Conflict of interest

[thecrazy1]

I want to know, why some developers who are part of company "Blockstream" which will benefit from addition of Segwit/Lightening network to bitcoin, continue be part of the core bitcoin development team. They cannot be expected to take unbiased decisions for the future of bitcoin, because of conflict of interest between their company goals and bitcoin.


I have no issue if some developers support segwit/lightning network, but I think they are abusing their position/power to force it to everyone involved with bitcoin.


I think the ethical thing would be to step down as core bitcoin developers , giving up git commit access to main bitcoin repository and similar powers. They should like everyone else make a BIP request  for segwit /Lightening network and then let the community/miners and core developers take a decision just like any other BIP.  

[RodeoX]

"The developers" do not exist. You mean the core project which has it's own developers. Their work may be adopted, but that is a consensus issue and is not their decision. Anyone with an idea to improve bitcoin is welcome to write code and let the bitcoin community make their choice about it's merit. So for me there is no conflict of interest because they do not represent bitcoin, they only represent themselves.

[pedrog]

It's BIP 141:

BIP: 141
  Layer: Consensus (soft fork)
  Title: Segregated Witness (Consensus layer)
  Author: Eric Lombrozo <elombrozo@gmail.com>
          Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>
          Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
  Comments-Summary: No comments yet.
  Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0141
  Status: Draft
  Type: Standards Track
  Created: 2015-12-21
  License: PD

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0141.mediawiki

[Jerean]

"The developers" do not exist. You mean the core project which has it's own developers. Their work may be adopted, but that is a consensus issue and is not their decision. Anyone with an idea to improve bitcoin is welcome to write code and let the bitcoin community make their choice about it's merit. So for me there is no conflict of interest because they do not represent bitcoin, they only represent themselves.

Nobody can deny that lots of core developer work for blockstream. Yes the consensus may stop some one do something evil, but it's also stop people do something good, this is the real problem.

[thecrazy1]

You mean the core project which has it's own developers.

I mean none of the people listed at the link below should have a say in whether to accept or reject the segwit BIP.

https://blockstream.com/team/

[jonald_fyookball]

I want to know, why some developers who are part of company "Blockstream" which will benefit from addition of Segwit/Lightening network to bitcoin, continue be part of the core bitcoin development team. They cannot be expected to take unbiased decisions for the future of bitcoin, because of conflict of interest between their company goals and bitcoin.

 

I've been saying this for 2 years.

[thecrazy1]

"The developers" do not exist. You mean the core project which has it's own developers. Their work may be adopted, but that is a consensus issue and is not their decision. Anyone with an idea to improve bitcoin is welcome to write code and let the bitcoin community make their choice about it's merit. So for me there is no conflict of interest because they do not represent bitcoin, they only represent themselves.

Nobody can deny that lots of core developer work for blockstream.

So people dont think that this is an issue. How can the person who makes the rules also be expected to judge if the rule is correct or not.

[achow101]

I want to know, why some developers who are part of company "Blockstream" which will benefit from addition of Segwit/Lightening network to bitcoin,

Blockstream does not benefit from segwit or lightning. This is an oft-repeated claim that is untrue; Blockstream's work is primarily focused on sidechains, not segwit or lightning. Additionally Segwit and lightning benefits nearly everyone who uses Bitcoin, not just one company.

I have no issue if some developers support segwit/lightning network, but I think they are abusing their position/power to force it to everyone involved with bitcoin.

The Core developers have no way to force everyone to use segwit or lightning. If they were able to, then segwit would have deployed months ago. Furthermore, the Core devs are not working on lightning, other people are doing that, and not under any sort of special instruction from the Core devs to do so.

I think the ethical thing would be to step down as core bitcoin developers , giving up git commit access to main bitcoin repository and similar powers.

Only ONE developer who has commit access to the Bitcoin Core repo works for Blockstream. And he is not in charge of Core nor is he a maintainer of the repo.

They should like everyone else make a BIP request  for segwit /Lightening network and then let the community/miners and core developers take a decision just like any other BIP.  

They did exactly that. In fact, they made 3 BIPs for segwit which were discussed for a long time on the mailing list, on IRC, and changed multiple times throughout segwit's development.

Lightning is different, it does not need a BIP because it does not change any of the Bitcoin protocols. Even so, the people working on lightning are writing up documentation specifying the whole thing, and that also constantly changes and is discussed among multiple developers in public forums (like mailing lists and IRC).

Wherever you are getting your information from is lying to you. They are spreading false information. I highly suggest that you get your information from a different source.

[jonald_fyookball]

  Blockstream's work is primarily focused on sidechains

Sorry...not buying that story.

How is Blockstream going to recoup its 71M VC with sidechains?

[Kprawn]

"The developers" do not exist. You mean the core project which has it's own developers. Their work may be adopted, but that is a consensus issue and is not their decision. Anyone with an idea to improve bitcoin is welcome to write code and let the bitcoin community make their choice about it's merit. So for me there is no conflict of interest because they do not represent bitcoin, they only represent themselves.

How can they serve two masters at the same time? Is it not obvious that they working for Blockstream and at the same time holding back on upgrading

the Block size to pave the way for SegWit & LN? You cannot throttle something and then suggest a solution to make it faster, if people accept your

solution.   .... I know these are some of the best developers we have at the moment, but I to think there is some conflict of interest here.  

[thecrazy1]

I want to know, why some developers who are part of company "Blockstream" which will benefit from addition of Segwit/Lightening network to bitcoin,

Blockstream does not benefit from segwit or lightning. This is an oft-repeated claim that is untrue; Blockstream's work is primarily focused on sidechains, not segwit or lightning. Additionally Segwit and lightning benefits nearly everyone who uses Bitcoin, not just one company.

I have not checked in depth and will need to do more research regarding their field of work but a quote from their website:

Lightning Networks
Blockstream is collaborating with industry leaders to create a Bitcoin micropayment system that supports high volumes of tiny payments using proportional transaction fees and that operates lightning fast. We are now developing Bitcoin Lightning prototypes and creating consensus on interoperability.

Also the statement "Additionally Segwit and lightning benefits nearly everyone who uses Bitcoin, not just one company." should not be made, it is your opinion and again you assume it is correct, when we are trying to judge its correctness. If it was as good as you say it is, then you think that a lot of other people are stupid that they cannot see what you see.

I have no issue if some developers support segwit/lightning network, but I think they are abusing their position/power to force it to everyone involved with bitcoin.

The Core developers have no way to force everyone to use segwit or lightning. If they were able to, then segwit would have deployed months ago. Furthermore, the Core devs are not working on lightning, other people are doing that, and not under any sort of special instruction from the Core devs to do so.

So you are saying there is no overlap between Core developers and https://blockstream.com/team/
Just because a person of a company is not working on a project of a company it does not mean he does not want it to be successful. An employee is expected to support the projects of his organisation.

I think the ethical thing would be to step down as core bitcoin developers , giving up git commit access to main bitcoin repository and similar powers.

Only ONE developer who has commit access to the Bitcoin Core repo works for Blockstream. And he is not in charge of Core nor is he a maintainer of the repo.

It is related more to having the power to directly influence those who will ultimately make the decision. If they  are not part of blockstream then they have equal right as all other developers but when you are to judge on a product your company is working on, you should not have the power of making/influencing the decision.

[achow101]

How is Blockstream going to recoup its 71M VC with sidechains?

There are a lot of ways they could make money off of sidechains. As one of the only companies with developers who are experienced with making sidechains, they could provide a service where they make sidechains for people. They can also make permissioned sidechains and require people who want to use said sidechain to pay them some fee.

How can they serve two masters at the same time?

In the same way that people who work at Red Hat who also contribute to the Linux Kernel. Or how TOR is partially funded by the US government and had DoD employees working on it.

Is it not obvious that they working for Blockstream and at the same time holding back on upgrading the Block size to pave the way for SegWit & LN? You cannot throttle something and then suggest a solution to make it faster,

They aren't throttling anything, and are not " holding back on upgrading the Block size to pave the way for SegWit & LN". They aren't supporting a block size increase because they think that increasing the block size as people want it to (by changing the constant) is a foolish way to increase capacity. In fact, if Blockstream did control Core, then Adam Back's 2-4-8 proposal should have been accepted without complaint, but it wasn't. Or they would have accepted Pieter Wuille's block size increase hard fork, but it wasn't.

[jonald_fyookball]

How is Blockstream going to recoup its 71M VC with sidechains?

There are a lot of ways they could make money off of sidechains. As one of the only companies with developers who are experienced with making sidechains, they could provide a service where they make sidechains for people. They can also make permissioned sidechains and require people who want to use said sidechain to pay them some fee.
 

There is currently no market for 'making sidechains for people'

However there is a market for transacting in Bitcoin. 
Very rarely does VC pioneer new markets as opposed to funding an operation with a solid
business plan to serve a hungry, existing market.

[thecrazy1]

Is it not obvious that they working for Blockstream and at the same time holding back on upgrading the Block size to pave the way for SegWit & LN? You cannot throttle something and then suggest a solution to make it faster,

Not my quote 

[achow101]

Also the statement "Additionally Segwit and lightning benefits nearly everyone who uses Bitcoin, not just one company." should not be made, it is your opinion and again you assume it is correct, when we are trying to judge its correctness. If it was as good as you say it is, then you think that a lot of other people are stupid that they cannot see what you see.

I do think that a lot of people are stupid for ignoring the statements made by other people and other companies. Multiple people not affiliated with Blockstream have said that they think that segwit and lightning will benefit everyone. Multiple companies not affiliated with Blockstream have said that segwit and lightning will benefit their business and products.

So you are saying there is no overlap between Core developers and https://blockstream.com/team/

No, I never said that. Why do you think I said that or implied that? Do not misconstrue my words for something else.

What I said was that only one Blockstream employee has commit access to Bitcoin Core, and he is not a maintainer. No Blockstream employee controls Bitcoin Core as is oft-repeated by the anti-core group.

It is related more to having the power to directly influence those who will ultimately make the decision. If they  are not part of blockstream then they have equal right as all other developers but when you are to judge on a product your company is working on, you should not have the power of making/influencing the decision.

So you're saying that everyone who works for a company that does stuff related to an open source project should have no say and cannot contribute to the project? Do you realize how absurd that idea is?

[thecrazy1]

How can they serve two masters at the same time?

In the same way that people who work at Red Hat who also contribute to the Linux Kernel. Or how TOR is partially funded by the US government and had DoD employees working on it.

Not the same, no one should have any issue with the core developers developing segwig or lightning network or anything else they wish. The issue is that they have the power to decide or directly influence if it is part of bitcoin or not.

And then there is calling other solution foolish:

upgrading the Block size to pave the way for SegWit & LN". is a foolish way to increase capacity.

So by your logic Satoshi's concept of halving every 4 years is foolish or the number 21 million is foolish.

Code:

Function good/ Constant bad.

[thecrazy1]

So you're saying that everyone who works for a company that does stuff related to an open source project should have no say and cannot contribute to the project? Do you realize how absurd that idea is?

No I am saying you develop whatever you want but you should not have the power to decide or influence whether the feature you developed should be part of an open source project like bitcoin when your company will directly benefit if that feature is added to the open source project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

"A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests.

[pedrog]

So you're saying that everyone who works for a company that does stuff related to an open source project should have no say and cannot contribute to the project? Do you realize how absurd that idea is?

No I am saying you develop whatever you want but you should not have the power to decide or influence whether the feature you developed should be part of an open source project like bitcoin when your company will directly benefit if that feature is added to the open source project.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest

"A conflict of interest is a set of circumstances that creates a risk that professional judgement or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest."[1] Primary interest refers to the principal goals of the profession or activity, such as the protection of clients, the health of patients, the integrity of research, and the duties of public office. Secondary interest includes personal benefit and is not limited to only financial gain but also such motives as the desire for professional advancement, or the wish to do favours for family and friends. These secondary interests are not treated as wrong in and of themselves, but become objectionable when they are believed to have greater weight than the primary interests.

Dude, they cannot be fired, they're volunteers.

Any company can hijack bitcoin development, they just need to offer enough money to hire enough developers, and there's nothing we can do.

[achow101]

Not the same, no one should have any issue with the core developers developing segwig or lightning network or anything else they wish. The issue is that they have the power to decide or directly influence if it is part of bitcoin or not.

How is it not the same? Some employees of Red Hat can have the power to decide or directly influence if a change becomes part of the linux kernel. Some employees of the DoD can have the power to decide or directly influence if a becomes part of TOR. It is exactly the same; the people who have the most expertise regarding something specific generally are those who have the power to decide the changes and influence it. And when it comes to Open Source Projects, those people generally work for companies that can use their expertise with regards to the open source project, or their company made the project to begin with.

In the case of some of the Bitcoin Core devs and Blockstream, some of the Core devs have the expertise of working with Bitcoin, and thus they founded or were hired by Blockstream.

So by your logic Satoshi's concept of halving every 4 years is foolish or the number 21 million is foolish.

Code:

Function good/ Constant bad.

No, I never said that. What I said was that they think that block size increases as done by BU, Classic, and XT are a foolish way to increase capacity. I never said that functions are better than constants. If that were the case, then XT and BU should be supported, and they are not.

No I am saying you develop whatever you want but you should not have the power to decide or influence whether the feature you developed should be part of an open source project like bitcoin when your company will directly benefit if that feature is added to the open source project.

It was not just those who work for Blockstream who implemented Segwit and lightning and decided that it should go into Core. It was implemented and modified by multiple people, proposed by multiple people, and reviewed by multiple people, many of whom are not affiliated with Blockstream in any way whatsoever.

[thecrazy1]

How is it not the same? Some employees of Red Hat can have the power to decide or directly influence if a change becomes part of the linux kernel. Some employees of the DoD can have the power to decide or directly influence if a becomes part of TOR. It is exactly the same; the people who have the most expertise regarding something specific generally are those who have the power to decide the changes and influence it. And when it comes to Open Source Projects, those people generally work for companies that can use their expertise with regards to the open source project, or their company made the project to begin with.

In the case of some of the Bitcoin Core devs and Blockstream, some of the Core devs have the expertise of working with Bitcoin, and thus they founded or were hired by Blockstream.

It will be obvious if instead of blindly defending you try and understand with an open mind. In your example both will be same if RED HAT GETS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT FROM IMPLEMENTING A FEATURE INTO LINUX KERNEL AND THEY HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE/INFLUENCE IT, which is true with blockstream which has direct financial incentive to make segwit/lignting network part of bitcoin.

I would suggest you should read some real world examples of "Confict of Interest" so that you can understand, otherwise no matter what I say, it will not make any difference to you , if you have already made your decision.

Also this is not about segwit/lightning, if it is good thing or bad, even if segwit/lightning is perfect solution as you seem to think, the actions of the core developers are completely unethical and wrong.

It was not just those who work for Blockstream who implemented Segwit and lightning and decided that it should go into Core. It was implemented and modified by multiple people, proposed by multiple people, and reviewed by multiple people, many of whom are not affiliated with Blockstream in any way whatsoever.

If you say it is about making an income , so the developers need to be affiliated with Blockstream, I don't agree. No one can deny that bitcoin core developers are one of the top programmers in the world and they can very easily get a job at any of the top companies and make a good income, but choosing Blockstream and then promoting segwit/lightning is just being greedy and dishonest. They are abusing their position and trust that the bitcoin community has in them.