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

[valiz]

I do care but I also think that giving the choice to the market about the implementation makes irrelevant who the devs are and what are their motives. Without fully supporting XT it is this exact reason why I am happy that it is there.

YOU JUST SAID:

So basically you are perfectly comfortable with the fact that a private company hires most of the Core devs? Honest question.

AHHAHAHAHAH you just contradicted yourself you silly man

No matter, he will get on with what he knows best. Repeat pro-XT stuff until it gets in your head. Worse than TV ads.

[knight22]

The XT shills are growing in numbers and are becoming worse than those political propaganda dudes on TV or those paid commenters on the internet.

Just repeating their logical fallacies over and over until they get into your head to change your mind. Basic propaganda tactics. Repeat, repeat repeat. Blockstream evil Blockstream evil Blockstream evil Blockstream evil Blockstream evil Blockstream evil. Got it?

So what??? It seems they are doing the best job at bitcoin development anyway. Has it ocurred to you XT shills that improving bitcoin is in their best interest?

You don't care about arguments or facts. You have a script and you implement it. Repeat repeat repeat. XT good Core evil.

At least we will learn something of this: If XT succeeds, then any crypto can be destroyed by sheer mass propaganda.  

Do you have any argument at all? Because don't see any.

At this point, I don't have more time to waste with you XT hardcore supporters. Any argument I would present would be ignored. You are past the point of no return. It is impossible to convince you otherwise.

And you have grown very adept at diversionary tactics. Let's say I make a good point. But next thing you jump and shout that I'm retarded or I'm working for Blockstream or something and I need to prove otherwise. Diversion is another great weapon of propaganda. Congratulations!

So basically you are perfectly comfortable with the fact that a private company hires most of the Core devs? Honest question.

Honest question? are you perfeclty comfortable to follow two guys who have  connections to InQTel and the CIA?  
wake the fuck up ... or shill on.. which ever you are doing.

I did answered to that one if you only dared to read the whole conversation.

so yes.. you are fully aware and just dont care

I do care but I also think that giving the choice to the market about the implementation makes irrelevant who the devs are and what are their motives. Without fully supporting XT it is this exact reason why I am happy that it is there.

YOU JUST SAID:

So basically you are perfectly comfortable with the fact that a private company hires most of the Core devs? Honest question.

AHHAHAHAHAH you just contradicted yourself you silly man

Not at all. The point is, I WAS very uncomfortable before XT. Now it is irrelevant because I have a choice.

[jonald_fyookball]

So what??? It seems they are doing the best job at bitcoin development anyway. Has it ocurred to you XT shills that improving bitcoin is in their best interest?

It's strange isn't it, as soon as Hearn and gang begin to push their changes, the health of bitcoin begins to deteriorate. They're doing it for your own good though! It's got to get worse before it gets better, right?!

Save it by destroying it.

The gullible are living in Bitcoin vs Paypal, VISA, MC payment lala-land and they help them out with their agenda.

Eventually the masses of users will become careless enough and they will succeed. Even if XT fails, XT2 or XT3 will succeed in taking down bitcoin.  

I think you have a bias because of the naming.  If Gavin just decided to put 8mb blocks in core, and then Greg Maxwell released a fork with 1 mb, that might be called Bitcoin-B (for blockstream).  And people would be calling it gregcoin with as much hate as 'gavincoin'.

Anyway, I don't recall advocating XT in this thread.  I asked the question of how blockstream will profit, which apparently no one can answer.

[valiz]

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.

False. They want a block size increase, after almost everyone agrees on how much and when. Please read the development mailing list.

They will generate the revenue when Lightning will be ready I guess. But this has no connection with the fact that just increasing the block size like BIP101 is very dangerous, see centralization concerns.

I'm sure you will ignore what I say and continue with the fallacious argument that if Blockstream guys are working on Core then necessarily they are evil.

[knight22]

So what??? It seems they are doing the best job at bitcoin development anyway. Has it ocurred to you XT shills that improving bitcoin is in their best interest?

It's strange isn't it, as soon as Hearn and gang begin to push their changes, the health of bitcoin begins to deteriorate. They're doing it for your own good though! It's got to get worse before it gets better, right?!

Save it by destroying it.

The gullible are living in Bitcoin vs Paypal, VISA, MC payment lala-land and they help them out with their agenda.

Eventually the masses of users will become careless enough and they will succeed. Even if XT fails, XT2 or XT3 will succeed in taking down bitcoin.  

I think you have a bias because of the naming.  If Gavin just decided to put 8mb blocks in core, and then Greg Maxwell released a fork with 1 mb, that might be called Bitcoin-B (for blockstream).  And people would be calling it gregcoin with as much hate as 'gavincoin'.

Anyway, I don't recall advocating XT in this thread.  I asked the question of how blockstream will profit, which apparently no one can answer.

Of course no one here knows exactly how Blockstream plans to make a profit because no one here works in the Blockstream team. There are probably more ways than I can count but that doesn't really matters. What matters is the conflict of interest that these developers shouldn't have put themselves into in the first place.

[Carlton Banks]

Anyway, I don't recall advocating XT in this thread.  I asked the question of how blockstream will profit, which apparently no one can answer.

Was my answer any good? As I said, I think it's possible that there isn't a complete/definitive to your question, and that's because the system is still in development. Still needs answering but I'm not really sure what else anyone could do right now.

[jonald_fyookball]

Anyway, I don't recall advocating XT in this thread.  I asked the question of how blockstream will profit, which apparently no one can answer.

Was my answer any good? As I said, I think it's possible that there isn't a complete/definitive to your question, and that's because the system is still in development. Still needs answering but I'm not really sure what else anyone could do right now.

You may be right , or it could be bad for their business strategy to reveal it.

I think they should try to be as transparent as possible, but there may be indeed a conflict of interest.  Time will tell.

[slaveforanunnak1]

The XT shills are growing in numbers and are becoming worse than those political propaganda dudes on TV or those paid commenters on the internet.

Just repeating their logical fallacies over and over until they get into your head to change your mind. Basic propaganda tactics. Repeat, repeat repeat. Blockstream evil Blockstream evil Blockstream evil Blockstream evil Blockstream evil Blockstream evil. Got it?

So what??? It seems they are doing the best job at bitcoin development anyway. Has it ocurred to you XT shills that improving bitcoin is in their best interest?

You don't care about arguments or facts. You have a script and you implement it. Repeat repeat repeat. XT good Core evil.

At least we will learn something of this: If XT succeeds, then any crypto can be destroyed by sheer mass propaganda.  

Do you have any argument at all? Because don't see any.

At this point, I don't have more time to waste with you XT hardcore supporters. Any argument I would present would be ignored. You are past the point of no return. It is impossible to convince you otherwise.

And you have grown very adept at diversionary tactics. Let's say I make a good point. But next thing you jump and shout that I'm retarded or I'm working for Blockstream or something and I need to prove otherwise. Diversion is another great weapon of propaganda. Congratulations!

So basically you are perfectly comfortable with the fact that a private company hires most of the Core devs? Honest question.

Honest question? are you perfeclty comfortable to follow two guys who have  connections to InQTel and the CIA?  
wake the fuck up ... or shill on.. which ever you are doing.

I did answered to that one if you only dared to read the whole conversation.

so yes.. you are fully aware and just dont care

I do care but I also think that giving the choice to the market about the implementation makes irrelevant who the devs are and what are their motives. Without fully supporting XT it is this exact reason why I am happy that it is there.

YOU JUST SAID:

So basically you are perfectly comfortable with the fact that a private company hires most of the Core devs? Honest question.

AHHAHAHAHAH you just contradicted yourself you silly man

Not at all. The point is, I WAS very uncomfortable before XT. Now it is irrelevant because I have a choice.

but that is not what you're doing is it? You're like FULL DERP AHEAD WITH SHITCOIN XT!!  DERP DERP...blockstream are just thieves..FUD FUD FUD!

[PolarPoint]

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.  

I agree with this. There is a clear conflict of interest for those Core devs. Blockstream is still in proof of concept phase and we have no dates to when these sidechains can be integrated into the bitcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

I think it may be important for a short sidechains refresher also.

Blockstream are designing a protocol extension to enable all other types of side chains, not just Lightning. Potentially including: vote chains, identity/web of trust, "smart" contracts, decentralised DNS/PKI, land registry etc etc.

Powerful concept in theory. All of the bitcoin hashing power could be utilised to secure the data on those chains. This is what makes the main blockchain worth so much, and the testnet chain pretty much worthless; getting 100% control of the testnet chain wouldn't be so cheap even now, but it would be possible. So it's useless for an actual money system, as the data (aka your money) wouldn't be safe. Applying that level of security to all these other information systems would be stupendously brilliant, like living a sci-fi movie. Possibly it might be horrifying for the same reason, but fuck it, the 20th century is over.

That was what I thought the promise of side chains was: and so of couse, under that model, there is no Blockstream tollbooth, you pay the transaction fees appropriate for the market conditions on that chain, whether you're paying someone for something, or renewing one of your ID's. If they achieve that, it'll be so worthwhile. If jonald's fears prove to be well founded, then Blockstream will have passed up an immense opportunity, arguably of the same degree of significance as bitcoin itself.

[onemorexmr]

Even more important, how will miners make money?

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

easy: even with unlimited blocksize no miner is forced to include any transaction.
he can just put the ones with enough fees in a block and ignore the rest: thats what i call a competive market!

[pedrog]

Even more important, how will miners make money?

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

easy: even with unlimited blocksize no miner is forced to include any transaction.
he can just put the ones with enough fees in a block and ignore the rest: thats what i call a competive market!

If people aren't able to transact easily, reliably and cheaply, what's the point of using bitcoin?

If there are better ways to transact people will use better ways to transact and nobody makes money with bitcoin, that's the competitive market!

[onemorexmr]

Even more important, how will miners make money?

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

easy: even with unlimited blocksize no miner is forced to include any transaction.
he can just put the ones with enough fees in a block and ignore the rest: thats what i call a competive market!

If people aren't able to transact easily, reliably and cheaply, what's the point of using bitcoin?

If there are better ways to transact people will use better ways to transact and nobody makes money with bitcoin, that's the competitive market!

thats the reason why it is important to make bigger blocks!
if too less fee-paying transactions occur miners will include cheaper transactions and stop some of their hardware (lower overall hashrate which leads to cheaper but less secure transactions).

so bitcoin can stay competive against other payment options.

but if there is only 1mb block space.... they cant include many transactions... which theoretically means higher fee: but in practice: nobody will use it because there are cheaper alternatives.

[Carlton Banks]

but if there is only 1mb block space.... they cant include many transactions... which theoretically means higher fee: but in practice: nobody will use it because there are cheaper alternatives.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened when the situation you're describing happened in real life. Everyone stopped using bitcoin and used the cheaper alternatives.... I don't quite understand how the transaction rate was at record highs during the time when everyone stopped using it, but what do I know.

[tvbcof]

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.

Proprietary?  As far as I know, their stuff so far is open source.  Some of the blockstream folks have given lectures about the technology they are working on and it shows no sign of being anything other than pure open-source.  That is one of the things that induces me to have some confidence in them.

As for revenue, I supposed a long time ago that they would have the options of providing technical consulting and development work to people who wanted to run a sidechain currency.  After I posited this thought Maxwell mentioned basically the same thing somewhere along the line on another thread that I ran across..

Secondly, I for one would only use a sidechain which had involvement from this group of people, at least initially.  This group of people have proven their technical abilities by carrying a lions-share of the work needed to get Bitcoin to where it is and many of them have a long and unvarnished history in the crypto-currency space.  In this manner the Blockstream 'seal of approval' is a high value item to would-be sidechain operators.

It is worth note that a lot of people have done quite well in opensource-land by following this business model.  That is part of why I figured it would be Blockstream's.

[Carlton Banks]

So, proprietary, centralised, rent seeking; all FUD?

I still want to know who will be providing the hashing security on these so called chains. It's not obvious to me how the Lightning network could be mined directly.... although possibly that's an extraneous example, as Lightning transactions have to be settled on the main chain anyway (and so it just makes the whole system even more fee efficient?)

[BNO]

Proprietary?  As far as I know, their stuff so far is open source.  Some of the blockstream folks have given lectures about the technology they are working on and it shows no sign of being anything other than pure open-source.  That is one of the things that induces me to have some confidence in them.

As for revenue, I supposed a long time ago that they would have the options of providing technical consulting and development work to people who wanted to run a sidechain currency.  After I posited this thought Maxwell mentioned basically the same thing somewhere along the line on another thread that I ran across..

Secondly, I for one would only use a sidechain which had involvement from this group of people, at least initially.  This group of people have proven their technical abilities by carrying a lions-share of the work needed to get Bitcoin to where it is and many of them have a long and unvarnished history in the crypto-currency space.  In this manner the Blockstream 'seal of approval' is a high value item to would-be sidechain operators.

It is worth note that a lot of people have done quite well in opensource-land by following this business model.  That is part of why I figured it would be Blockstream's.

This is a textbook example of the nirwana fallacy. In June 2016 when bitcoin is crashing due increasing backlog, you have a perfect workable solution called XT. And on the other side you have a theoretical "whitepaper solution", which isn't even skeched out, let alone programmed, tested and then approved. On top of all that there are very dubious financial interests with Blockstream at play here. And that is what you want to prefer?? What do you do in June 2016? Nothing will be ready till then...

[jonald_fyookball]

So, proprietary, centralised, rent seeking; all FUD?
 

uncertainty and doubt for sure, but I think it is warranted.

1. We don't know how Blockstream intends to make money.  We do know they
raised $21M in venture capital, so there must be a profit opportunity somewhere.
What are they doing? 

2. Forgoing or delaying a blocksize increase may not be in the best
interest of Bitcoin, but seems to be what Blockstream wants.

3. It seems possible that 1. and 2. are related.

[alani123]

I don't think we've gotten to see enough about blockstream to be able to judge. Aside of a concept, there isn't much out there to verify OP's null claims.

[jonald_fyookball]

I don't think we've gotten to see enough about blockstream to be able to judge. 

You just reinforced my point.  We don't know what Blockstream is really up to.  Meanwhile,
more and more blocks are going to be hitting the 1mb limit until they "save us" with
their "solution".