$55 Million for Blockstream to build out Bitcoin!

[Sir Lagsalot]

iCEBREAKER, sure it's all good. Was asking croTek4 why he quoted that line out of context, seems like he's implying something.

There's a lot of FUD swirling about Blockstream in this thread. I don't see any real conflicts of interest between their business model and Bitcoin's principles. They're under the spotlight when it comes to such things. If there were any real problems, we'd know.

Out of context? Seriously?  Try reading the thread ( protip: start at the title) again and then come back to us.

Here is Manish Agarwal's full quote:

”We believe that the blockchain technology has the potential to dramatically reshape the financial services landscape. The public blockchain is a key part of that, in my view. We are not that interested in the actual bitcoin as a currency, but the tech is the key.”

Quoting only a part of someone's statements, particularly in a way which twists their intended meaning, is called quoting out of context. Pro-tip: stay calm and think things through when replying to people. If you let emotion cloud your reason, your responses may appear foolish.

AXA sees business advantage in the public blockchain so they're funding the premier experts in that technology. These experts will use that money to further develop Bitcoin, in ways which benefit all users.

What is there to be upset about? If you take off your Classic goggles for one minute, you'll see that this is a very promising development for Bitcoin!

[1714056130]

1714056130

[1714056130]

1714056130

[1714056130]

1714056130

[1714056130]

1714056130

[1714056130]

1714056130

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

iCEBREAKER, sure it's all good. Was asking croTek4 why he quoted that line out of context, seems like he's implying something.

There's a lot of FUD swirling about Blockstream in this thread. I don't see any real conflicts of interest between their business model and Bitcoin's principles. They're under the spotlight when it comes to such things. If there were any real problems, we'd know.

Out of context? Seriously?  Try reading the thread ( protip: start at the title) again and then come back to us.

Here is Manish Agarwal's full quote:

”We believe that the blockchain technology has the potential to dramatically reshape the financial services landscape. The public blockchain is a key part of that, in my view. We are not that interested in the actual bitcoin as a currency, but the tech is the key.”

Quoting only a part of someone's statements, particularly in a way which twists their intended meaning, is called quoting out of context. Pro-tip: stay calm and think things through when replying to people. If you let emotion cloud your reason, your responses may appear foolish.

AXA sees business advantage in the public blockchain so they're funding the premier experts in that technology. These experts will use that money to further develop Bitcoin, in ways which benefit all users.

What is there to be upset about? If you take off your Classic goggles for one minute, you'll see that this is a very promising development for Bitcoin!

Wat?!?! Why? How??

[bitcoin carpenter]

Oh hooray!!@  we can finally give up on the dream of a decentralized currency where concensus, and freedom are key, and give the keys to a corporation. 

What a relief😥.

[iCEBREAKER]

AXA sees business advantage in the public blockchain so they're funding the premier experts in that technology. These experts will use that money to further develop Bitcoin, in ways which benefit all users.

What is there to be upset about?

Welcome to the Bitcoin part of the Internet.

COMPLAIN ABOUT ALL THE THINGS!

[Sir Lagsalot]

I really don't get all the complaining. So these financial services want to put their doings onto public blockchains (presumably Bitcoin sidechains), instead of messing about with private blockchains. Surely this is good news for customers of these services? They'll get a measure of transparency, quicker processing times and lower fees, probably better security too.

Surely it's also good news for Bitcoin? Having corporate sidechains dependent on the blockchain will raise Bitcoin's status and value, while giving major financial players a reason to defend it against attackers. Once the banks are dependent on Bitcoin's blockchain, we have far less to fear from them. Better to have them inside the tent pissing out than outside pissing in, yes?

I do believe we need to keep a critical eye on Blocksteam's future moves. But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin, as well as bringing freedom-enhancing stuff like Confidential Transactions, it's ridiculous to accuse them of selling out.

[MicroGuy]

But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin

This is the question mark.

Who are they 'fixing' it for and why? Does it need to be 'fixed'? and does this 'fixing' help their clients more? the community more? How do the core devs balance this dizzying conflict of interest?

[iCEBREAKER]

But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin

This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why?

Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems.

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem.

Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

iCEBREAKER, sure it's all good. Was asking croTek4 why he quoted that line out of context, seems like he's implying something.

There's a lot of FUD swirling about Blockstream in this thread. I don't see any real conflicts of interest between their business model and Bitcoin's principles. They're under the spotlight when it comes to such things. If there were any real problems, we'd know.

Out of context? Seriously?  Try reading the thread ( protip: start at the title) again and then come back to us.

Here is Manish Agarwal's full quote:

”We believe that the blockchain technology has the potential to dramatically reshape the financial services landscape. The public blockchain is a key part of that, in my view. We are not that interested in the actual bitcoin as a currency, but the tech is the key.”

Quoting only a part of someone's statements, particularly in a way which twists their intended meaning, is called quoting out of context. Pro-tip: stay calm and think things through when replying to people. If you let emotion cloud your reason, your responses may appear foolish.

AXA sees business advantage in the public blockchain so they're funding the premier experts in that technology. These experts will use that money to further develop Bitcoin, in ways which benefit all users.

What is there to be upset about? If you take off your Classic goggles for one minute, you'll see that this is a very promising development for Bitcoin!

How does the rest of the quote change anything? He is still saying that they dont want bitcoin the currency, just the ledger mechanism.  Thats the point we are making - bitcoin is effectively being asset stripped in front of our eyes. The diminution of bitcoin from a real life currency that you can buy real things with to being little more than a pow stamp on a transaction will have enormous impact on the community - but very few realise the true implications of this.

I fail to see how you can honestly believe that this is a positive development for bitcoin and those who have invested both time and money in its evolution as a peer to peer cash system. 

And dont believe for one minute that they will allow their money to be used  "to benefit all users" - it will only benefit them. Most of the proposed changes to bitcoin have little to do with general utility, and everything to do with making it attractive to corporate users.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin

This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why?

Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems.

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem.

Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap.

Of course - and all those things, especially CT, are being demanded by corporate users.

The current bitcoin community has not been screaming for CT now, have they?  CT is the result of push back from the VC's you have been hawking Bitcoin to for the last few months. The roadmap is the result of a fine tuning of Bitcoin to appeal to Big Business.

[exstasie]

But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin

This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why?

Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems.

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem.

Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap.

Of course - and all those things, especially CT, are being demanded by corporate users.

The current bitcoin community has not been screaming for CT now, have they?  CT is the result of push back from the VC's you have been hawking Bitcoin to for the last few months. The roadmap is the result of a fine tuning of Bitcoin to appeal to Big Business.

Actually, a lot of us have been screaming for added privacy for a long time, due to taint analysis/blacklisting by big businesses. Why would confidental transactions appeal to big businesses? If that were true, why have do companies like Bitpay, Coinbase and Circle blacklist customers/vendors based on the source of their bitcoins? It seems to me that confidential transactions would hamper any efforts by the big corporations that are currently trying to monetize bitcoin transactions to comply with certain regulations, like the Bank Secrecy Act.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190707.0;all

Core's roadmap puts a great deal of emphasis on decentralization (as opposed to anything offered by the Classic team). Could you explain how it appeals to Big Business? Or are we just making claims based on zero evidence, as I suspect?

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190707.0;all

Is Bitpay flagging addresses and blacklisting transactions from addresses??

[owm123]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190707.0;all

Is Bitpay flagging addresses and blacklisting transactions from addresses??

Yes, they are:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3mea6b/bitpay_is_blacklisting_certain_bitcoins_rejecting/?ref=search_posts

and also they are working with chainalysis company, for this purpose:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4012hu/bitpay_is_actively_cooperating_with_chainalysis/

[PakistanHockeyfan]

We are very far from that possibility. I'm apologetic on the matter as it may make me seem pessimistic.

[iCEBREAKER]

But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin

This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why?

Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems.

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem.

Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap.

Of course - and all those things, especially CT, are being demanded by corporate users.

The current bitcoin community has not been screaming for CT now, have they?  CT is the result of push back from the VC's you have been hawking Bitcoin to for the last few months. The roadmap is the result of a fine tuning of Bitcoin to appeal to Big Business.

CT and segwit are parts of the scaling roadmap.  It all works together.

Before increasing the size of the blocks, we make sure the blocks are optimal.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190707.0;all

Is Bitpay flagging addresses and blacklisting transactions from addresses??

Yes, they are:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3mea6b/bitpay_is_blacklisting_certain_bitcoins_rejecting/?ref=search_posts

and also they are working with chainalysis company, for this purpose:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4012hu/bitpay_is_actively_cooperating_with_chainalysis/

Well that shit ain't right either. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1354483.msg13789116#msg13789116

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

But so long as they're improving and fixing Bitcoin

This is the question mark. Who are they 'fixing' it for and why?

Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems.

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem.

Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap.

Of course - and all those things, especially CT, are being demanded by corporate users.

The current bitcoin community has not been screaming for CT now, have they?  CT is the result of push back from the VC's you have been hawking Bitcoin to for the last few months. The roadmap is the result of a fine tuning of Bitcoin to appeal to Big Business.

Actually, a lot of us have been screaming for added privacy for a long time, due to taint analysis/blacklisting by big businesses. Why would confidental transactions appeal to big businesses? If that were true, why have do companies like Bitpay, Coinbase and Circle blacklist customers/vendors based on the source of their bitcoins? It seems to me that confidential transactions would hamper any efforts by the big corporations that are currently trying to monetize bitcoin transactions to comply with certain regulations, like the Bank Secrecy Act.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190707.0;all

Core's roadmap puts a great deal of emphasis on decentralization (as opposed to anything offered by the Classic team). Could you explain how it appeals to Big Business? Or are we just making claims based on zero evidence, as I suspect?

Oh for christs sake, you people are hopeless.

CT only obfuscates the amounts and nature of the transaction. It does fuck all to hide who you are, other than the usual tricks already in bitcoin and the remaining whiff of pseudonymity left after normal data mining of the blockchain.

 Banks dont care about being anonymous, just that the details of the tx remain confidential. If CT truly hid you, how long do you think it would last up against AML/KYC? I mean seriously, answer that.

This is just another stupid attack on the few things left in bitcoin that gives it any little bit of utility. If you want to buy cp or drugs and not get caught, find some other way.

How does it appeal to Big Business? $76m not enough reasons for you?

[Zarathustra]

Only. The. Code. Matters.

"We were one of the first companies that painted a vision for interoperable blockchains, that there wasn’t going to be one blockchain, but many of them, all building off the bitcoin codebase to deliver the technology."

In particular, Hill cited the recent decision by blockchain startup Digital Asset Holdings to use Blockstream’s tech as part of its Open Ledger Project, an open-source blockchain initiative being overseen by the Linux Foundation, as an example how the bitcoin codebase can become more relevant for commercial applications.

As such, Hill suggested Blockstream’s value proposition will be in its ability to adapt bitcoin’s codebase for other production use cases

Yes, those 55 Millions will be used to adapt the Bitcoin codebase for the production of permissioned/censored bankster chains, which is their core competence. They must have realized that they are not able to privatize Bitcoin. That coup failed.

Fork Race Update: 315 : 155 Nodes (Bitcoin Classic Hardfork 0.11.2 : Blockthestream Softfork 0.12.0)

[franky1]

Segwit fixes transaction malleability and some other problems.

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem.

Try reading the bitcoin.org roadmap.

translation
Segwit fixes transaction malleability and proposes to increase capacity

Confidential Transactions fixes the fungibility/privacy problem, while reducing the capacity segwit proposed(250byte extra data bloat per confidential tx)

bitcoin needs 2mb+segwit (to have more capacity and all of blockstR3ams dreams come true)

but blockstR3am wont deviate off the one way road to wall street, kicking normal people to the curb(offchain) along the way

[Shrinath]

Great news!! $55 Million is not a joke and it's huge amount to invest in a technology. That shows the trust of the loyal fans of bitcoin and also shows the future potential is huge. Good news indeed! Before we get too excited about this, let's first find out who these venture capital firms are.... Anyone have more details on  AXA Group; Digital Garage and Horizons Ventures? I tried to Google them and find very little information. I like the roadmap for the Blockstream development more than the Bitcoin Classic proposal, but I would like to know a bit more about the people pushing for the Blockstream and their motives behind that... You do not invest that kind of money, if you not expecting some kind of return on it. Congratz Blockstream.