blockstream dudes collectively are hugely responsible for getting Bitcoin itself to where it is today

Yes, and while I am very appreciative of that, we mustn't let our bias allow us to get in the way of scrutinizing what they are currently doing.  I think that once millions of dollars of venture capital enter the picture, those same core devs which have given us so much value in the past, may have  been 'corrupted' in a sense.  I get the fact that it is hard to incentivize open source projects, but they seem to be pushing Bitcoin in a very radical direction.  

jonald, I might be wrong, but you seem to be over-familiar with the "static limit, scheduled increase" model. Do you appreciate why creating a market for block sizes would be a viable alternative? If not, take a look at upal's thread over in Technical Discussion, it features some well thought out stuff (from people who are actually discussing this in the context of software engineering, not a political stand-off).

Thanks Carlton, I will take a look.  Generally my opinion is that the fees are still much smaller than the coinbase subsidies right now, and therefore it may be premature to worry about that, especially if it creates bandwidth issues.

@Peter R:

regarding censorship, I find it pretty surprising to be honest, given the lack of censorship in most other areas here.  Still, right now there seems to be a healthy discussion going on.
Again, I think bias comes into play hugely, in favor of the core devs and against Hearn.

[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.

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

It's ironic, when it's clear that you are not doing any thinking yourself. The heart of your argument is exerting libertarian ideals into bitcoin. And you're just trying to cover that up with pathetic ad hominem attacks.

[Carlton Banks]

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.  

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter. Whichever singular name you come up with, they will almost certainly refute the label. Check your rhetoric.

In answer to the question about censorship, I don't approve. On the other hand, this forum or the reddit sub isn't mine to control, so my opinion is only as good as that: an opinion.

Furthermore, Anonymint here suggests that "mega-threads" like Cypherdocs are dangerous because they promote group-think and hurt diversity of the Forum.

It barely deserves recognition seeing as it involves that particular entity, but it's wrong (of course). Demonstrably so by it's own presence in the cypherdoc thread.

When did cypher's thread go down? I'm in favour of unlocking it, although I haven't been reading it for some time and do not intend to in future.

[Velkro]

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.

Thats simply true. Everybody opposing increase of 1 MB block don't want bitcoin to become global payment processor.

[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

It's ironic, when it's clear that you are not doing any thinking yourself. The heart of your argument is exerting libertarian ideals into bitcoin.

It already embodies libertarian ideals. It did so from the beginning.

But Satoshi didn't express it that way round, he was taking a non-political, utilitarian stance. As do I. I have little to no interest in politics most of the time.

And you're just trying to cover that up with pathetic ad hominem attacks.

So it's the attack that's pathetic, and not me? Are you not contradicting your own argument?

[LiteCoinGuy]

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.

exactly. people will realise that when it is too late and transactions costs with bitcoin core will increase to 0,50 - 1 USD - good luck with that.

[Peter R]

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.  

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter. Whichever singular name you come up with, they will almost certainly refute the label. Check your rhetoric.

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.

1. Theymos (link)
2. Peter Todd (link)
3. Brg444 (link, link)
4. Marcus_of_Augustus (link)
5. LaudaM (link)

I'm quite certain I could compile a much more comprehensive list with higher-quality example quotes too if I spent several days going back through people's comments.  

Anyways, you didn't answer my question.  What is your personal feelings on the ongoing censorship at /r/bitcoin and to a lesser extent here?

[Peter R]

When did cypher's thread go down? I'm in favour of unlocking it...

Four days ago.  Here is the first discussion of the event: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hg41x/the_thermos_strikes_again_moves_bitcointalk/

It sounds like the thread won't be unlocked because apparently threads with a broad scope ("mega threads") are no longer permitted.  What do you think about the logic of banning threads that are broad in scope?

[tvbcof]

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.

exactly. people will realise that when it is too late and transactions costs with bitcoin core will increase to 0,50 - 1 USD - good luck with that.

XT would be great as a bitcoin-backed sidecoin.  I would expect that this sidecoin and many others would give the user 'cash back.'

[Carlton Banks]

When did cypher's thread go down? I'm in favour of unlocking it...

Four days ago.  Here is the first discussion of the event: https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hg41x/the_thermos_strikes_again_moves_bitcointalk/

It sounds like the thread won't be unlocked because apparently threads with a broad scope ("mega threads") are no longer permitted.  What do you think about the logic of banning threads that are broad in scope?

You may have missed my reply about censorship, it was in the same post you are quoting from here.

[Muhammed Zakir]

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive. 

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter. Whichever singular name you come up with, they will almost certainly refute the label. Check your rhetoric.

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.

1. Theymos (link)
2. Peter Todd (link)
3. Brg444 (link, link)
4. Marcus_of_Augustus (link)
5. LaudaM (link)

I'm quite certain I could compile a much more comprehensive list with higher-quality example quotes too if I spent several days going back through people's comments. 

Anyways, you didn't answer my question.  What is your personal feelings on the ongoing censorship at /r/bitcoin and to a lesser extent here?

Either you don't understand what censorship is or you can't get what XT is.

1, 2, 3 & 5: I don't think they are against raising block size but they are against XT which is a hardfork without consensus. You are mixing XT with block size increase. Although they have some sort of connection, saying "against block size increase" and "against XT" are completely different.

4: I don't understand what that link suppose to mean. Can you explain?

[Carlton Banks]

However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.  

Who? Name one 1 MB supporter on this forum, Peter. Whichever singular name you come up with, they will almost certainly refute the label. Check your rhetoric.

Here are a few names of people opposed to the block size increase along with evidence that they feel the censorship is a positive thing in terms of balancing the debate.

1. Theymos (link)
2. Peter Todd (link)
3. Brg444 (link, link)
4. Marcus_of_Augustus (link)
5. LaudaM (link)

I'm quite certain I could compile a much more comprehensive list with higher-quality example quotes too if I spent several days going back through people's comments.  

I think you have left a few people out, I can think of at least three more. But it all conforms to what I've already said about this: painting those 5 as subscribers to "1MB forever, period" is not credible when you look at what their actual position is. Ditto the 3 I'm thinking of.

Essentially, no one is so imperceptive that they believe that you can increase the rate at which information is processed, and yet simultaneously believe that you can use the same amount of resources to do it. No one would believe that someone was capable of being so imperceptive. Except apparently yourself.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

[pedrog]

I don't think there's much of a difference between "1mb forever" and "no increase for now".
Those that don't want to increase it now are siding with the core dev/blockstream guys
and support their plans and ideas.

Everyone else is calling for an increase in the short term.

Well, it's impossible for an "increase it now", this isn't like upgrading a server running Apache and mySQL, people have to update their nodes, people all around the world, it takes a few months for this to happen, so any changes that require upgrade have to be planned way before they are supposed to be in effect.