Blocksteam side chain released

[neurotypical]

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.

True, the main point is, there is always going to be people complaining, no matter what. Until an AI of robots can develop code by itself, then they will say whoever is under the project is biased. Well, I choose to support the Core devs and choose to believe Gavin and Hearn are biased and have an agenda to centralize Bitcoin's nodes.

[knight22]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

[xyzzy099]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

[brg444]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

Don't bother with him, he's just another disingenuous troll.

[knight22]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company.

[brg444]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

[muyuu]

Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company.

Core is not the only independent implementation. There's for instance libbitcoin, which is pretty solid.

Life goes on despite the quiet, muzzled sobbing from the XTards.

[knight22]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem.

[brg444]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem.

Straight from the mouth of your god

[knight22]

Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company.

Core is not the only independent implementation. There's for instance libbitcoin, which is pretty solid.

Life goes on despite the quiet, muzzled sobbing from the XTards.

Right, multiple implementations is a key aspect that will strengthen bitcoin development. XT has lead the way. Hopefully more implementation will emerge.

[knight22]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem.

Straight from the mouth of your god

I don't trust Gavin as much as you do. What's your point?

[HostFat]

Even if the tech will be able to achieve new features, you will never see bigger and/or faster blocks from Blockstream (this until they are required for a something that only they will be able to provide)  

How much can be the usefulness of Liquid if blocks are bigger and/or faster?

[brg444]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem.

Straight from the mouth of your god

I don't trust Gavin as much as you do. What's your point?

I don't trust Gavin either.

The point is it is absolutely false to pretend that any developer can veto a proposal that is approved by a super majority of other devs, unless they have cogent objections on scientific & technical grounds. If it happens that their objections are valid then it is more likely that they succeed in convincing a certain number of other developers to reconsider the way forward.

[jonald_fyookball]

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.

that day's already here.  The community wants bigger blocks.  they are stonewalling.  old news.

[brg444]

Even if the tech will be able to achieve new features, you will never see bigger and/or faster blocks from Blockstream (this until they are required for a something that only they will be able to provide)  

How much can be the usefulness of Liquid if blocks are bigger and/or faster?

Indeed, you won't see larger blocks from Blockstream Core until the economic majority agrees to it.

Meanwhile you can shout and run in circles as long as you wish it won't change anything.

[brg444]

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.

that day's already here.  The community wants bigger blocks.  they are stonewalling.  old news.

Oh please... you people are straight up delusional  



Looks to me like it is the community of nodes who's stonewalling bigger blocks

[knight22]

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.

that day's already here.  The community wants bigger blocks.  they are stonewalling.  old news.

Oh please... you people are straight up delusional  



Looks to me like it is the community of nodes who's stonewalling bigger blocks

Most people who disagree with XT or BIP101 doesn't necessary disagree with bigger blocks.

[spartacusrex]

How about this..

The CORE / Blockstream boys have an UNFAIR advantage, as when they speak, many listen, regardless of what comes out.

They should start their own FORK. Like BitcoinXT, but call it.. err.. BitcoinBS !? 

Then they should try and push that version on the community. 

Let's see if everyone follows them now.

This would be a MUCH FAIRER way of seeing 'Who is Right, and Who is Dead.'

..

As for CORE, I think it's days are (should be) over / numbered..

The idea of a CORE in a decentralised arena, always seemed a little.. funny. Frankly.

[Carlton Banks]

Most people who disagree with XT or BIP101 doesn't necessary disagree with bigger blocks.

But not for it's own sake (as your ceaseless bleating about bigger blocks implies). What people actually want is a higher transaction rate, the best way to do that.

Changing bitcoin so that even 1 satoshi amounts can be an on-chain transaction has been dismissed; it doesn't work now, and it never will.

[xyzzy099]

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?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that?  Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company.

I imagine that many, if not most, core devs are employed by various Bitcoin-related businesses, ALL of which, presumably, are capable of having a conflict of interest - indeed, I would imagine that such conflicts are absolutely unavoidable, given a long enough time-frame.

Why single-out Blockstream?  Just because they disagree with a change that you want?

It is the nature of all critical systems that one has to be very, very conservative about making changes to vital components, and Bitcoin is no exception.  That necessity for conservatism is advantageous to anyone whose interest is served by maintaining the status quo, and I think that is unavoidable.

It seems to me that your argument assumes a priori that increasing block size is the correct and proper solution to the scaling problem (and a superior solution to the Blockstream/LN solution), and also assumes that the only reason many devs (Blockstream employees AND others) might oppose that solution is because it serves their business interests to oppose it - even though I have not seen you present much in the way of actual facts to support either of those suppositions.

It does not seem fair to me to just say "the possibility of a conflict of interest exists, so therefore they are wrong".

It seems to me possible that the Blockstream solution does a better job of maintaining decentralization while still allowing scaling of Bitcoin performance.

We should always be wary of conflicts of interest; however, as I point out in the first paragraph above, those possibilities will ALWAYS exist - and we shouldn't presume that just because a potential conflict of interest exists that any solution proposed by the possibly conflicted party are immediately wrong.

If you really want to change people's minds, then you should make it clear why increasing block size is a technically superior solution to the problem at hand, rather than just screaming "conflict of interest!" ad infinitum.