Blocksteam side chain released - page 4.

spartacusrex

hero member

Activity: 718

Merit: 545

How about this..

The CORE / Blockstream boys have an UNFAIR advantage, as when they speak, many listen, regardless of what comes out.

They should start their own FORK. Like BitcoinXT, but call it.. err.. BitcoinBS !? Tongue

Then they should try and push that version on the community.

Let's see if everyone follows them now.

This would be a MUCH FAIRER way of seeing 'Who is Right, and Who is Dead.'

..

As for CORE, I think it's days are (should be) over / numbered..

The idea of a CORE in a decentralised arena, always seemed a little.. funny. Frankly.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on October 14, 2015, 12:34:22 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on October 14, 2015, 12:25:55 PM

Quote from: spartacusrex on October 14, 2015, 11:21:55 AM

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.

I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.

I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.

BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

because that day WILL come.

that day's already here. The community wants bigger blocks. they are stonewalling. old news.

Oh please... you people are straight up delusional Roll Eyes

Looks to me like it is the community of nodes who's stonewalling bigger blocks

Most people who disagree with XT or BIP101 doesn't necessary disagree with bigger blocks.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on October 14, 2015, 12:25:55 PM

Quote from: spartacusrex on October 14, 2015, 11:21:55 AM

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.

I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.

I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.

BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

because that day WILL come.

that day's already here. The community wants bigger blocks. they are stonewalling. old news.

Oh please... you people are straight up delusional Roll Eyes

Looks to me like it is the community of nodes who's stonewalling bigger blocks

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: HostFat on October 14, 2015, 12:17:54 PM

Even if the tech will be able to achieve new features, you will never see bigger and/or faster blocks from Blockstream Roll Eyes

(this until they are required for a something that only they will be able to provide)

How much can be the usefulness of Liquid if blocks are bigger and/or faster?

Indeed, you won't see larger blocks from ~~Blockstream~~ Core until the economic majority agrees to it.

Meanwhile you can shout and run in circles as long as you wish it won't change anything.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: spartacusrex on October 14, 2015, 11:21:55 AM

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.

I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.

I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.

BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

because that day WILL come.

that day's already here. The community wants bigger blocks. they are stonewalling. old news.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 12:12:06 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 14, 2015, 12:09:59 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 12:08:05 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 14, 2015, 12:06:08 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:56:39 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:42:43 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem.

Straight from the mouth of your god

I don't trust Gavin as much as you do. What's your point?

I don't trust Gavin either.

The point is it is absolutely false to pretend that any developer can veto a proposal that is approved by a super majority of other devs, unless they have cogent objections on scientific & technical grounds. If it happens that their objections are valid then it is more likely that they succeed in convincing a certain number of other developers to reconsider the way forward.

HostFat

staff

Activity: 4270

Merit: 1209

I support freedom of choice

Even if the tech will be able to achieve new features, you will never see bigger and/or faster blocks from Blockstream Roll Eyes

(this until they are required for a something that only they will be able to provide)

How much can be the usefulness of Liquid if blocks are bigger and/or faster?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on October 14, 2015, 12:09:59 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 12:08:05 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 14, 2015, 12:06:08 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:56:39 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:42:43 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem.

Straight from the mouth of your god

I don't trust Gavin as much as you do. What's your point?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: muyuu on October 14, 2015, 12:07:11 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:56:39 AM

Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company.

Core is not the only independent implementation. There's for instance libbitcoin, which is pretty solid.

Life goes on despite the quiet, muzzled sobbing from the XTards.

Right, multiple implementations is a key aspect that will strengthen bitcoin development. XT has lead the way. Hopefully more implementation will emerge.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 12:08:05 PM

Quote from: brg444 on October 14, 2015, 12:06:08 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:56:39 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:42:43 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem.

Straight from the mouth of your god

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: brg444 on October 14, 2015, 12:06:08 PM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:56:39 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:42:43 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

The only liar here is you. I'm sorry if you don't handle people criticizing your holy religion in any ways. Not my problem.

muyuu

donator

Activity: 980

Merit: 1000

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:56:39 AM

Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company.

Core is not the only independent implementation. There's for instance libbitcoin, which is pretty solid.

Life goes on despite the quiet, muzzled sobbing from the XTards.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:56:39 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:42:43 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen.

This lie has repeatedly been debunked.

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:42:43 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

Simply by not allowing consensus on any change on the bitcoin protocol. Wladimir already requires consensus among Core devs to do any changes. You only need 1 Blockstream dev that also work for Core to disagree with a change that threaten their business model and that change won't happen. That's why Blockstream and Core dev should be completely disassociated or otherwise Core development is being perverted by a for profit company.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:42:43 AM

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

Don't bother with him, he's just another disingenuous troll.

xyzzy099

legendary

Activity: 1066

Merit: 1098

Quote from: knight22 on October 14, 2015, 11:40:33 AM

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

But HOW will they do that? Since they are greatly outnumbered by non-Blockstream devs, how will they force changes that are self-serving on the rest of the development team?

knight22

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

--------------->¿?

Quote from: xyzzy099 on October 14, 2015, 11:36:21 AM

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Because there is nothing that guarantees they won't and everything already points that they already are.

neurotypical

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 503

Quote from: Carlton Banks on October 14, 2015, 11:34:45 AM

Quote from: spartacusrex on October 14, 2015, 11:21:55 AM

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

Ok, and which parties have expressed the most "interest" in the main-chain-only, SPV-for-all centralised alternative? They've got a bit of a conflict of interest also, being as they're funded and backed by big banking incumbents.

I'm happy with this particular crossover; Wuille, Maxwell, Friednbach, Russell, Back et al are biased, just like anyone. I like their bias. Choose your bias wisely.

True, the main point is, there is always going to be people complaining, no matter what. Until an AI of robots can develop code by itself, then they will say whoever is under the project is biased. Well, I choose to support the Core devs and choose to believe Gavin and Hearn are biased and have an agenda to centralize Bitcoin's nodes.

xyzzy099

legendary

Activity: 1066

Merit: 1098

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: spartacusrex on October 14, 2015, 11:21:55 AM

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

Ok, and which parties have expressed the most "interest" in the main-chain-only, SPV-for-all centralised alternative? They've got a bit of a conflict of interest also, being as they're funded and backed by big banking incumbents.

I'm happy with this particular crossover; Wuille, Maxwell, Friednbach, Russell, Back et al are biased, just like anyone. I like their bias. Choose your bias wisely.

Topic: Blocksteam side chain released - page 4. (Read 4806 times)