Bitcoin Forum
December 14, 2017, 10:51:50 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 [963] 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 11:40:33 PM
 #19241

We've already gone over this with your poor memory. Gavin works for a  non profit and gets paid modestly I'd  bet.  Certainly not the $500k Adam was throwing around earlier (which makes me wonder what Blockstream is paying their core devs).

Yeah that figure comes from memory if you google around there was someone offering Jackson Palmer $500 or $600k to develop and market dogecoin.  He told them to go away as it was a joke.  Unfortunately the dogecoiners havent realised the joke yet Smiley  I believe I heard others were offered similar amounts to develop an alt-coin.  (I dont think that would be no-strings - they'd own a defined share of the premine, and there would be multiple developers to run the project for a period of time in the budget).

However its very likely the case that people working at blockstream, including myself, could've made more pay going to the dark side and starting their own alts, or taking money from unscrupulous people to start pyramid pump & dump scams.  However they have ethical problems with that.  It also probably helps them avoid sharing a jail cell with the pump & dumpers Smiley

We also want to be constructive and think bitcoin is where the future is.  Good things dont magically happen someone has to design and code them.  Thats why we co-founded blockstream to go do those things.

So that was partly why I mentioned it because people were saying, but they'll be beholden to the company for pay so they can eat etc.  Screw that they walked away from more money doing alt-coin crap - ie they already demonstrated willingness to walk away from things they think are unethical.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
1513248710
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513248710

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513248710
Reply with quote  #2

1513248710
Report to moderator
1513248710
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513248710

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513248710
Reply with quote  #2

1513248710
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513248710
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513248710

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513248710
Reply with quote  #2

1513248710
Report to moderator
1513248710
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513248710

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513248710
Reply with quote  #2

1513248710
Report to moderator
1513248710
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513248710

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513248710
Reply with quote  #2

1513248710
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 11:53:09 PM
 #19242

We've already gone over this with your poor memory. Gavin works for a  non profit and gets paid modestly I'd  bet.  Certainly not the $500k Adam was throwing around earlier (which makes me wonder what Blockstream is paying their core devs).

Yeah that figure comes from memory if you google around there was someone offering Jackson Palmer $500 or $600k to develop and market dogecoin.  He told them to go away as it was a joke.  Unfortunately the dogecoiners havent realised the joke yet Smiley  I believe I heard others were offered similar amounts to develop an alt-coin.  (I dont think that would be no-strings - they'd own a defined share of the premine, and there would be multiple developers to run the project for a period of time in the budget).

However its very likely the case that people working at blockstream, including myself, could've made more pay going to the dark side and starting their own alts, or taking money from unscrupulous people to start pyramid pump & dump scams.  However they have ethical problems with that.  It also probably helps them avoid sharing a jail cell with the pump & dumpers Smiley

We also want to be constructive and think bitcoin is where the future is.  Good things dont magically happen someone has to design and code them.  Thats why we co-founded blockstream to go do those things.

So that was partly why I mentioned it because people were saying, but they'll be beholden to the company for pay so they can eat etc.  Screw that they walked away from more money doing alt-coin crap - ie they already demonstrated willingness to walk away from things they think are unethical.

Adam


sure but that's all subject to interpretation.  Greg has said that you guys have been granted stock options.  clearly there is an incentive to make those go up and that means making a profit.  why didn't you guys consider forming a non-profit at reasonable salaries.  that way no one could accuse you of any of this in the first place.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 12:08:07 AM
 #19243

Sidechains are not a proprietary technology.  Everything is FOSS, open IP.  And we invested a fair bit of mental energy and legal review already into making sure it stays that way, even if blockstream management were someone replaced or blackmailed

[...]

Its not our softfork - its a softfork to enable a generic extension mechanism.  We have no monopoly (and wouldnt want one) on use of the op code.  Our only defence is meritocracy - if we build better, more secure sidechains and people prefer to use them.  We wont be getting the fees off the sidechain either because those go to miners.  If we have the technical edge and people use our stuff that seems sort of fair enough to me.

What I see in this answer is statements that safeguards have been established, without any description of what they are or why we should assume they'll be effective.

The primary safe guard is what I said Everything is FOSS, open IP.   Thats just like bitcoin right.  If the company changes management later down the road after investment rounds or whatever, and it tries to do something bad (which would sabotage its investment as the ecosytem would reject it), we could all leave (which would cripple its ability to maintain code nor execute its plan).  Or if it was us under blackmail or some legal threat, the same logic as applies to bitcoin applies: if the core does bad things, a new core can fork it and undo the bad things.

Clear enough?

We also did a bunch of stuff in terms of GMaxwell and Pieter Wuille's contract that was mentioned (can walk and continue to get paid if company does bad stuff) as was mentioned, and chose investors with similar and compatible ethos (understanding of FOSS, need for decentralisation, need for open IP, etc. they get it and get bitcoins value hinging on its decentralisation. )  Reid Hoffman is you might notice Chairman of the Mozilla foundation and you can find videos online where you can see he's enthused about bitcoin potential himself pre-blockstream.

Quote
I also see a lot of appeal to past performance which amount to, "trust us."

Well kind of what we said is "dont trust us" Smiley  ie if we succeeded in the cant be evil you dont have to trust us, and we cant be coerced because we have no control or power.  And if you think about it, its in our interests individually to not have a position of power or control as potentially even governments or organised criminals (there's a difference) might get interested in abusing control.


You know not to troll you, but Justus you also work for a for profit company - Monetas/Open Transactions - right? Nothing is known about the funding of that company.  We dont know what your motives are.  The OT network voting trusts escrow everyones bitcoins so are a form of trust.  Should we trust you.  You dont have to answer.. just illustrating the sorts of questions you're asking so you can think about them and see the perspective on the receiving end.

I am quite happy for people to ask tough questions.  Indeed it would be kind of surprising and disappointing if they did not given how important it is for bitcoin to remain decentralised, neutral and free from proprietary control.

I am also quite happy to voice my opinion if I see bad stuff (take a look at the coinvalidation redlist thread for example).  You might notice Greg doing the same.

I suppose the cipherdoc version of such questions is that he's biased to the value of his bitcoin hoard.  Personally I think thats a pretty healthy bias.  And as maybe Greg said or maybe implied (or not) everyone at blockstream has some bitcoins.  Anyway Daniel Krawisz view is that the investors are driving bitcoin so the extent he's right and certain things about bitcoin must not change or it isnt bitcoin.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 01, 2015, 12:18:18 AM
 #19244

You know not to troll you, but Justus you also work for a for profit company - Monetas/Open Transactions - right? Nothing is known about the funding of that company.  We dont know what your motives are.  The OT network voting trusts escrow everyones bitcoins so are a form of trust.  Should we trust you.  You dont have to answer.. just illustrating the sorts of questions you're asking so you can think about them and see the perspective on the receiving end.

Let me save you some time

"We're not asking to change the sourcecode to the "disadvantage" of competitors ; We don't have core developers on board"

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 12:35:45 AM
 #19245

they'll be beholden to the company for pay so they can eat etc.  Screw that they walked away from more money doing alt-coin crap - ie they already demonstrated willingness to walk away from things they think are unethical.

sure but that's all subject to interpretation.  Greg has said that you guys have been granted stock options.  clearly there is an incentive to make those go up and that means making a profit.  why didn't you guys consider forming a non-profit at reasonable salaries.  that way no one could accuse you of any of this in the first place.

I quit a job paying plenty more than I am paid now.  I think everyone took a pay cut relative to US listed company rates of pay.  I wouldnt say we are poorly paid for a seed startup, but software development is expensive, and there are limits to how far below market rates you can expect people with living costs to go.

What you are saying is sort of analogous to me suggesting you donate your bitcoins to charity so no one can accuse you of bias?

I dont think a kickstarter or donations would've raised enough money to do it.  Mark Friendenbach has first hand experience of trying to work for a year on bitcoin donations, that didnt work out very well.  We could probably have implemented the core part in our spare time, but we figured that isnt enough for people to actually use it.  You need mining software, wallets that understand sidechains, you need a sample sidechain or two, a sidechain explorer, tools to issue assets (if thats in the sidechain feature set), etc etc.  Thats a ton of work and in our estimation if you drop a library or patch over the wall it lands with a thunk and sits there unused.  You have to minimally demonstrate a useable system.

You should view blockstream as a sort of hybrid.  We are developing FOSS open IP much as a not-for-profit would.  But we are also aiming to make a profit by selling services, doing partnerships, advising integrators etc this is all complicated stuff and people need help to make it work.  Like was said its kind of like Mozilla.

We also had opinions about the correct uses, and maintaining bitcoin ethos.  If you drop a patch you dont have any strategic input into maintaining bitcoin ethos in the deployment.

We're also individuals with a community voice independent from the company.  I dont think you see most companies nor individuals working for companies in the bitcoin space giving the kind of detailed rationale or insight into plans.

Not to OpenTransactions, not conformal/btcd, not bitfury, not 21e6 etc.  I understand we're the only company to propose actually extending the core so there's a higher standard - but really btcd is kind of opaque which to my mind is a bit of a concern given that its proposed as a full node and creates risk of network fork as it has a reimplementation of consensus critical code.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 12:53:15 AM
 #19246

Adam, what are your thoughts on increasing Bitcoin's blocksize limit?  Does Blockstream have a position on this topic?

Thank you for all of your comments in this thread.

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:12:55 AM
 #19247

Nothing is known about the funding of that company.  We dont know what your motives are.
Monetas is funded by investors. Mostly from outside the US, so far completely without involving venture capitalists.

It's been a lot harder than it should have been, because Monetas was apparently the only company not building a scamcoin for the VCs to pump and dump.

The OT network voting trusts escrow everyones bitcoins so are a form of trust.  Should we trust you.  You dont have to answer.. just illustrating the sorts of questions you're asking so you can think about them and see the perspective on the receiving end.
I've spent a considerable amount of time documenting what we are building, exactly what kind of trust model is involved, and have been consciously meticulous about making realistic claims about the security guarantees.

The fact that you're trolling me like this just means you haven't bothered to read any of it.

Anyway Daniel Krawisz view
I'm willing to bet that I see Daniel in person far more frequently, and am more involved with the brainstorming leading up to his articles, that you are.

You know not to troll you, but Justus you also work for a for profit company - Monetas/Open Transactions - right? Nothing is known about the funding of that company.  We dont know what your motives are.  The OT network voting trusts escrow everyones bitcoins so are a form of trust.  Should we trust you.  You dont have to answer.. just illustrating the sorts of questions you're asking so you can think about them and see the perspective on the receiving end.

Let me save you some time

"We're not asking to change the sourcecode to the "disadvantage" of competitors ; We don't have core developers on board"

Mark Friendenbach has first hand experience of trying to work for a year on bitcoin donations, that didnt work out very well.

It would have worked out better for him if it would have ever answered an email every once in a while.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:15:09 AM
 #19248

Greg Maxwell (nullc on reddit) wrote some about how blockstream plans to make profit.  

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhoo7d

His comments were frankly quite vague. That is understandable. Startups don't normally disclose the details of the monetization plans. I meant ulterior motives in the literal sense (as I so qualified).

But as I said, this leads to a natural and healthy caution from the community as to what the real plan might be. People don't like to get on board something until they know where the train is going. The same was true of Mozilla, BTW (though their early years were such a disaster really, there was little to worry about).

adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:16:24 AM
 #19249

PS. The sidechains project may have also another goal:

(3) give hope to those who own large quantities of bitcoins that, if bitcoin is to be superseded by some other cryptocoin, there will be a way to move their fortune to that cryptocoin, at a fixed exchange rate.

Yes.  I argue altcoins and appcoins are fooling themselves as they imagine that the feature they are selling creates value.  It is the network effect and liquidity that creates value.  And their feature if it were really really killer awesome, would actually get copied and patched into bitcoin core (ignoring sidechains for the moment).  Fact is as far as I know, no one created a feature useful enough to qualify (for the rather high bar of patching bitcoin) because bitcoin is awesome already and its really hard to improve strongly enough to overcome the risk cost.

What sidechains do is make it easier, trivial even to fork the altcoins with perhaps useful features and put them in a sidechain.

Also many of the altcoins are making mistakes that cause the technical failure of the network in ways cataloged by Andrew Poelstra, https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/alts.pdf so they also arent typically safe to use.  

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
ssmc2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:20:22 AM
 #19250

Blockstream and Monetas are essentially competitors, no?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:27:44 AM
 #19251

Blockstream and Monetas are essentially competitors, no?

Nop, Monetas will just end up using sidechains  Wink

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:28:30 AM
 #19252

Blockstream and Monetas are essentially competitors, no?
Maybe, but it's too early to tell.

I'm asking questions because I am concerned about the direction they are trying to take Bitcoin in.

I asked the same questions with Bitcoin Foundation was announced, long before I ever heard of Monetas.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:32:42 AM
 #19253

It's been a lot harder than it should have been, because Monetas was apparently the only company not building a scamcoin for the VCs to pump and dump.

Hmm I'm not sure if actual VCs invested in any alt-coins - other than ripple & stellar, right?

Quote from: justusranvier
The OT network voting trusts escrow everyones bitcoins so are a form of trust.  Should we trust you.  You dont have to answer.. just illustrating the sorts of questions you're asking so you can think about them and see the perspective on the receiving end.

I've spent a considerable amount of time documenting what we are building, exactly what kind of trust model is involved, and have been consciously meticulous about making realistic claims about the security guarantees.

The fact that you're trolling me like this just means you haven't bothered to read any of it.

Actually I did watch an hour video of you presenting technical details about the trust model & I thought you did a good job of articulating it and being fair about the security assumptions.  I also read some other stuff and Chris showed me a code walk through and demo a while back.

But I do find it pretty funny that you jump on me as trolling when I replay your own questions to you Smiley  Chortle.  Thats actually what I said about what I was doing and you still bit?

Your (and others) questions about our investors were far more pointy and detailed than I asked you also.  You didnt name them.  You didnt say what their motive was.  You didnt say why we should trust you.  You didnt give your backup plan for what'd happen if Monetas went evil.

Anyway really - you dont have to answer, I'm not actually asking, you're not proposing changes to bitcoin core.  But once you have users, they may have a legitimate reason to demand answers to those questions so you maybe want to think about company structure and board voting control and such things also and ask yourselves a bunch of red-team what-if questions.

Not giving you a hard time really.  I kind of like OT's model its slightly similar to a model I had for a 2001 censor resistant name space http://www.cypherspace.org/p2p/auditable-namespace.html in its trust but verify model, and I spent a while talking with Chris and he seems to have good intentions and be technically smart.

Quote from: justusranvier
Anyway Daniel Krawisz view
I'm willing to bet that I see Daniel in person far more frequently, and am more involved with the brainstorming leading up to his articles, that you are.

I like his articles, and if you contributed ideas to them great, nice job.

Quote from: justusranvier
Mark Friedenbach has first hand experience of trying to work for a year on bitcoin donations, that didnt work out very well.

It would have worked out better for him if it would have ever answered an email every once in a while.

Yeah I saw some of the bct exchanges between you and him about project status.  Not my business to pry into really I dont know.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:37:39 AM
 #19254

Yes.  I argue altcoins and appcoins are fooling themselves as they imagine that the feature they are selling creates value.  It is the network effect and liquidity that creates value.  And their feature if it were really really killer awesome, would actually get copied and patched into bitcoin core

Clearly false, if their features includes different monetary rules. In fact this is the case for most of the moderately "successful" (if you even want to call them that) altcoins right now. I'm not familiar with Paycoin (it is pretty new), but this is true for every single one of the top 10 altcoins right now except LTC, and most of the top 20 (and also Ethereum).

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:40:38 AM
 #19255


What you are saying is sort of analogous to me suggesting you donate your bitcoins to charity so no one can accuse you of bias?

i hope you can see that isn't even close.  there's a mighty big difference in me taking a chance on a risky investment by pouring in my own hard earned fiat back in 2011 when Bitcoin was on death's door step.  you were nowhere to be seen at the time  Wink  everyone was accusing me as a "speculator" for being the problem, believe it or not.  nowhere in their brains was the alternative word of "investor" apparent.  for reals as price descended from 32 to 1.98 there was all sorts of allegations being thrown about.  the argument went something like "b/c you're not a geek or techy, you don't truly believe in what we're doing here and the price must be falling b/c you're manipulating!"  i kid you not. they even accused me of being a "hoarder" back before the term "hodler" became popular.  hoarders were generally viewed as bad at the time b/c geeks insisted that BTC had to circulate or have monetary velocity for Bitcoin to become successful.  as a self admitted hoarder (i prefer saver) at the time, i took enormous flack for that position. fortunately with time, and guys like Daniel, that position has softened.

contrast that with what Blockstream is doing.  sure, you say you're forgoing income via pay cuts to be a part of BS.  first off, we can't verify that and there is really no risk like i took in possibly losing it all.  at least you have the salary.  there's a part of me that thinks that gmax and lukejr are unemployable due to their recalcitrance as evidenced by the now well know Press Center debacle where he misbehaved even by Andreas's standards.  that's pretty hard to do and that's not the only incident.:  

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181168.msg1973084#msg1973084

from what you're saying, this isn't the case, so i'll have to take your word on that.  but the fact still remains that BS is for-profit and you've all been awarded stock options and decent pay which could go ballistic depending on how well BS does profit wise.  so there is really no risk on your part and plenty of incentive to do bad things. lots of ppl besides me are worried about the perverse incentives that might develop as a result. even to the point of subverting any backports of successful SC tech to Bitcoin Core due to profit incentives.  it's quite unbelievable that the high profile investors you've attracted, some of whom heretofore like Schmidt & Kosla (iirc) have publicly disavowed Bitcoin to a degree, will be in a all out philanthropic mode towards Bitcoin.  i'd expect that none of them have made any profit from Bitcoin to this day even if they started personally investing a year ago as they've probably been caught by the unexpected year long decline in the price.  i'd even expect you have been caught similarly and might be in a loss position.  this to me is a red flag.  the key for BS to turn that all around is to insert a source code change that benefits your profit model via the marketing and selling of SC's to any willing taker.
Quote

I dont think a kickstarter or donations would've raised enough money to do it.  Mark Friendenbach has first hand experience of trying to work for a year on bitcoin donations, that didnt work out very well.  We could probably have implemented the core part in our spare time, but we figured that isnt enough for people to actually use it.  You need mining software, wallets that understand sidechains, you need a sample sidechain or two, a sidechain explorer, tools to issue assets (if thats in the sidechain feature set), etc etc.  Thats a ton of work and in our estimation if you drop a library or patch over the wall it lands with a thunk and sits there unused.  You have to minimally demonstrate a useable system.

You should view blockstream as a sort of hybrid.  We are developing FOSS open IP much as a not-for-profit would.  But we are also aiming to make a profit by selling services, doing partnerships, advising integrators etc this is all complicated stuff and people need help to make it work.  Like was said its kind of like Mozilla.

will you sell SC's to govt's if asked?
Quote

We also had opinions about the correct uses, and maintaining bitcoin ethos.  If you drop a patch you dont have any strategic input into maintaining bitcoin ethos in the deployment.

We're also individuals with a community voice independent from the company.  I dont think you see most companies nor individuals working for companies in the bitcoin space giving the kind of detailed rationale or insight into plans.

i posted above that there are several venture funds that have invested.  how can they not want the std 10x return of their investment? those fund constituents do not just represent the viewpoint of their founder.

Quote

Not to OpenTransactions, not conformal/btcd, not bitfury, not 21e6 etc.  I understand we're the only company to propose actually extending the core so there's a higher standard - but really btcd is kind of opaque which to my mind is a bit of a concern given that its proposed as a full node and creates risk of network fork as it has a reimplementation of consensus critical code.

Adam


yeah, the spvp insertion is a sticking point for me.  it's clear this is the critical piece for your success as a company.  i'd really prefer to see SC's implemented through the federated server model first though to get a better sense of how this is all going to work out.  couching it as "us"  trying to "prevent" you from offering something you perceive of as valuable to the community is counter-productive though, imo.  it's not "us" wanting to change the ruleset.  it's you; and for a for-profit.  
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:43:09 AM
 #19256

But I do find it pretty funny that you jump on me as trolling when I replay your own questions to you

The trolling part is when you pretend that what we're doing is anything at all like what you're doing.

We're building products which any future customers will need to trust are built correctly and everyone else can ignore.

You're trying to change the Bitcoin protocol and are asking all present and future Bitcoin users to trust you.

Your (and others) questions about our investors were far more pointy and detailed than I asked you also.  You didnt name them.

I actually don't know, except in extremely general terms. I've been designing products, not fundraising.

You didnt say why we should trust you.  You didnt give your backup plan for what'd happen if Monetas went evil.

Again, I'm didn't answering that question since nobody has to trust Monetas, because we aren't putting ourselves in that position of asking for or requiring trust.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:45:56 AM
 #19257

yeah, the spvp insertion is a sticking point for me.  it's clear this is the critical piece for your success as a company.

That is actually not clear to me. Aside from the fact that pivoting is common (and a $21 million seed round with no obviously large source of burn gives a fair amount of room to pivot), it is entirely possible that sidechains are a lot of sizzle and the steak is closer to just being the premier bitcoin software and services company (which may or may not work out depending on how big bitcoin gets -- at present the scale really isn't there for this to be a big deal).
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:46:45 AM
 #19258

Nobody forced Blockstream into a position where your actions would draw greater scrutiny than other companies - that's a choice you made all on your own.

Asking why companies which did not choose to take the same route aren't subject to the same scrutiny is obfuscation.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:47:30 AM
 #19259

Adam, what are your thoughts on increasing Bitcoin's blocksize limit?  Does Blockstream have a position on this topic?

I am not sure its a blockstream position as there are multiple independent minded bitcoin-protocol aware people that compose blockstream who dont always agree on everything.

But my view is increasing blocksize increases centralisation so you'd want to be careful about that.

I guess the current tx throughput is about 3-4x away from the 1MB limit with current average tx sizes?

It may also not be as close to the limit as it looks because once there was actual block space scarcity, maybe the economics will push out some stuff that is currently basically spam.  But you dont want that to go too far or actual transactions will back up.

Maybe the interim solution is to increase it a little bit or be prepared to, as it takes time to be ready.

If sidechains were ready, for people who like the security tradeoff, it offers another degree of freedom, because you can have different blockchains with different blocksizes.  eg you could have a lower value transaction blockchain where people can better tolerate the small extra centralisation risk (centralisation being if the bandwidth is 10x or 100x fewer nodes have the bandwidth to validate all tx.)   You might even make the argument bitcoin main blocksize could be reduced to improve its decentralisation.  It decouples from the one-size fits all aspect of bitcoin, which I think is a good thing - we can have more decentralisation where it matters, and more and faster transactions where it doesnt as much.

ps As its not always obvious to people a sidechain could also have a shorter block interval for faster clearing of lower valued transactions.  I'm sure you know that, but not everyone does.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:50:48 AM
 #19260

Yes.  I argue altcoins and appcoins are fooling themselves as they imagine that the feature they are selling creates value.  It is the network effect and liquidity that creates value.  And their feature if it were really really killer awesome, would actually get copied and patched into bitcoin core

Clearly false, if their features includes different monetary rules. In fact this is the case for most of the moderately "successful" (if you even want to call them that) altcoins right now. I'm not familiar with Paycoin (it is pretty new), but this is true for every single one of the top 10 altcoins right now except LTC, and most of the top 20 (and also Ethereum).



yep, this is the argument i made to brg444 way back.  representing SC's as some sort of altcoin killer via assimilation thru a SC makes no sense at all.  no dev would take the time and no bitcoiner would move BTC to it.
Pages: « 1 ... 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 [963] 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!