Blockstream Investors ~~~ REKT!!!! (and pissed?)

[keepdoing]

I know I would be pissed if I was a Blockstream Investor.  Blockstream can't seem to even deliver a working Lightening Network is my understanding.   I've heard it is just Vaporware.

Many of their people seem to be spending more time sowing discontent within the Bitcoin Community and making enemies, than working on what they are paid to be working on.

I wonder if any of the investment agreements have stipulations under which Blockstream could be audited?  Boy - if it was me, after watching these incompetents drag my good name into this disasterous situation - I would be looking into legal action to recoup my investment.

[1715558945]

1715558945

[1715558945]

1715558945

[1715558945]

1715558945

[thejaytiesto]

Another low IQ post by keepdoing (more like keepFUDding)

    The important point of this is recognizing there is a set of engineering tradeoffs here.

    Too big and everyone can transact but the transactions are worthless because no one can validate— basically that gives us what we have with the dollar.

    Too small and everyone can validate but the validation is worthless because no one can transact— this is what you have when you try to use real physical gold online or similar.

    The definition of too big / too small is a subtle trade-off that depends on a lot of things like the current capability of technology. Retep added to my thinking on this by pointing out that anonymization technology lags the already slow bandwidth scaling we see in the broader thinking, and the ability to potentially anonymize all Bitcoin activity is protective against certain failure scenarios.

    My general preference is to error towards being more decentralized. There are three reasons for this:

    (1) We can build a multitude of systems of different kinds— decentralized and centralized ones— on top of a strongly decenteralized system but we can't really build something more decentralized on top of something which is less decentralized. The core of Bitcoin sets the maximum amount of decentralization possible in our ecosystem.

    (2) Decentralization is what makes what we're doing unique and valuable compared to the alternatives. If decentralization is not very important to you... you'd likely already be much happier with the USD and paypal.

    (3) Regardless of the block size we need to have robust alternatives for transacting in BTC in order to improve privacy, instant confirmation, lower costs for low value transactions, permit very tiny femtopayments, and to (optionally!) better support reversible transactions. ... and once we do the global blockchain throughput rate is less of an issue: Instead of a limit of how many transactions can be done it becomes a factor that controls how costly the alternatives are allowed to be at worst, and a factor in how often people need to depend on external (usually less secure) systems.

    ...and also because I think it's easier to fix if you've gone too small and need to increase it, vs gone too large and shut out the general public from the validation process and handed it over to large entities.

.

    I think you're mistaking the kind of anonymity being talked about here. Say some random authority wants to force miners to only mine transactions that the authority approves of and not mine any that match some kind of blacklist, and to not extend any chains that contain violations of these rules. If successful this would substantially undermine the purpose and goals of Bitcoin.

    If it is easy to mine with relatively high anonymity— if you can validate on a single high performance server with a commodity consumer grade broadband connection and announce over tor or some other anonymity network— it would be difficult to impose such a criteria: too many miners would disappear into the mists if you tried, and so there would be no reason to try. If, instead, running a validating node (much less a miner) requires a rack of expensive equipment and a multi-gigabit network connection that is far less clearly the case.

Years ago, Greg Maxwell was defending his same arguments, way before Blockstream was founded, and the likes of Mike Hearn were already missing the point, just like you do now.

And lol at "in your understanding". You don't even understand why raising the blocksize now is not a good idea, and you are you are trying to understand how the Lightning Network works. It' doesn't work that way, you need to understand the why's before you even attempt at understanding the code. I can't wait until we get LN to see how all the "it's vaporware" FUDsters deal with.

For the record:

[keepdoing]

<<<<snip snip snip blah blah blah>>>>

Pretty hard to misinterpret this...... sounds like war talk.  Sounds like a Core/Blockstream supporter drawing a line and saying we plan on destroying everything, even our own reputation, if we can't control Bitcoin.

A good reason that the Blockstream Investors should try and put a muzzle/leash on their dog, before he goes and bites someone and has to get put down (taking their investment money with them).

[thejaytiesto]

it's funny how you had to create 3 more additional threads because you got told right at the #1 reply which would make you look like a clown for the rest of the thread. Keep trying, it's futile. More and more people are catching up and known that the Classic devs are as incompetent as XT devs and both forks attempts will meet the same fate. You are wasting your time, Core already won.

[keepdoing]

it's funny how you had to create 3 more additional threads because you got told right at the #1 reply which would make you look like a clown for the rest of the thread. Keep trying, it's futile. More and more people are catching up and known that the Classic devs are as incompetent as XT devs and both forks attempts will meet the same fate. You are wasting your time, Core already won.

And again... I hope everyone is watching.  The above is evidence that this is NOT going to be a smooth fork.  Expect every Coin Killing, Chain forking, disruptive dirty trick in the book during the Fork.  Blockstream/Core will NOT go quietly.

This will be a war, and my guess is that i the end Blockstream will suffer a loss, and reputational loss so bad that their actual company will be destroyed.  And they'll take their investor monies with them.

[thejaytiesto]

it's funny how you had to create 3 more additional threads because you got told right at the #1 reply which would make you look like a clown for the rest of the thread. Keep trying, it's futile. More and more people are catching up and known that the Classic devs are as incompetent as XT devs and both forks attempts will meet the same fate. You are wasting your time, Core already won.

And again... I hope everyone is watching.  The above is evidence that this is NOT going to be a smooth fork.  Expect every Coin Killing, Chain forking, disruptive dirty trick in the book during the Fork.  Blockstream/Core will NOT go quietly.

This will be a war, and my guess is that i the end Blockstream will suffer a loss, and reputational loss so bad that their actual company will be destroyed.  And they'll take their investor monies with them.

You seem to be ignoring the obvious: At the end of the day, the better devs win. Incompetent devs lose. Who are the competent devs (as objectively demonstrated by the amount of features, fixes and improvements developed by Core devs compared to the hard forking opportunists?). That's right.

And again, even if they win at the propaganda wars with their marketing and disinfo, it wouldn't matter, because guess what: In the disaster scenario that such a hard fork happens, the day after the hard work needs to keep getting done. Who is going to maintain and keep developing the full node? Do you expect that the Toomins can simply sit and wait for Core devs to keep developing Core so they can copy and paste their code onto Classic indefinitely? Who would trust and put money on such a network, where the core of this network depends on another team being nice to keep developing software for them? This is why no one that's knowledgeable is going to put money and support on those clowns, and will remain Core, where the talent and knowledge is. Therefore even if the fatal scenario happens, we would end up going back to Core eventually, yet you fail to realize this fact, and im not surprised. (Of course im implying that after a hypothetic Toomin-HF there would be anything left to fix).

[blunderer]

... And again, even if they win at the propaganda wars with their marketing and disinfo, it wouldn't matter ...

How much is core paying you to spam this bullshit?

[thejaytiesto]

... And again, even if they win at the propaganda wars with their marketing and disinfo, it wouldn't matter ...

How much is core paying you to spam this bullshit?

Thanks for your vapid post, this only further proves that anti-Core shills have absolutely no reasonable arguments beyond low-IQ assumptions and tinfoil hat theories. Please come back when you have something of substance to say, but by then you may realize why you were supporting a substance-less dev team.

[fbueller]

I know I would be pissed if I was a Blockstream Investor.  Blockstream can't seem to even deliver a working Lightening Network is my understanding.   I've heard it is just Vaporware.

Many of their people seem to be spending more time sowing discontent within the Bitcoin Community and making enemies, than working on what they are paid to be working on.

I wonder if any of the investment agreements have stipulations under which Blockstream could be audited?  Boy - if it was me, after watching these incompetents drag my good name into this disasterous situation - I would be looking into legal action to recoup my investment.

They don't have to tell you the details.. but they do have a lightning network implementation.

Feel free to check Github - report back when you find it.

[blunderer]

... And again, even if they win at the propaganda wars with their marketing and disinfo, it wouldn't matter ...

How much is core paying you to spam this bullshit?

Thanks for your vapid post, this only further proves that anti-Core shills have absolutely no reasonable arguments beyond low-IQ assumptions and tinfoil hat theories. Please come back when you have something of substance to say, but by then you may realize why you were supporting a substance-less dev team.

You accuse others of shilling, you get accused in response.
What's sauce for the goose, buddy

[sgbett]

<snip>
And lol at "in your understanding". You don't even understand why raising the blocksize now is not a good idea
</snip>

One could very well say "You don't even understand why raising the blocksize now is a good idea" but that would presuppose I knew exactly what your understanding was.

There are reasons why we shouldn't, there are reasons why we should. No-one knows for sure what the best scenario is, this is the perfect test of the consensus mechanism.