Maxwell + Wiuelle = Hearn

[keepdoing]

I feel like I am watching a slow motion trainweck that keeps looping.  Hearn is a brilliant guy who is completely untrustworthy and biased.  He's been in the pocket of the big banks from the begining.

Now we've got Gregory Maxwell & Peter Wiuelle, whose entire loyalty is to Blockstream.  

All of these guys are obviously technological geniuses, but totally biased and untrustworthy in regards to the greater good.... and therefore unqualified to be Core Committers (x-Hearn, 2 strikes to go).

It can be summed so simply in 3 words:  "Conflict Of Interest"

I started warning about this back in late summer..... Bitcoin could "go to zero" and the path that will lead to that end will be one in which Uncertainty, Infighting, Conflict of Interest Power-Plays lead to the eventual development and support of a Global Fiat Coin.  I mean - all of this indecision and infighting is basically paving the way for a fiat coin to arise.

Things are getting ready to start happening VERY fast in the global financial world in 2016.  There is an amazing amount of work being done behind the scenes in secret labs to develop and release and tie in a "Global Fiat Coin" - and one of those labs is NOT on any of your inside radars.

If Bitcoin is going to survive, someone is going to have to take the lead quickly.  The only way that works is for players with "Conflict of Interest" to exit their Comitt status.  I think right now Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andressen need to take a crash course in leadership.   I think they need to increasingly demonstrate a willingness to take the middle road, and to fight for it.

In short, if you don't want Satoshi back - then act like you can make Satoshi-like decisions.  You cannot have it both ways.  No formal Satoshi, but neither a functional decision making central authority.

Clock is ticking.  As for me, I am simply hoping Satoshi grows a pair, boots up his alter ego, and reenters the debate - because the children he turned this over to are busy either squabbling greedily, or paralyzed and afraid to act because they might hurt someone's feelings.

[defaced]

I feel like I am watching a slow motion trainweck that keeps looping.  Hearn is a brilliant guy who is completely untrustworthy and biased.  He's been in the pocket of the big banks from the begining.

Now we've got Gregory Maxwell & Peter Wiuelle, whose entire loyalty is to Blockstream.  

All of these guys are obviously technological geniuses, but totally biased and untrustworthy in regards to the greater good.... and therefore unqualified to be Core Committers (x-Hearn, 2 strikes to go).

It can be summed so simply in 3 words:  "Conflict Of Interest"

I started warning about this back in late summer..... Bitcoin could "go to zero" and the path that will lead to that end will be one in which Uncertainty, Infighting, Conflict of Interest Power-Plays lead to the eventual development and support of a Global Fiat Coin.  I mean - all of this indecision and infighting is basically paving the way for a fiat coin to arise.

Things are getting ready to start happening VERY fast in the global financial world in 2016.  There is an amazing amount of work being done behind the scenes in secret labs to develop and release and tie in a "Global Fiat Coin" - and one of those labs is NOT on any of your inside radars.

If Bitcoin is going to survive, someone is going to have to take the lead quickly.  The only way that works is for players with "Conflict of Interest" to exit their Comitt status.  I think right now Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andressen need to take a crash course in leadership.   I think they need to increasingly demonstrate a willingness to take the middle road, and to fight for it.

In short, if you don't want Satoshi back - then act like you can make Satoshi-like decisions.  You cannot have it both ways.  No formal Satoshi, but neither a functional decision making central authority.

Clock is ticking.  As for me, I am simply hoping Satoshi grows a pair, boots up his alter ego, and reenters the debate - because the children he turned this over to are busy either squabbling greedily, or paralyzed and afraid to act because they might hurt someone's feelings.

maybe thats part of the satoshi experiment

[gentlemand]

It's always those pesky humans who wreck everything. If BTC can't get past this then it deserves to die. If it keeps growing then at some point the protocol will be totally ossified by countless conflicting interests. It's still small enough to be relatively responsive but the clock is ticking. The only thing that'll really get a rocket up collective arses is a threat to the bottom line. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

[readysalted89]

When Wikileaks started wanting to take donations in Bitcoins Satoshi said it could destroy Bitcoin because it was too new and its community was too small. However, he left it to fend for itself when it was still small, and even now it's not gone mainstream. Bitcoin could use his help to guide it in a suitable direction, but he's probably frightened to return now the whole world want to know who he is.

[brg444]

It's always those pesky humans who wreck everything. If BTC can't get past this then it deserves to die. If it keeps growing then at some point the protocol will be totally ossified by countless conflicting interests. It's still small enough to be relatively responsive but the clock is ticking. The only thing that'll really get a rocket up collective arses is a threat to the bottom line. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

The protocol ossifying is a good thing.

You don't see people trying to add features to tcp/ip every day do you?

[keepdoing]

It's always those pesky humans who wreck everything. If BTC can't get past this then it deserves to die. If it keeps growing then at some point the protocol will be totally ossified by countless conflicting interests. It's still small enough to be relatively responsive but the clock is ticking. The only thing that'll really get a rocket up collective arses is a threat to the bottom line. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

The above is a very good addition to the thought process.  Every day that passes, this moldy apathy of stagnation gets further entrenched.  Somebody has to act now, but do it with wisdom.  Hearns tried BLUNT ARROGANT FORCE with XT.  Sad really, because he was on the right track, but way overly ambitious, way to subservient to powerful special interests, and showed absolutely no tact or respect to the greater community.  His actions really have poisoned the well - but that has to be overcome.

The funny thing is though - I can easily see the day coming that a sudden shock happens, and suddenly everyone is more than willing to run to XT.  Coinbase's recent move proves that XT is still a very real possibility.

What did XT do? It increased block size and put software in control of future increases.  It also screwed with IP's.

What was the problem with the course set?  It was way too ambitious, and too inflexible.  Probably should have started with an increase to 2mb, and then implemented the increases on a more flexible path intended to keep a bit ahead of the free market range.  The next thing XT does is deal with the whole IP track/blocking issue.  Bitcoin is never going to be totally anonymous, but obviously it isn't necessary to do anything to hasten that aspect.  The NSA, other Govt entities can and will develop means and methods to track bitcoin.  They already have.  The very nature of the commerce "system" itself will limit anonymity.  Can't really ship your Amazon Goodies to a non-account can you?  But take that part OUT because it is political death to the process of getting a deal done here.

The bottomline is that something needs to be done NOW to enable the explosive exponential growth that is coming. None of this is going to kill sidechains, but neither is it going to give sidechains an unfair advantage.  Mike Hearn / XT approach favored the banks in a very lopsided way.  It pissed off the sidechain (& privacy advocates).  Sidechain advocates retaliated by stubbornly walking as far as they could to the far side of the seesaw.  

It is time for leadership that is unbiased that can walk all this back to the center, and create something that allows both forces to fight it out in the free market. If sidechains want smaller blocks, then all they have to do is win marketshare, and the block increase will slow due to built in speed breakers.  The system will grow accordingly.

We need strong leadership to get us through this hurdle.  Then everyone can get back to focusing on their businesses and doing what they do best, and fighting where the fighting belongs - in competitive economics.  And it will all work out.

But step 1 is to isolate all lopsided conflict of interest from final decision making.  If that isn't possible, then the alternatives are simple.....

(1) Welcome Back Satoshi ;  (2) Welcome Fiat Coin ;  (3) Accept XT

[keepdoing]

The protocol ossifying is a good thing.

You don't see people trying to add features to tcp/ip every day do you?

It's pretty simple actually.... You are an idiot.  And as you are so fond of saying, you may very well get your wish, and someone will "Fork Off".  And then you are going to cry like a baby when you see the consequences.

You specifically are one of the reasons Bitcoin is stagnating, and in jeopardy of dying at some point, or becoming irrelevant.  Because you are not mature enough to see beyond your own selfish, idealistic viewpoint.

[brg444]

You specifically are one of the reasons Bitcoin is stagnating, and in jeopardy of dying at some point, or becoming irrelevant. 

I know I hurt some feelings everytime you shills need to resort to FUD to emphasize your arguments 

[gentlemand]

It's more than welcome to ossify when it's capable of accommodating all potential future traffic. Maybe that'll be off chain stuff, maybe not. Nothing's settled yet. Until then it's vulnerable to becoming a total irrelevance very rapidly and rightly so.

[keepdoing]

You specifically are one of the reasons Bitcoin is stagnating, and in jeopardy of dying at some point, or becoming irrelevant.  

I know I hurt some feelings everytime you shills need to resort to FUD to emphasize your arguments  

Actually, I know I am striking a nerve every time you resort to Shouting "FUD!".

It's all you've got.  You're just a one trick pony who relies on people's natural distrust and fear of the system in order to keep from having to intelligently engage.  And I get that - the fear and mistrust.  But the problem is... YOU are the system, or at least one of the systems.  And your One Trick is to pretend you aren't.

But your problem is.... at the end of the day, people want Bitcoin to survive and prosper, and every time you speak you are making it clear that all you care about is your own interests, and your unintelligent speech is getting old as people get impatient with the stagnation and rot that is spreading outwards from your ideas.

Bye Bye little pony  

[maokoto]

Are really things that bad? I think Bitcoin is pretty healthy, and do not feel banks will make something similar anytime soon. It would be great for us that the developers had agreement and more leadership, but do not think it is really that bad. There are lots of money at stake, and, being geniuses, I think they will take care of not going wrong with their own money.

[DooMAD]

It's always those pesky humans who wreck everything. If BTC can't get past this then it deserves to die. If it keeps growing then at some point the protocol will be totally ossified by countless conflicting interests. It's still small enough to be relatively responsive but the clock is ticking. The only thing that'll really get a rocket up collective arses is a threat to the bottom line. I hope it comes sooner rather than later.

The protocol ossifying is a good thing.

No, not as it currently stands, it isn't.  But clearly you're against just about any change to the code at this point, so it's not unsurprising to see you make that claim.  You'd happily freeze development right now if you had the opportunity.  You want all the benefits of the security that comes from many users securing the system, but at the same time, you don't want to hear the opinion of any of those users if it differs to your own narrow view.  I'd make the argument again that you can't expect a majority to contribute to a system that only benefits a small minority, but I'm sure you're still going to ignore it.  Everyone knows that's what you're pushing for.  A privileged and elitist chain for the early adopters and whales.  But that's fine, you can ossify all you like on your old, dead chain after everyone else forks and leaves you behind.  

[gentlemand]

Are really things that bad? I think Bitcoin is pretty healthy, and do not feel banks will make something similar anytime soon. It would be great for us that the developers had agreement and more leadership, but do not think it is really that bad. There are lots of money at stake, and, being geniuses, I think they will take care of not going wrong with their own money.

It's operating just fine right now. The issue is its future direction. There are plenty of people who have way more of a clue than me, but it all hangs what direction they believe is the right one. BTC has yet to prove itself to the rest of the world. If it becomes an elitist irrelevance before it has even gotten on its feet then it's goodnight.

[keepdoing]

Are really things that bad? I think Bitcoin is pretty healthy, and do not feel banks will make something similar anytime soon. It would be great for us that the developers had agreement and more leadership, but do not think it is really that bad. There are lots of money at stake, and, being geniuses, I think they will take care of not going wrong with their own money.

It's operating just fine right now. The issue is its future direction. There are plenty of people who have way more of a clue than me, but it all hangs what direction they believe is the right one. BTC has yet to prove itself to the rest of the world. If it becomes an elitist irrelevance before it has even gotten on its feet then it's goodnight.

Right now the future of bitcoin is pretty uncertain.  People don't like uncertainty because it doesn't make for good long term business plans.   You can't get people to commit to loaning you money for startup ventures when there is uncertainty. 

And blockstream is loving this environment because they get to buy time, and any competition is being slowed.   The problem is that the current global financial systems are very fragile right now.   If anything sudden and scary were to happen right now - the only clear path that could immediately handle an EXPLOSION of interest in Bitcoin..... is XT.

It is no accident that the News Media is starting to run Bitcoin stories.   Bitcoin doesn't make it into the news by accident.  News Anchors don't have freedom of choice to run stories about Bitcoin, unless Bitcoin is "approved" for media discussion.  Suddenly the leash has come off.  Suddenly Coinbase launches XT. 

The gloves are getting ready to come off.  And at some point you start to see engineered financial crisises.

And XT will be the default winner, because Blockstream Morons have been so d@mn pigheaded, selfish and greedy.

I do NOT like XT as it is.  But it's the XT you are going to get most likely - because time has been wasted.  And you watch how fast people that would never go to XT - WILL - in the midst of a financial panic.

It was SO easy to fix XT, take a middle course, tweek it, make a decision and run with it.  But the little group of monkeys couldn't learn how to share the banana without wanting it all.

It is getting close to showtime people, and you don't have nearly as much time as you think.

[acquafredda]

Are really things that bad? I think Bitcoin is pretty healthy, and do not feel banks will make something similar anytime soon. It would be great for us that the developers had agreement and more leadership, but do not think it is really that bad. There are lots of money at stake, and, being geniuses, I think they will take care of not going wrong with their own money.

It's operating just fine right now. The issue is its future direction. There are plenty of people who have way more of a clue than me, but it all hangs what direction they believe is the right one. BTC has yet to prove itself to the rest of the world. If it becomes an elitist irrelevance before it has even gotten on its feet then it's goodnight.

That's the most important part of the matter even though I think we already show what we are capable of: as of what OP is saying I said somewhere else that BTC needs less faces on the spots and more work under the hood. BTC don't need people, it is the other way around!

[keepdoing]

Are really things that bad? I think Bitcoin is pretty healthy, and do not feel banks will make something similar anytime soon. It would be great for us that the developers had agreement and more leadership, but do not think it is really that bad. There are lots of money at stake, and, being geniuses, I think they will take care of not going wrong with their own money.

It's operating just fine right now. The issue is its future direction. There are plenty of people who have way more of a clue than me, but it all hangs what direction they believe is the right one. BTC has yet to prove itself to the rest of the world. If it becomes an elitist irrelevance before it has even gotten on its feet then it's goodnight.

That's the most important part of the matter even though I think we already show what we are capable of: as of what OP is saying I said somewhere else that BTC needs less faces on the spots and more work under the hood. BTC don't need people, it is the other way around!

But in the end you need a Lead Mechanic who can make the final decision about WHAT you actually put under the hood.  You can have a thousand fantastic mechanics all building the world's top of the line super charged engines - but if none of the ever get installed it means nothing.  This is the current, HUGE, flaw in bitcoin...... it is democratic process that is highly divided, but with no tie-breaker process in place.   Sort of like watching American politics..... you end up with a divided bickering mess that slowly corrodes and not only doesn't make progress, but the progress that is made is diluted and often not the best because people are too busy pandering to special interests.

Special Interests are currently crippling bitcoin.

[keepdoing]

I really would like to hear someone offer some good supporting debate on the other side....  Please explain how blatant conflict of interest entitles a person(s) to be a comitter.

[CIYAM]

I really would like to hear someone offer some good supporting debate on the other side....  Please explain how blatant conflict of interest entitles a person(s) to be a comitter.

When you reply like this:

You specifically are one of the reasons Bitcoin is stagnating, and in jeopardy of dying at some point, or becoming irrelevant.  

I know I hurt some feelings everytime you shills need to resort to FUD to emphasize your arguments  

Actually, I know I am striking a nerve every time you resort to Shouting "FUD!".

It's all you've got.  You're just a one trick pony who relies on people's natural distrust and fear of the system in order to keep from having to intelligently engage.  And I get that - the fear and mistrust.  But the problem is... YOU are the system, or at least one of the systems.  And your One Trick is to pretend you aren't.

But your problem is.... at the end of the day, people want Bitcoin to survive and prosper, and every time you speak you are making it clear that all you care about is your own interests, and your unintelligent speech is getting old as people get impatient with the stagnation and rot that is spreading outwards from your ideas.

Bye Bye little pony  

it is not surprising that no-one wants to engage with any meaningful debate with you.

It would appear to me that "being right" is about all that matters to you (logic and reasoned arguments are not actually what you are interested in hence your attack of @brg444 for pointing out that your very approach is not one of reasoned arguments).

Bitcoin is not stagnating (and therefore is certainly in no jeopardy of dying at the moment).

Perhaps you'd like to present some "proof" that Bitcoin is stagnating for a start?

[thejaytiesto]

This guy has been posting so much anti blockstream nonsense. Let's look at the facts:
1) Bitcoin will never scale without LN to mass levels
2) Blocksize at 2 mb or 20 does nothing to help mass level of adoption it's just a cop out
3) Maxwell working in confidential transactions to increase user privacy and trying to keep bitcoin's nodes as decentralized as possible by keeping blocksize small with the hel pof Wiuelle with genius stuff like sigwit vs Mike Hearn the guy working for banks

So no, Maxwell and Wiuelle are not Hearn, fork off and stop FUDing. No one cares about XT that's why no one run nodes for that crap.

[keepdoing]

This guy has been posting so much anti blockstream nonsense. Let's look at the facts:
1) Bitcoin will never scale without LN to mass levels
2) Blocksize at 2 mb or 20 does nothing to help mass level of adoption it's just a cop out
3) Maxwell working in confidential transactions to increase user privacy and trying to keep bitcoin's nodes as decentralized as possible by keeping blocksize small with the hel pof Wiuelle with genius stuff like sigwit vs Mike Hearn the guy working for banks

So no, Maxwell and Wiuelle are not Hearn, fork off and stop FUDing. No one cares about XT that's why no one run nodes for that crap.

Yes, Lets look at the facts.....

1) No one is claiming that LN isn't a productive expansion of the blockchain technology, and very much a positive addition.  So this argument busted as FUD.
2) Blockstream Players are consistently on record as saying that Bitcoin is for Banks, not for individuals buying coffee.  So this argument is busted as Lying FUD.
3) Mike Hearn is working for the banks.  True.  Blockstream is working for the banks also.  True.  Blockstream Customers = Banks.   They just have different size Bank Customers in mind.  More FUD.

Also... correct me if I am wrong, but isn't Maxwells work in confidential transaction WITHIN the sidechain.  You may be confidential within the sidechain (Bank), but the Bank (sidechain) has ALL your data.  No more confidentiality than you get by opening an account with a local bank branch, or Coinbase for that matter.

This argument is so dishonest.  What you are proposing is WORSE than the current Fiat System.  You would basically FORCE people to have Sidechain Bank Accounts to operate on the Bitcoin Network.  People who want to use Bitcoin on the main chain as "Cash" would be subjected to increasingly prohibitive fees.