Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2024, 04:55:47 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Blocksteam side chain released  (Read 4740 times)
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:16:01 PM
 #41

A fantastic contribution to the community by Blockstream .. a home run of ingenuity and technical abilities..

+1

The Confidential Transactions are total utter genius..

I am curious as to whether the exchanges can operate the sidechain independently of Blockstream ? Or are they required ?

Can any group of companies/organisations set one up - and benefit from free/fast intra-company transfers ?

From TFA:

"The startups involved will participate in the operation of the sidechain, but at the same time will be customers of Blockstream, paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"

This is the best part of it.

They need funding to continue their important work. They won't get it from artificially making themselves necessary in the solutions themselves. They won't do any sort of premine. They won't hold developments to ransom.

From the alternatives I can see working for funding this, it's the best and the least damaging as a model.

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:18:25 PM
 #42

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.


It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:22:37 PM
 #43

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.


It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.



Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:31:04 PM
 #44

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.


It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.



Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases.

The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as more distributed alternatives to the array of closed source, centralized private databases currently in use and should prove to become testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they it is demonstrated that they are compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions).

They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing financial activity already occurring inside walled gardens closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem in order to improve its liquidity and value.

Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:34:57 PM
 #45

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.


It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.



Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases.

The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they are proven to be compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions).

They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing centralized services operating under private databases closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem to improve its liquidity and value.

Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit.

I wouldn't mind about Blockstream if they worked as an independent company but the fact that they are also responsible of decision making of Core development is the worst thing that could happened to bitcoin.

They will never work to scale the bitcoin blockchain properly no matter what solution there is.

Too bad you're too much of an idiot to see the conflict of interest here.


brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:40:27 PM
 #46

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.


It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.



Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases.

The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they are proven to be compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions).

They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing centralized services operating under private databases closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem to improve its liquidity and value.

Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit.

I wouldn't mind about Blockstream if they worked as an independent company but the fact that they are also responsible of decision making of Core development is the worst thing that could happened to bitcoin.

They will never work to scale the bitcoin blockchain properly no matter what solution there is.

Too bad you're too much of an idiot to see the conflict of interest here.

Blockstream is not solely responsible for decision making in Core development. Here is a non-exhaustive list of current Core contributors pulled from most recent release notes, Blockstreams employees in bold:

- - Adam Weiss
- - Alex Morcos
- - Casey Rodarmor
- - Cory Fields
- - fanquake
- - Gregory Maxwell
- - Jonas Schnelli
- - J Ross Nicoll
- - Pavel Janík
- - Pavel Vasin
- - Peter Todd
- - Pieter Wuille
- - randy-waterhouse
- - Ross Nicoll
- - Suhas Daftuar
- - tailsjoin
- - ฿tcDrak
- - Tom Harding
- - Veres Lajos
- - Wladimir J. van der Laan


As I've previously stated they have already worked tirelessly to scale Bitcoin blockchain properly.

You're just too dumb to realize that there's more to scaling Bitcoin than raising the block size.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:42:15 PM
 #47

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.


It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.



Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases.

The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they are proven to be compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions).

They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing centralized services operating under private databases closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem to improve its liquidity and value.

Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit.

I wouldn't mind about Blockstream if they worked as an independent company but the fact that they are also responsible of decision making of Core development is the worst thing that could happened to bitcoin.

They will never work to scale the bitcoin blockchain properly no matter what solution there is.

Too bad you're too much of an idiot to see the conflict of interest here.

Blockstream is not solely responsible for decision making in Core development. Here is a non-exhaustive list of current Core contributors, Blockstreams employees in bold:

- - Adam Weiss
- - Alex Morcos
- - Casey Rodarmor
- - Cory Fields
- - fanquake
- - Gregory Maxwell
- - Jonas Schnelli
- - J Ross Nicoll
- - Pavel Janík
- - Pavel Vasin
- - Peter Todd
- - Pieter Wuille
- - randy-waterhouse
- - Ross Nicoll
- - Suhas Daftuar
- - tailsjoin
- - ฿tcDrak
- - Tom Harding
- - Veres Lajos
- - Wladimir J. van der Laan
- - LukeJr
- - Jeff Garzik

As I've previously stated they have already worked tirelessly to scale Bitcoin blockchain properly.

You're just too dumb to realize that there's more to scaling Bitcoin than raising the block size.



Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

Kprawn
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1074


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:50:44 PM
 #48

Well, as long as it's not forced onto people and still cheap to use for the people who wants to use it... it's cool with me. Looks like it's a attractive option for the exchanges who

wants to keep the transaction volumes private for some reason. I cannot see why people have so much hangups with side chains anyway... I guess if you used to services like

Xapo, this is not something new. Let's move on.. Roll Eyes

THE FIRST DECENTRALIZED & PLAYER-OWNED CASINO
.EARNBET..EARN BITCOIN: DIVIDENDS
FOR-LIFETIME & MUCH MORE.
. BET WITH: BTCETHEOSLTCBCHWAXXRPBNB
.JOIN US: GITLABTWITTERTELEGRAM
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:51:49 PM
 #49

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

Look at the right places, retard.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls

GMaxwell:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Agmaxwell+

Peter Wuille:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Asipa

Matt Corallo:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Athebluematt+

Jorge Timon:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Ajtimon

Mark Friedenbach:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Amaaku

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
RKing
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 56
Merit: 0


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:52:39 PM
Last edit: November 01, 2015, 09:02:10 AM by RKing
 #50

Who makes decision in the core development? We have to consensus from our community all the time?
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:53:16 PM
 #51


Doesn't change anything about the conflict of interest. Sorry.

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:54:21 PM
 #52

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

Quote
In Bitcoin Core 0.10 we are migrating transaction signing, and only signing for now, to a cryptographic library we're currently developing-- libsecp256k1-- which is intended to provide a high-speed, sidechannel avoiding, and high-assurance implementation of the underlying public-key cryptography used in Bitcoin. Doing this allows us to deliver safer and more reliable software that better fits Bitcoin's specific needs. The library is mostly the work of Bitcoin Core super-contributor Pieter Wuille (sipa), though many other people are working on it too-- software created alone tends to be inherently unreviewed. This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_to

Scaling: check

Bitcoin blockchain: check

Blockstream originated: check

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
knight22
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000


--------------->¿?


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:57:06 PM
 #53

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

Quote
In Bitcoin Core 0.10 we are migrating transaction signing, and only signing for now, to a cryptographic library we're currently developing-- libsecp256k1-- which is intended to provide a high-speed, sidechannel avoiding, and high-assurance implementation of the underlying public-key cryptography used in Bitcoin. Doing this allows us to deliver safer and more reliable software that better fits Bitcoin's specific needs. The library is mostly the work of Bitcoin Core super-contributor Pieter Wuille (sipa), though many other people are working on it too-- software created alone tends to be inherently unreviewed. This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_to

Scaling: check

Bitcoin blockchain: check

Blockstream originated: check

Wake me up when it is implemented.

Conflict of interest? still check

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 03:58:57 PM
 #54

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

Quote
In Bitcoin Core 0.10 we are migrating transaction signing, and only signing for now, to a cryptographic library we're currently developing-- libsecp256k1-- which is intended to provide a high-speed, sidechannel avoiding, and high-assurance implementation of the underlying public-key cryptography used in Bitcoin. Doing this allows us to deliver safer and more reliable software that better fits Bitcoin's specific needs. The library is mostly the work of Bitcoin Core super-contributor Pieter Wuille (sipa), though many other people are working on it too-- software created alone tends to be inherently unreviewed. This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_to

Scaling: check

Bitcoin blockchain: check

Blockstream originated: check

Wake me up when it is implemented.

Conflict of interest? still check

It is implemented as of Bitcoin Core 0.10.

Are you not tired of moving the goal posts? Must be pretty heavy.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
muyuu
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 14, 2015, 04:01:47 PM
 #55

Are you still shadowbanned in reddit, knight22? Aww isn't it a shame that admins shadowban brigadiers like you? But your opinions are so important, it's just not fair that you wouldn't be allowed to brigade.

Oh yes you are.
https://www.reddit.com/user/knight222


It's a good job there's no brigading here, although you XTards can of course try to appear to dominate the discussion by bringing over your motley crew.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3opees/trying_to_talk_some_sense/

Oh well. We are still aware. You guys need to resort to these dirty tricks all the time, ain't that a shame?

GPG ID: 7294199D - OTC ID: muyuu (470F97EB7294199D)
forum tea fund BTC 1Epv7KHbNjYzqYVhTCgXWYhGSkv7BuKGEU DOGE DF1eTJ2vsxjHpmmbKu9jpqsrg5uyQLWksM CAP F1MzvmmHwP2UhFq82NQT7qDU9NQ8oQbtkQ
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
October 14, 2015, 04:19:11 PM
 #56


Quote
page not found

lol rekt


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
spartacusrex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 718
Merit: 545



View Profile
October 14, 2015, 04:21:55 PM
 #57

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.

I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.

I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.

BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

because that day WILL come.

Life is Code.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644
Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
October 14, 2015, 04:29:45 PM
 #58

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.

I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.

I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.

BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

because that day WILL come.

When the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will Gavin go for MIT's (USG) wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

When the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will Mike go for Google's/NSA/Circle (USG) wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Carlton Banks
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3430
Merit: 3074



View Profile
October 14, 2015, 04:34:45 PM
 #59

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?


Ok, and which parties have expressed the most "interest" in the main-chain-only, SPV-for-all centralised alternative? They've got a bit of a conflict of interest also, being as they're funded and backed by big banking incumbents.

I'm happy with this particular crossover; Wuille, Maxwell, Friednbach, Russell, Back et al are biased, just like anyone. I like their bias. Choose your bias wisely.

Vires in numeris
xyzzy099
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1063
Merit: 1048



View Profile
October 14, 2015, 04:36:21 PM
 #60

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Libertarians:  Diligently plotting to take over the world and leave you alone.
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!