Yes but I feel its really is Blockstream/Core that is creating the uncertainty through their 1. poor communication, 2. poor transparency, and 3. inflexibility.
1. Communication has been greatly improved (website, twitter) in a short amount of time.
2. Transparency isn't poor. If anything they're the most transparent ones among the developers.
Meanwhile, the developers of other implementations just don't bother to tell you about their business partnerships at all. Makes me sick.
3. I could agree on this though. I would have approached this whole situation differently and there would be no forks (as in alternative implementations trying to take over) nor a block size debate.
As far as Blockstream not profiting from LN. Ok, you can make that argument all you want but until its clear how Blockstream will profit, things are naturally suspicious.
They are just a single company. Do you care about how every other Bitcoin startup is going to profit from Bitcoin? That's not your concern unless you're directly related to them (this is where the bias is coming from).
Btw, I apologize if my yesterday my remarks about your attitude seemed like an attack. I just think you are stuck thinking in one way about this, but we all have our biases.
I can sometimes seem aggressive and whatnot but I'm actually not. You have the wrong impression of me. I have changed my positions several time since the initial proposal from Gavin (20 MB).
It's not that I think the Classic team is necessarily better than Core (although I do highly respect Gavin and Jeff Garzik), but we're frustrated.
That is the really nice thing about Bitcoin - being algorithmic it doesn't care that you are frustrated (and you should perhaps go out and find someone to help relieve that problem).
Exactly. I don't see what an appeal to emotion has to do anything with Bitcoin? I've lost some faith in Gavin due to the 'urgent 20 MB blocks' proposal (we ended up debating if we should settle for 2 MB blocks now).
Some corrections.
