Blockstream is nothing more than a $70M blockchain takeover attempt

[RawDog]

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network?  Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone. 

[davis196]

I'm more interested about how to organize a new group of honest core devs and make sure they still honest even if big company offer them lots of money

All this "bitcoin is free and open source" idealism will be stopped sooner or later.
I quess that those honest core devs are big bitcoin holders and big miners, so they can`t be bribed by some big company.

[AliceWonderMiscreations]

If the fork does not happen, I predict there will be an organized alt-coin with a new genesis block created and a lot of financial backing to market it.

I suspect however the fork will happen.

http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks

BU is gaining momentum.

[franky1]

If the fork does not happen, I predict there will be an organized alt-coin with a new genesis block created and a lot of financial backing to market it.

blockstreamers love their monero and zcash as the alternative.

oh a blockstream investor thats cartel'd companies like bitpay, bitpesa, coinbase, xapo, purse, shapeshift. also loves zcash

[jonald_fyookball]

I remember everyone complaining before about the bitcoin foundation which funded developers.

But that was better than this.

[FiendCoin]

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network?  Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone. 

I can get behind a new group of developers with no outside agendas, only what's best for Bitcoin. However, even with a neutrally funded group of developers, a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like. This is something that really needs to change.

[jonald_fyookball]

  a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like.  This is something that really needs to change.

 

According to the original bitcoin whitepaper:

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them.  Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Are you saying this needs to change?  If so, how?

[FiendCoin]

  a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like.  This is something that really needs to change.

 

According to the original bitcoin whitepaper:

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them.  Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Are you saying this needs to change?  If so, how?

Are you serious? Oh wait, of course you, you support BU 

The current consensus mechanism is failing due to centralized mining. When only a handful of people can give the yay or naw on improvements despite what the majority may want, it is a problem. I know you don't see it that way and you are ok with centralized mining and control in the hands of a few. We have argued this over multiple threads already.

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

[franky1]

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

consensus works

the problem is. CORE BYPASSED consensus and INTENTIONALLY only gave pools the vote. rather than nodes then pools.

[jonald_fyookball]

  a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like.  This is something that really needs to change.

 

According to the original bitcoin whitepaper:

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them.  Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Are you saying this needs to change?  If so, how?

Are you serious? Oh wait, of course you, you support BU 

The current consensus mechanism is failing due to centralized mining. When only a handful of people can give the yay or naw on improvements despite what the majority may want, it is a problem. I know you don't see it that way and you are ok with centralized mining and control in the hands of a few. We have argued this over multiple threads already.

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

politics aside, i'm asking you:  If not this mechanism described in the white paper, what's the alternative?  Do you have a better idea?   Or you just wish you had one?

[FiendCoin]

  a few "elite" miners can still block any improvement they don't like.  This is something that really needs to change.

 

According to the original bitcoin whitepaper:

They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them.  Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism.

Are you saying this needs to change?  If so, how?

Are you serious? Oh wait, of course you, you support BU 

The current consensus mechanism is failing due to centralized mining. When only a handful of people can give the yay or naw on improvements despite what the majority may want, it is a problem. I know you don't see it that way and you are ok with centralized mining and control in the hands of a few. We have argued this over multiple threads already.

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

politics aside, i'm asking you:  If not this mechanism described in the white paper, what's the alternative?  Do you have a better idea?   Or you just wish you had one?

I wish I knew what the answer was, I just know the answer is not centralized mining with BU. I am open to suggestions, hopefully some people smarter and more technically inclined than I am can find one before it is too late.

We need a new consensus mechanism for Bitcoin improvements.

consensus works

the problem is. CORE BYPASSED consensus and INTENTIONALLY only gave pools the vote. rather than nodes then pools.

Maybe we need to go back to this then.

[Wind_FURY]

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network?  Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone. 

Whatever. You know know the Core developers do not have total power on Bitcoin. The people supporting bigger blocks and the Gavinistas can always campaign to fork the network away from Core. If you think there was someone at fault it is the mining pools for not supporting what you want.

[jonald_fyookball]

I wish I knew what the answer was, I just know the answer is not centralized mining with BU.

How does BU make mining more centralized in your view? 

[hv_]

Just take Ton Vays and do a little scam show about this...

[Wind_FURY]

Just take Ton Vays and do a little scam show about this...

I believe Tone Vays is for Core and the Segwit and LN solution, I do not know if he likes Blockstream though.

He may have missed some of his "Bitcoin oracle predictions" but he is with the scene long enough to know what is going on somehow.

[Kakmakr]

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network?  Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone. 

Money talks and bullshit walks, so show us the money to fund this. The Developers follow the money, just look at Mike Hearn and Gavin. The Bitcoin foundation's money dried up and then they jumped onto the next available cash cow. You forget about ideals and principle, if the money on the table is good enough. ^hmmmmmm^

This will get interesting, if a big company or a bank start to target the Core developers. Will they sell out like Mike Hearn?

[Xester]

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network?  Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone. 

If we were to organize a new group who will lead it and where will we get the funds to move and operate. It is hard to do that kind of thing and a huge amount of capital is needed to finance this kind of movement. Compared to the billionaires financing blockstream we are a bunch of ants going against an ant exterminator. The only way I guess is just to observe and wait and to earn from bitcoins as early as possible.

[franky1]

This will get interesting, if a big company or a bank start to target the Core developers. Will they sell out like Mike Hearn?

cough
hyperledger
cough

oh wait is that blockstream i see in hyperledgers "members" list..
https://www.hyperledger.org/about/members
hyperledger.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/hl_blockstream-300x184 dot png
hang on isnt hyperledger managed by IBM and linux partnership...

so knowing blockstream is in the hyperledger banking cartels hyperledger project..
ask yourself the question about certain core developers (maxwell, Matt corallo, rustyrussel, etc)


wait i seem to have not emphasised something, or people didnt get the hint..

[jacafbiz]

How can a privately funded entity organize themselves by hiring Core devs with the intention of driving the future rules of the network?  Doesn't this bother most of you free loving bitcoiners?

Time to organize a new group of honest core devs having no paycheck affiliation with anyone. 

Who is going to fund the new group? There is no need to have the names of organisation funding Core development public even Satoshi that gave us this beautiful gift till today remain anonymous. I think your arguement are flawed in some ways. I will agree that the governance decision should be made more transparent but both miners and development team are guilty of this

[franky1]

I will agree that the governance decision should be made more transparent but both miners and development team are guilty of this

we need to return to the mindset that we do not need a governance of DEVS

nodes are the boss.
pools are the secretary
devs are the workers

people have forgotten that what node they run dictates the rules of bitcoin by majority.
instead they have sheep slept themselves into what DEVS preach is what peoples should run.
instead they have sheep slept themselves into what DEVS have bypassed should be blamed on who they bypassed it to.(core 'soft fork it to miners then blame the miners')
(never to blame a dev, but give the devs the kingdom at the same time)

TO ALL:
if you think that core is king. then you have already centralised yourself into making core take over what was an open network. while pointing the finger at someone else.

tl;dr (to long, didnt read)
if you are running core simply because you love blockstream CTO maxwell. but never actually read the code. and instead just had 'trust and admiration' then you are the problem not the solution