Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream

[Eastwind]

Block chain size has to increase to accommodate large transaction by people. If somebody wants faster transition, they can sidechain.

[knight22]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it.  

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

That's really cool but the fact is OpenBazaar will deliver much faster than blockstream will.

I would imagine since they got a jump start from code they didn't write  

I also imagine you are convince hordes of consumers will rush to use OpenBazaar as soon as they officially launch, right?

And you think people will rush into unproven concept / untested sidechains right from their launch?  

[brg444]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it.  

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

That's really cool but the fact is OpenBazaar will deliver much faster than blockstream will.

I would imagine since they got a jump start from code they didn't write  

I also imagine you are convince hordes of consumers will rush to use OpenBazaar as soon as they officially launch, right?

And you think people will rush into unproven concept / untested sidechains right from their launch?  

I don't see where I said that? I'd be much more interested in an anonymous sidechain than crypto-ebay though to be honest...

The issue is the premise of your argument is that Open Bazaar hugely popular market place might get choked out of transaction room.

I advise your to get rid of these disease that is trying to satisfy inexisting demand because "I swear" mass adoption is coming. To quote:

But this mass thing is so not going to happen anyway, even if you "scale it" in advance. Sry but wake up, in its current form, bitcoin is out of the reach of regular sheeple.

People are too much anticipating, buying the fake dreams of them Antonopoulos, Gavin, Hearn et al., saving the planet with free insta-frappucinos.

[johnyj]

IMO, decentralized trading platform has been promoted for some years but never gained enough traction. This is largely due to the fact that no one want to send the money/goods first, and there are many complex scam/theft schemes in payments, which makes the dispute impossible without the involvement of authorities, but when you have authorities that can rely on, you don't really need decentralized trading anymore

This is not a valid point. first decentralized trading platform have never been fully implemented before. You should read more about OpenBazaar, they received 1M$ investment and launching this fall. Joystream is another different beast where you point really don't stand.

A simple example: Someone bought 1 bitcoin from you on OpenBazaar, paid $230 to your bank account, you release the coin to him. The next day, you found out that your bank account is frozen and police called you for an investigation, because the money is hacked from another bank account

How can you mitigate such kind of risk? You must make sure the money is sent from the users own account by asking him to upload his account screenshot together with his ID card. But normally users will refuse to show their ID card to a stranger on a decentralized platform, they would only show it to a well known registered finance institution which have strict rules for customer privacy protection

[knight22]

As long as there is fiat money, people will always first spend it since it is inflationary, so the scenario that bitcoin used for daily spending at large scale will never realize

Then the major usage left are long term saving and international remittance, both happens at very large size (over $100) and very low frequency (once a week/month)

In fact, majority of the transactions today in bitcoin network are pools paying miners and speculators deposit/withdraw from exchanges/gambling sites.

Gambling sites could occupy large amount of transaction capacity for blockchain, how to move their large amount of traffic offline is a challenge, maybe they should cooperate with bitcoin exchanges and do internal settlement without direct receiving coins from individual users

And what case do you make about decentralized app that will rely on the blockchain? i.e. OpenBazaar and Joystream?

Crippling the blockchain would just cripple what you can build on top of it.  

Sounds like the logic of a crippled brain   How dare you reply to such a brilliant post with such a bland comment?

If OpenBazaar behave they can get a private, anonymity supported sidechain straight out of Blockstream Labs and run their own Lightning hub  

 

That's really cool but the fact is OpenBazaar will deliver much faster than blockstream will.

I would imagine since they got a jump start from code they didn't write  

I also imagine you are convince hordes of consumers will rush to use OpenBazaar as soon as they officially launch, right?

And you think people will rush into unproven concept / untested sidechains right from their launch?  

I don't see where I said that? I'd be much more interested in an anonymous sidechain than crypto-ebay though to be honest...

The issue is the premise of your argument is that Open Bazaar hugely popular market place might get choked out of transaction room.

I advise your to get rid of these disease that is trying to satisfy inexisting demand because "I swear" mass adoption is coming. To quote:

But this mass thing is so not going to happen anyway, even if you "scale it" in advance. Sry but wake up, in its current form, bitcoin is out of the reach of regular sheeple.

People are too much anticipating, buying the fake dreams of them Antonopoulos, Gavin, Hearn et al., saving the planet with free insta-frappucinos.

I never made the claim that mainstream was coming by tomorrow. The thing is that you and I don't know exactly from where it will come and when. Will it come from a killer app? A monetary crisis? A mass marketeer campaign by the big boys? We don't know. What I do know though is that it will NEVER happen before we let enough room for it to happen.

[knight22]

IMO, decentralized trading platform has been promoted for some years but never gained enough traction. This is largely due to the fact that no one want to send the money/goods first, and there are many complex scam/theft schemes in payments, which makes the dispute impossible without the involvement of authorities, but when you have authorities that can rely on, you don't really need decentralized trading anymore

This is not a valid point. first decentralized trading platform have never been fully implemented before. You should read more about OpenBazaar, they received 1M$ investment and launching this fall. Joystream is another different beast where you point really don't stand.

A simple example: Someone bought 1 bitcoin from you on OpenBazaar, paid $230 to your bank account, you release the coin to him. The next day, you found out that your bank account is frozen and police called you for an investigation, because the money is hacked from another bank account

How can you mitigate such kind of risk? You must make sure the money is sent from the users own account by asking him to upload his account screenshot together with his ID card. But normally users will refuse to show their ID card to a stranger on a decentralized platform, they would only show it to a well known registered finance institution which have strict rules for customer privacy protection

OpenBazaar is not a trading platform to exchange fiat (although you could with fairly high risk). It is a decentralized platform to sell good and services being paid off with bitcoin with 3 optional kind of decentralized escrow system.

[iCEBREAKER]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

Repeating the 'Vast Blockstream Conspiracy' rumor won't make it true.

Blockstream is scaling Bitcoin in ways far more effective than XT's naive, ham-fisted, derpy 'duh just make the block moar big' approach.

Their Scaling Bitcoin workshops represent the proper way to gather information, share expertise, compare notes, find common ground, identify irreconcilable differences, and ultimately begin to move *with consensus* toward the goal of supporting more transactions, without sacrificing Bitcoin's unique distinguishing features.

Like it or not, at present Dr. Backamoto is effectively Bitcoin's CTO just as gmax is Bitcoin's Chief Scientist.   

While Gavin and Hearn are busy splitting the community into warring factions, Blockstream is doing amazing things at the frontier of computer science and cryptography.

EG, https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/

They are brilliant guys for sure.  However, your post is just an ad hominem that has nothing to do with the conflict of interest issue.

Accusing Blockstream devs of conflicting interests is an ad hominem attack, especially given their years of contributions in scaling Bitcoin to 1MB.

My posts demonstrates a confluence of interests between Blockstream and Bitcoin, which dispels OP's fuzzy evidence-free accusations of impropriety.

[knight22]

You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.

Repeating the 'Vast Blockstream Conspiracy' rumor won't make it true.

Blockstream is scaling Bitcoin in ways far more effective than XT's naive, ham-fisted, derpy 'duh just make the block moar big' approach.

Their Scaling Bitcoin workshops represent the proper way to gather information, share expertise, compare notes, find common ground, identify irreconcilable differences, and ultimately begin to move *with consensus* toward the goal of supporting more transactions, without sacrificing Bitcoin's unique distinguishing features.

Like it or not, at present Dr. Backamoto is effectively Bitcoin's CTO just as gmax is Bitcoin's Chief Scientist.  

While Gavin and Hearn are busy splitting the community into warring factions, Blockstream is doing amazing things at the frontier of computer science and cryptography.

EG, https://blockstream.com/2015/08/24/treesignatures/

They are brilliant guys for sure.  However, your post is just an ad hominem that has nothing to do with the conflict of interest issue.

Accusing Blockstream devs of conflicting interests is an ad hominem attack, especially given their years of contributions in scaling Bitcoin to 1MB.

My posts demonstrates a confluence of interests between Blockstream and Bitcoin, which dispels OP's fuzzy evidence-free accusations of impropriety.

You can't accuse someone for being in conflict of interest. It is simply a position someone is in. It doesn't tell if that person is ill intended or not and will abuse of that position or not. Therefore exposing a conflict of interest is not an ad hominem attack. It is simply a matter of fact. You can choose to trust that person or not.

In this case you choose to trust blockstream while some here don't. Let me ask you: why should we trust them in the first place?

[jonald_fyookball]

Icebreaker,

"ad hominem" means relating to a specific person.  We were talking about whether
people who are core devs have an conflict of interest with a private VC backed
company.  THAT is the issue.  You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto'
and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem
and have nothing to do with the issue.

For the record, I greatly respect Greg Maxwell, Adam, and all those guys.  However,
they are not great communicators and have not been very transparent about Blockstream.
Maybe they have expressed some opinions on some dev mailing list or IRC but certainly
nothing clear that I've seen.   As a general member of the Bitcoin community,
I haven't heard much from them.  Maybe they don't care.
On the other hand, I've seen very clear and cogent videos
and articles from both Gavin and Mike Hearn.  

Therefore it shouldn't be surprising that
 I'm utterly unconvinced about this 'confluence of interests' of which you speak,
given their lack of communication and apparent stonewalling of the blocksize increase
(which has been discussed to death).

If you are convinced, great.  More power to you.

[johnyj]

A simple example: Someone bought 1 bitcoin from you on OpenBazaar, paid $230 to your bank account, you release the coin to him. The next day, you found out that your bank account is frozen and police called you for an investigation, because the money is hacked from another bank account

How can you mitigate such kind of risk? You must make sure the money is sent from the users own account by asking him to upload his account screenshot together with his ID card. But normally users will refuse to show their ID card to a stranger on a decentralized platform, they would only show it to a well known registered finance institution which have strict rules for customer privacy protection

OpenBazaar is not a trading platform to exchange fiat (although you could with fairly high risk). It is a decentralized platform to sell good and services being paid off with bitcoin with 3 optional kind of decentralized escrow system.

It's the same, you bought something stolen, or some one were cheated to pay bitcoin to you and never get any delivery, while the scammer get goods delivered from you. Man-in-the-middle attack will be very popular on this kind of platform when there is no central authority make sure the legitimacy of each transaction

[knight22]

A simple example: Someone bought 1 bitcoin from you on OpenBazaar, paid $230 to your bank account, you release the coin to him. The next day, you found out that your bank account is frozen and police called you for an investigation, because the money is hacked from another bank account

How can you mitigate such kind of risk? You must make sure the money is sent from the users own account by asking him to upload his account screenshot together with his ID card. But normally users will refuse to show their ID card to a stranger on a decentralized platform, they would only show it to a well known registered finance institution which have strict rules for customer privacy protection

OpenBazaar is not a trading platform to exchange fiat (although you could with fairly high risk). It is a decentralized platform to sell good and services being paid off with bitcoin with 3 optional kind of decentralized escrow system.

It's the same, you bought something stolen, or some one were cheated to pay bitcoin to you and never get any delivery, while the scammer get goods delivered from you. Man-in-the-middle attack will be very popular on this kind of platform when there is no central authority make sure the legitimacy of each transaction

Everything have been discussed in length about the escrow and reputation system to ensure an E-Bay like security. I invite you to read more about OB. Of course it won't be risk free, nor is E-Bay.

[iCEBREAKER]

Breadwallet just disagree with you:

https://twitter.com/breadwalletapp/status/636548340595843072

I hope you don't use it! 

Is Breadwallet willing to be the first to defect from Core and start accepting XTcoins?

No?  Then they are useless posers, typical of XT's 'mile-wide but inch-deep' crowd of fair weather first world armchair insurgents.

None of them are willing to go first.  They all want somebody else to take that risk.

Also, Breadwallet's popular appeals to "support among bitcoin users and service providers" is not merely irrelevant but also betrays their lack of understanding w/r/t how Bitcoin works.

Has it escaped your attention that Slush is spoofing BIP101 blocks, and to date *ZERO* actual XT/NotXT nodes have mined a block?

XT/BIP101 are dead.  Szaboshi just put them out of their misery:

#R3KT

[knight22]

Breadwallet just disagree with you:

https://twitter.com/breadwalletapp/status/636548340595843072

I hope you don't use it! 

Is Breadwallet willing to be the first to defect from Core and start accepting XTcoins?

No?  Then they are useless posers, typical of XT's 'mile-wide but inch-deep' crowd of fair weather first world armchair insurgents.

None of them are willing to go first.  They all want somebody else to take that risk.

Also, Breadwallet's popular appeals to "support among bitcoin users and service providers" is not merely irrelevant but also betrays their lack of understanding w/r/t how Bitcoin works.

Has it escaped your attention that Slush is spoofing BIP101 blocks, and to date *ZERO* actual XT/NotXT nodes have mined a block?

XT/BIP101 are dead.  Szaboshi just put them out of their misery:

#R3KT

This is the most stupidest answer I could ever imagine about the block size. The block size in not exchangeable. The block size as no value per se.

Hey icebreaker, want to trade some block size? 

[iCEBREAKER]

You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto' and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem and have nothing to do with the issue.

I am praising the actions (IE HashCash/sidechains/lightning/tree sigs/CT) of Backamoto and gmax (and pwuille).

Recognizing their demonstrated (via those actions) expertise is not the same as 'gee aren't they swell guys' ad hom.

The same goes for gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@sigint.google.mil.  I DGAF about their personalities because I'm too busy being amused and entertained by their ill-advised shitlord fail-clown antics (and thus demonstrated lack of expertise relative to Blockstream).

[tvbcof]

This is the most stupidest answer I could ever imagine about the block size. The block size in not exchangeable. The block size as no value per se.

Hey icebreaker, want to trade some block size? 

I do.  Fork the motherfucker and I'll split my coins and sell off the XTcoin's ASAP.  If I can find anyone dumb enough to take them and the market doesn't take to big a dump before I can get in the game.

XT has one chance:  The govt mandates its' use as part of a crypto-currency license.  In that case all of the corporate vendors and Coinbase's and such will have no real choice to comply or close shop.  This is not outside the realm of possibility actually.  To save us all from them evil terrorists and Chinese miners and so on.  Unfortunately a lot of people would swallow that one hook-line-and-sinker I'll bet.

[jonald_fyookball]

You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto' and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem and have nothing to do with the issue.

I am praising the actions (IE HashCash/sidechains/lightning/tree sigs/CT) of Backamoto and gmax (and pwuille).

Recognizing their demonstrated (via those actions) expertise is not the same as 'gee aren't they swell guys' ad hom.

The same goes for gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@sigint.google.mil.  I DGAF about their personalities because I'm too busy being amused and entertained by their ill-advised shitlord fail-clown antics (and thus demonstrated lack of expertise relative to Blockstream).

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.

Go argue with someone else please.

[tvbcof]

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.
...

Examples?

[jonald_fyookball]

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.
...

Examples?

I'm just shaking my head here that you would even ask that.
For starters, Gavin has more code commits on Bitcoin core
than Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Jeff Garzik, and Luke Jr
combined.

Debating you on this would be moronic and I'm not going to do it.

[megadeth]

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.
...

Examples?

Rough recollection after reading reddit/fora (I could be wrong).
Mike: Adding levelDB, implementing bitcoinJ
Gavin: Relay network proposal?, counting codes on blocks to trigger fork in xt
For both: Code reviewing a lot of core code  

[iCEBREAKER]

You were the one who started praising 'Backamoto' and 'gmax' while bashing Gavin and Hearn.  so those comments were ad hominem and have nothing to do with the issue.

I am praising the actions (IE HashCash/sidechains/lightning/tree sigs/CT) of Backamoto and gmax (and pwuille).

Recognizing their demonstrated (via those actions) expertise is not the same as 'gee aren't they swell guys' ad hom.

The same goes for gavin@tla.mit.gov and hearn@sigint.google.mil.  I DGAF about their personalities because I'm too busy being amused and entertained by their ill-advised shitlord fail-clown antics (and thus demonstrated lack of expertise relative to Blockstream).

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about Hearn's or Gavin's technical abilities.  
I may not be either, but I know they both have concrete technical accomplishments in the Bitcoin space, so you sound foolish.  ....And this still has nothing to do with the issue.

Go argue with someone else please.

jonald_fyookball   Date Registered:    March 02, 2014

I seriously doubt you are qualified to make a technical judgement about my technical judgement abilities.

Go assclown somewhere else please.  I hear voat/v/bitcoinxt is looking for new members, as is bitco.in's tiny disgruntled splinter group.   

#R3KT