Blocksteam side chain released

[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.

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.

The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation.

I am not and never will.

[muyuu]

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?

Oh, another shadow-banned brigadier. What's up, Franco? apt name.

Isn't it great how it really goes like the saying, "birds of a feather flock together".

[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?

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.

The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation.

I am not and never will.

Of course you wouldn't adress this question:

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?

[tl121]

Isn't it great how it really goes like the saying, "birds of a feather flock together".

There do seem to be a bunch.  There are a few small blockers who make an amazing number of posts.  Now, perhaps, it is becoming apparent why.

[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.

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.

The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation.

I am not and never will.

Of course you wouldn't adress this question:

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?

Because the Blockstream one is the most obvious at the moment. If you know any other conflict of interests I would like you to expose them.

[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?

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.

The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation.

I am not and never will.

Of course you wouldn't adress this question:

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?

Because the Blockstream one is the most obvious at the moment. If you know any other conflict of interests I would like you to expose them.

Well there is Gavin getting paid by MIT, a known NSA farm. Who knows what their handlers interest toward Bitcoin are? Did you know he is also sitting on the board of Coinbase who themselves have several traditional banking ties?

Mike Hearn himself sits on the advisory board of Circle. Who can tell what their interest are? What about those of their banking investors (Goldman Sachs)?

[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.

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.

The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation.

I am not and never will.

Of course you wouldn't adress this question:

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?

Because the Blockstream one is the most obvious at the moment. If you know any other conflict of interests I would like you to expose them.

Well there is Gavin getting paid by MIT, a known NSA farm. Who knows what their handlers interest toward Bitcoin are? Did you know he is also sitting on the board of Coinbase who themselves have several traditional banking ties?

Mike Hearn himself sits on the advisory board of Circle. Who can tell what their interest are? What about those of their banking investors (Goldman Sachs)?

All true but I still fail so see other conflict of interests directly related to Core development. It doesn't mean they don't worth keeping an eye on them though.

[Quantus]

side chains should be thought of as 3rd party services and moved to the services area on this forum.

[muyuu]

side chains should be thought of as 3rd party services and moved to the services area on this forum.

As a business yeah, as a tech nope.

[Zarathustra]

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.

The conflict of interest has nothing to do with the block size itself but any other potential solutions that threaten Blockstream profits. Good to know that you are fine with that situation.

I am not and never will.

Of course you wouldn't adress this question:

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?

Because the Blockstream one is the most obvious at the moment. If you know any other conflict of interests I would like you to expose them.

Well there is Gavin getting paid by MIT, a known NSA farm. Who knows what their handlers interest toward Bitcoin are? Did you know he is also sitting on the board of Coinbase who themselves have several traditional banking ties?

Mike Hearn himself sits on the advisory board of Circle. Who can tell what their interest are? What about those of their banking investors (Goldman Sachs)?

It is no problem if someone comes from MIT and someone from Blockstream. It is a problem, if many of the core devs represent MIT or Blockstream.
But the trolls know it very well. There is no reason to ask silly questions.

[Lauda]

Well there is Gavin getting paid by MIT, a known NSA farm. Who knows what their handlers interest toward Bitcoin are? Did you know he is also sitting on the board of Coinbase who themselves have several traditional banking ties?

Mike Hearn himself sits on the advisory board of Circle. Who can tell what their interest are? What about those of their banking investors (Goldman Sachs)?

All true but I still fail so see other conflict of interests directly related to Core development. It doesn't mean they don't worth keeping an eye on them though.

You're both deluded and biased (I'm not attacking you; I could be biased as well but this is not a Core vs XT discussion) that you don't even see the obvious. Note: this is just a example, do not take it that seriously. Let's say that Gavin is directly or indirectly influenced by the NSA. You would rather support the influence of NSA than blockstream profiting (in addition to providing a solution to scaling; not talking about sidechains)? Supporting XT made you blind.
Please don't turn this into XT vs. Core. Sidechains are not the proposed solution to scaling. Also, stop with the huge quotes.

side chains should be thought of as 3rd party services and moved to the services area on this forum.

As a business yeah, as a tech nope.

It's mainly about blockstream. Does fit both sections though.

Update: Several corrections (was on my phone).

[Carlton Banks]

Also, stop with the hugr quotes.

+1

makes it more unreadable when you guys don't edit your long exchanges.

[knight22]

Also, stop with the hugr quotes.

+1

makes it more unreadable when you guys don't edit your long exchanges.

Gotcha.

[DooMAD]

I suppose in a way it's healthy that not everyone is rushing out to embrace blockstream in loving arms as there are obviously some concerns, but at the same time, there's no need to take it to extremes.  It's an interesting development and I'm sure we'll all be keeping a close eye on proceedings.  Let's keep an open mind and see how it plays out.

Please don't turn this into XT vs. Core. Sidechains are not the proposed solution to scaling.

Agreed.  Although there are certainly parallels to be drawn between the manner of the two discussions, which is disappointing.  I thought by now we might have all realised that this type of hostile discourse isn't particularly fruitful:

all we saw was a barrage of accusations of ill-intent from the offset.  So the harder people try to discredit it, the harder others try to defend it and it just keeps escalating and polarising discussion.  No one is winning anyone over and people are just digging their heels in and refusing to budge.  It's just an increasingly noisy stalemate as you find new trivial technicalities to quibble over.

Anyone else notice history repeating itself?  Let's not do it again with this.

[sgbett]

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.

+1 for higher transaction rate.

Its wrong to say sidechain/LN is the solution.
Its wrong to say increased blocksize limit is the solution.

Its equally wrong to argue that either one of those things won't help. Equating either solution to some absurd extrapolation is bad form on both sides.

[Carlton Banks]

Its wrong to say sidechain/LN is the solution.
Its wrong to say increased blocksize limit is the solution.

Its equally wrong to argue that either one of those things won't help. Equating either solution to some absurd extrapolation is bad form on both sides.

+1 also

Furthermore, the two are related. Rusty Russell has said that even though Lightning is super thrifty with block space, all that will do is make it popular to run and use. Massive pressure on blockspace will inevitably ensue (but much more space efficient than doing every individual latte on-chain), so it's blocksize increase whichever way you look at it. Unless someone devises something more cunning (which I wouldn't rule out; doubling the rate of blocks was one proposal in the blocksize debate that didn't attract much discussion, but it has merit if it didn't impact orphan rates too badly)

[jackthedoe]

http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-commercial-sidechain-bitcoin-exchanges/

Whaddya think?  Kinda cool that exchanges can settle off chain but should we be concerned about centralization?

government or bankers made bitcoin nothing new.

i think exactly the same, maybe this is just his first step to try to take control on everything possible?

i don't know if this is a good news or not...

[RKing]

i think exactly the same, maybe this is just his first step to try to take control on everything possible?

i don't know if this is a good news or not...

Sidechian is based on the main chain. So it will strengthen the bitcoin and make bitcoin transaction instant.

[thejaytiesto]

Tired of seeing anti-blockstreamers that never propose a better solution to achieve VISA tier levels of transactions per second in the future and scale it into a global payments systems.

Again, what are you doing to do about the centralization of the nodes when the nodes are so big than the average joe who wants to contribute by running his own node can't?

[muyuu]

Tired of seeing anti-blockstreamers that never propose a better solution to achieve VISA tier levels of transactions per second in the future and scale it into a global payments systems.

Again, what are you doing to do about the centralization of the nodes when the nodes are so big than the average joe who wants to contribute by running his own node can't?

What they usually do is deny this is a problem and talk about "decentralised datacentres" - I wish I was joking.