Is it good or bad that Core development is virtually controlled by one company?

[Foxpup]

its obvious that the blockstream shills dont want normal people making normal transactions on bitcoin blockchain

I don't see a valid reason for this; your $1 purchase doesn't need the security of a 1 Exa-hash network.

remember. Those are all the things that he has said. You can't change that, regardless of when he said it.

A $1 purchase is not a normal transaction that a normal person makes with an international payment system. I've been complaining about this increasingly loudly since 2012, long before Blockstream was founded.

You just have to get used to the fact that Bitcoin simply isn't meant for microtransactions, and anyone who insists on using it for that purpose just has to accept the higher fees that this usage requires.

Bitcoin is not, never was, and never will be suitable for microtransactions, and was never intended to be. Bitcoin is a fast, secure, global payment network that obviates the need for banks or other trusted third parties. Using Bitcoin for microtransactions is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If you insist on doing this anyway, please don't complain that a sledgehammer is more expensive than a nutcracker.

Remember. Those are the things that I have said. You can't change that, regardless of when I said it.

[1714744406]

1714744406

[RodeoX]

Remember that anyone is free to launch their own bitcoin and compete. Control is what we allow, IMO.

[NeuroticFish]

Bitcoin is a business. Nobody can deny that.

If it's controlled by one company ... hmm... it may be good, since this way it can surely grow. But it can be very bad, especially if they will tell the common user "I don't care about you".
But a company - any company - wants to earn money. If they go "the dark side", the people can - and will - just migrate to another coins. Really, there are plenty of coins just waiting around the corner for Bitcoin (as a business) to fail.


So if it's going to be a "closed business", Bitcoin will go down.
If it's indeed controlled by one company, that will not allow this to happen.

[franky1]

A $1 purchase is not a normal transaction that a normal person makes with an international payment system. I've been complaining about this increasingly loudly since 2012, long before Blockstream was founded.

a $1 purchase is a normal transaction. i can think of a million things people can buy.. the mindset you and others have is that america dominates.
do you realise that some countries only get paid $1 every 3 hours as a wage. that you can by a large plate of food for under $1. where $1 if used wisely can buy a couple bags of groceries..
once you move your mindset out of Emerica. and think of the world as a whole. you will see that your own preference is actually pricing 4billion people out of possibly using bitcoin for "normal transactions"
EG 1.3billion of china, minimum wage ~80cents
so if you think while being in ameria $7.50-$9 is a "normal transaction" then $1 is "normal transaction" to 1.3billion chinese
EG 1.2billion of china, minimum wage ~30cents
so if you think while being in ameria $7.50-$9 is a "normal transaction" then $1 is "normal transaction" to 1.2billion indians

so get your mindset out of the 300million americans and think of the 4billion-7billion world that do think $1 is "normal transaction" amount

You just have to get used to the fact that Bitcoin simply isn't meant for microtransactions, and anyone who insists on using it for that purpose just has to accept the higher fees that this usage requires.

but if blockstream expand its capacity. and stop with the fee greed. (it is possible to do without datacenters)
EG 2mb+ libsecp256k is fast processing times and more capacity.(that home users can afford to run without special servers
EG 2mb+ libsecp256k1 +segwit is even more capacity, and again manageable on home computers.
but
1mbsegwit + huge fee's to sway people over to sidechains.. is not expanding bitcoin, but making blockstreams pre-mined coins go from valueless to valuable, while strangling bitcoin.

Bitcoin is not, never was, and never will be suitable for microtransactions, and was never intended to be. Bitcoin is a fast, secure, global payment network that obviates the need for banks or other trusted third parties. Using Bitcoin for microtransactions is like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. If you insist on doing this anyway, please don't complain that a sledgehammer is more expensive than a nutcracker.

bitcoin WAS suitable. for microtransactions.. thats what the 8 decimals are for!. the problem is the greed of fiat lovers pricing bitcoin into unsuitability

Remember. Those are the things that I have said. You can't change that, regardless of when I said it.

[iCEBREAKER]

Only 1 out of the 7 people who have commit access work for blockstream. gmaxwell used to but he voluntarily gave up his commit access for personal reasons.

Pedantically, it's 1 out of 5 now.   But yes, it just shows the dishonesty and the hippocracy of the attacks.  They claimed I was the problem. I _left_ and now it's still "blockstream controls bitcoin core". It's just going to be bullshit lies and threats until the end of time.

Furthermore, blockstream was founded by several developers who worked on Bitcoin Core before blockstream existed and those people have contributed greatly to Bitcoin Core. This isn't some company that was founded by a bunch of people who then hired Core devs to do their work, this is Core devs who wanted to do something and founded a company for it.

Part of the answer is that there are lot of people who do not want any work done improving Bitcoin.

There are people who do not want sidechains to exist; because it undermines their plans with altcoins and, especially, "spinoffs"... or want there to be drama in bitcoin so they can peddle their "hardfork upgrade to ethereum's design" as the grand solution.

There are people who do not want strong personal and commercial privacy to exist: They run services predicated on undermining the privacy of users or they own an interest in competing systems that bill privacy as their advantages.

There are people who don't care if Bitcoin is decentralized at all, but have raised millions on promises to store random third party data for practically no cost into the Bitcoin ledger.

And so on...

I don't believe there are many of each of these type; but there are some without scruples who don't mind faking it. And they're super busy spinning up lies like one of the only companies funding bitcoin tech development _at all_ somehow "controls" Bitcoin core because they employ one person that has commit access, or pay a half dozen people who have contributed out of several dozen while other companies pay no one to contribute.  And that is why we see that forums that are easily sockpuppeted like reddit are overrun with fabricated "increase blocksize at any cost" yelling, places like here less so.. and in person gatherings or [cryptographic measurements](http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-wins-major-holders-will-sell-btc-driving-price-into-the-ground) see far less.  

All this fabricated noise, right out of a GCHQ playbook (not that really think any state actors are involved)-- and it just may win: Because at the end of the day, the few with the courage to stop it gain nothing but the preservation of a dream of decentralized currency that changes the world; and too many others sit too quietly, hoping that others will take the heat. Dreams only go so far.

And some decades from now when your grandkids ask where were you when they took the shining hope of decentralized money away, more than a few people here will be able to tell them how they were fooled and fought to make it happen, or how simply stood idly by.

The noise generators and disinfo agents shall not gain succor so long as Honey Badger ignores their odious presence.

Of course it did nothing but encourage them when you absolved yourself of commit access ('if the system is solid, attack the people').

That was predictable and I hope your reason for leaving was to spend more time coding or fishing or whatever, not to appease the liars and terrorists.

The walls of La Serenissima, high and strong, are defended by stouthearted men of mind who stand ready to quickly dispatch any incautious adversary.



Take heart Sir GMAX of Core; the only people feeling fire will be those foolish enough to attack Bitcoin's commanding heights!

[franky1]

Take heart Sir GMAX of Core; the only people feeling fire will be those foolish enough to attack Bitcoin's commanding heights!

perfect metaphor
blockstream are building castles, with high walls (barriers of entry). using guns(shills) to kill off anyone that wants to be in the bitcoin community.

"bitcoins commanding heights". your nailing it.. your mindset really is in a corporate controlled bitcoin. and not a open currency.

[blunderer]

...
The noise generators and disinfo agents shall not gain succor so long as Honey Badger ignores their odious presence.
...

Ja! Führer's doomsday weapon, the "Embarrassing Freshman Virus," is a success!
Succor... odious. He talks like a total douche now...

[Foxpup]

a $1 purchase is a normal transaction. i can think of a million things people can buy.. the mindset you and others have is that america dominates.

Nobody said anything about America. Why would I? I don't even live in America, nor have I ever been to America. I said Bitcoin is an international payment system. When was the last time you made a $1 transaction using SWIFT?

you will see that your own preference is actually pricing 4billion people out of possibly using bitcoin for "normal transactions"

My own preference is that nobody would be poor and everyone could have the basic necessities of life for free, but that's simply not possible in the real world. Bitcoin is expensive. It's by far the most powerful distributed computing system ever conceived. And anyone who wants to use it has to pay for it. That's the plain reality of the matter, whether I like it or not.

bitcoin WAS suitable. for microtransactions.. thats what the 8 decimals are for!. the problem is the greed of fiat lovers pricing bitcoin into unsuitability

It wasn't. Ever. Everyone who has ever tried has complained about how impractical it is for that purpose. The problem is the greed of freeloaders expecting to use a ridiculously expensive payment system for free.

[Warren Buffet]

But I own a lot of Bitcoin.

How do you define 'lot' ? 10+, 100+, 1k+, 10k+, 100k+ ...what ?

Those definitions are subjective, but definitely not under 100/1000.

It is 22000 to be specific. 14000 can be traced back 3 different addresses.

5000 : https://blockchain.info/address/18mkjbVaHAcMauL6iiy7zm9VjMYCjy4UU1

4600 : https://blockchain.info/address/1LtrEDMGKV81vf8eGYYz4c7u6A8936YgDM

4400 : https://blockchain.info/address/1K5PrGXqH8iSpKX4YsPp5gStLLsYTmnVBh

[franky1]

It wasn't. Ever. Everyone who has ever tried has complained about how impractical it is for that purpose. The problem is the greed of freeloaders expecting to use a ridiculously expensive payment system for free.

its not free!!
miners get multiple thousands of dollars worth of value every ~10 minutes.
transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

[CIYAM]

First this idiot says:

its not free!!

Then he follows it up with:

miners get multiple thousands of dollars worth of value every ~10 minutes.
transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

So then - why is not free if according to your own logic there is no need to charge for it for at least 2 decades?

I'm guessing you are going to say the only reason is that we don't have Gavin in charge and 2MB blocks?

[blunderer]

a $1 purchase is a normal transaction. i can think of a million things people can buy.. the mindset you and others have is that america dominates.

Nobody said anything about America. Why would I? I don't even live in America, nor have I ever been to America. I said Bitcoin is an international payment system. When was the last time you made a $1 transaction using SWIFT?

In other words, Bitcoin should be a bank-to-bank payment system?

you will see that your own preference is actually pricing 4billion people out of possibly using bitcoin for "normal transactions"

My own preference is that nobody would be poor and everyone could have the basic necessities of life for free, but that's simply not possible in the real world. Bitcoin is expensive. It's by far the most powerful distributed computing system ever conceived. And anyone who wants to use it has to pay for it. That's the plain reality of the matter, whether I like it or not.

Bitcoin is not a "distributed computing system." If it is, it's certainly the most *idiotic* computing system, distributed or not. A non-programmable distributed computer that only solves one problem is only useful if the problem itself is useful, no one will pay for the privilege of solving 2+2 for the gazillionth time.

bitcoin WAS suitable. for microtransactions.. thats what the 8 decimals are for!. the problem is the greed of fiat lovers pricing bitcoin into unsuitability

It wasn't. Ever. Everyone who has ever tried has complained about how impractical it is for that purpose. The problem is the greed of freeloaders expecting to use a ridiculously expensive payment system for free.

re. "ridiculously expensive": Now you're getting it.

[Amph]

Remember that anyone is free to launch their own bitcoin and compete. Control is what we allow, IMO.

yeah but i could argue that the altcoin scene is "centralized to bitcoin", in the sense that no matter how many copy paste one can launch, the attention will always be on bitcoin

and in regard to the fee and microtransaction problem, it is easily fixable by lowering the fee when the minimum fee will be too high

[johnyj]

Any non-satoshi white paper design, e.g. segwit, side chain, LN, they are all alt-coins, because they know that alt-coin will never succeed alone, they try to become parasite on the main blockchain, or even morph the main chain by slowly changing its architecture

It is the same thinking behind Mastercoin, but Mastercoin did not succeed because they use expensive bitcoin transactions to do useless things like smart contract (the concept of smart contract is questionable, since without law enforcement backing, the smart contract will be defaulted easily without any consequence). However, if you can use a parasitic chain to enable thousands of transactions and merge them into one bitcoin transaction, then it becomes economically feasible, and you can make a lot of money from this parasitic chain while let the bitcoin network provide the top level security

In fact there is no way to stop this kind of parasitic chain from appearing, so the mission of core devs should be defending the blockchain from being polluted, not becoming the parasite and leech the value from blockchain

[Lauda]

Any non-satoshi white paper design, e.g. segwit, side chain, LN, they are all alt-coins, because they know that alt-coin will never succeed alone, they try to become parasite on the main blockchain, or even morph the main chain by slowly changing its architecture
-snip-
In fact there is no way to stop this kind of parasitic chain from appearing, so the mission of core devs should be defending the blockchain from being polluted, not becoming the parasite and leech the value from blockchain

Your post might seem correct to the average user, sorry, but you have no idea what you're talking about. You're putting a change in the Merke tree(s), sidechains and LN in the same bag. You're comparing the incomparable and calling them all altcoins (if I understood your post correctly)? You're trying to say that the 'satoshi white paper design' is the only and perfect design that should be included in/to Bitcoin? Appeal to authority? This must be a bad joke. Let's start:
1) Segwit has nothing to do with sidechains or LN as a concept (even though it carries necessary changes for LN).
2) Any altcoin could be a sidechain to Bitcoin with two-way peg and this has a wast amount of use cases; sidechain != LN
3) LN, being a second layer solution that enables two participants a theoretically infinite amount of transaction, is now a bad thing?
4) This has nothing to do with Mastercoin.
Corrections.

[franky1]

First this idiot says:

its not free!!

Then he follows it up with:

miners get multiple thousands of dollars worth of value every ~10 minutes.
transaction fee's do not need to be a revenue stream for atleast 2 decades

So then - why is not free if according to your own logic there is no need to charge for it for at least 2 decades?

I'm guessing you are going to say the only reason is that we don't have Gavin in charge and 2MB blocks?

because for the next 20 years the block reward covers costs..your blind mindset is that miners income is based on fee's..
seriously you lack logic.
and by the way im not a gavin fanboy.
the desire for 2mb is a community need way before gavin even mentioned it. even gavin disagreed with 2mb last year because he wanted 8-200mb(whatever it was).. he only settled on 2mb this year because the community wanted it first and he is now riding the community needs coke-tail..

it wasnt gavin that envisioned 2mb and the community followed gavin. it was the other way round.
so stop trying to make the whole community that wants 2mb into some crappy dirty corrupt crypptsy theifing toomin or some r3 bank loving gavincoin..

the community want 2mb.. not the corporate shit

[CIYAM]

the community want 2mb.. not the corporate shit

They don't - http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/in-the-event-of-a-fork-i-will-sell-rbf-blockstream-core-coins-and-buy-classic-bitcoins.

You can carry on about "the community" but apparently they don't have any funds invested in BTC (so you think people that own zero BTC should make the decisions?).

Unless you are a supporter of "communism" (and this is very funny for me to be saying to you as I live in China) then you can't possibly support the idea of "the community" being some financially irrelevant minority making the decisions about Bitcoin.

[franky1]

the community want 2mb.. not the corporate shit

They don't - http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/in-the-event-of-a-fork-i-will-sell-rbf-blockstream-core-coins-and-buy-classic-bitcoins.

You can carry on about "the community" but apparently they don't have any funds invested in BTC (so you think people that own zero BTC should make the decisions?).

you can circle jerk your link to all your friends on /r/bitcoin/ to garner votes in your favour all you want..

i really think that you must have financial investment in blockstream
are they paying you using some of the $55mill pot of cash, or giving you a few premined sidechains. or some of the non-chain liquids?

[CIYAM]

you can circle jerk your link to all your friends on /r/bitcoin/ to garner votes in your favour all you want..

As I don't even use Reddit it is rather odd that you would state that (perhaps you are just overwhelmed with having to deal with facts that you're not very used to having to).

Let's face it @franky1 - your sponsors are not going to be paying you for much longer (as you have failed them - you make them look foolish which is not really what they want for their money).

[Jimmy Wales]

Will Blockstream Core agree to shift to 2mb if bitcoinocracy poll indicates more coins are supporting 2mb ?

That's possible, however the poll is unlikely to indicate such.

I doubt this. Majority holders are probably not yet aware of this poll. If we make an effort and make them aware and win the poll, then Blockstream might back out again and say "bitcoin is not democracy", "mere winning wont do, you need 90%+" etc. So, there needs to be clear message from Blockstream that they'll move to 2mb if they lose this poll 51:49 and give us three months to send the message across.