Topic: Austin Hill and Blockstream can just fuck right off. - page 2. (Read 1518 times)

Actually - I think (know) that if Blockstream wanted to, they could implement a system that was as good as bigger blocks.. almost overnight (without the complexity of Sidechains / Lightning etc..).

1) Only include the txn hash (not the whole txn) in a block. (Everyone already has the txn)

2) Prune all the SpentTXO from the data.

Then a 1 megabyte block could hold 10-20 times more txns.. and the blocksize / total-data would increase only 'marginally' (as the UTXO grows). It really is that simple.

I rate blockstream, go for it lads, but I feel that they are playing this situation badly. They could EASILY get everyone onboard, but are choosing not to..

..

In fairness, they are behaving like every other techie I know.. lol.
 

1) By saying the core devs and blockstream are being undermined, you are already saying Bitcoin is under centralized control. That's the problem.

2) Lack of technical understanding? Seriously? Gavin bootstrapped the network when Satoshi left. We basically reached all time high under his technical leadership. And let's not forget Jeff. Are you saying he is a nob dev?

Get real.

I don't think Blockcstream or Austin Hill should 'just fuck right off.' We need less entrenchment and overt control, and as many contributors as possible.

Oh, what is this? Are the bigblock-fanatics now mobilizing all their shills to fight their last stand?

For me it's inconceivable why so many people think that the Bitcoin blockchain can be efficiently used for microtransactions. Following the Gavinista bigblock path would endanger the value proposition of Bitcoin as a whole. Running a node would become so burdensome that the network would become completely centralized - provided that network speeds would even be sufficient to support the network in future.

The solutions offered by Core team and Blockstream are the best possible solution for scaling Bitcoin in a way that preserves decentralization. Microtransactions do not require the same level of security like ordinary transactions. With the proposed solutions, microtransactions can be executed much faster and at much lower costs than today. At the same time, once payment channels are closed, these transactions will profit from the same level of security like ordinary transactions.

There are only two possible reasons for attacking the current work of Core developers and blockstream:
1) Trying to put Bitcoin under centralized control;

2) lack of technical understanding.

ya.ya.yo!

adam back has been "informally" in control for a while of what mattered (the dictatorship of the code).
austin hill was just the smiling financial face to go on the VC money grab
i always thought of austin as the CFO even if their corporate documents said differently.

it was purely to have a experienced VC heading up investment meetings to get trust from investors.
while adam back done the code dictatorship deals with miners and devs.

it also must be noted that there will obviously be alot of blockstream fanboys raining in to reveal the ass kissing devotions to blockstream which goes against the whole purpose of why bitcoin needed to be invented.
we will see alot of these blockstream fanboys over sell the blockstream employees involvement by pretending blockstream invented bitcoin.

i look forward to laughing at the first blockstream fanboy to oversell adam backs "hashcash" and twist everything to say adam back is possibly satoshi.

i look forward to laughing at the same blockstream fanboys saying how bitcoin cannot survive without corporate control and the dozen corporate paid devs.

though all it is doing is revealing the dictatorship they desire and the utopia of making bitcoin not fit for a zero barrier open payment system. and instead fit to become FIAT2.0 again ruled and controlled by corporations.

For those in need of context:

http://www.coindesk.com/adam-back-appointed-blockstream-ceo-leadership-shake/

Bitcoin startup Blockstream has a new CEO.

The company said today that its first CEO, Austin Hill, is formally stepping aside, with current president Adam Back being appointed to the role.

As part of Hill's exit from the firm, he has also stepped down from the board. Blockstream said that Hill was leaving the company to "pursue other opportunities".

Idiot.  Making negative value is fucked up.  Blockstream has ruined bitcoin.  If I wrote ZERO lines of code - it would be far better than the contribution that 1MB blocksize freeze has done.  Blockstream ruined bitcoin so everyone would pay them fees to have their transactions on a proprietary side chain.  These guys are 100% bullshit - and now their boss is fired.  Finally.  Still think my code is less than theirs?

OP, how much code did you write for any project as proof of your value? Looking at your post history, it seems as though you only moan and bitch about Bitcoin and bring nothing positive to the table. These trolls/shills are only a pain in the ass. The Blockstream people are adding a lot of value, and they are trying to make a difference. < Positive or negative, depending on what side you are looking from >

I side against the pessimists of this world. ^LoL^

Then what about the 70 millions of investment? I don't think the investor will allow the money down the drain. All the best, Adam!

Ding-dong the witch is dead.  Good fuckin' riddance.  Now, we've just got to find some way to kill Blockstream entirely.  Owning Bitcoin is just not a good business plan.  Hopefully Adam will wind down the company in quick time.