Topic: blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy - page 7. (Read 8962 times)

Yes. Like I said, I agree with the OP's general point, and I agree that the block size needs to be raised.

That is one side.  However, my impression is that most of the 1MB-supporters think the censoring serves as a counterbalance to the higher level of public support BitcoinXT appears to receive.  Furthermore, Anonymint here suggests that "mega-threads" like Cypherdocs are dangerous because they promote group-think and hurt diversity of the Forum.  So he seems to believe that banning "threads with a broad scope" is necessary--in a certain sense--to restore open and transparent communication.  


I'm not saying any of that makes sense to me.  I just find it fascinating how we attempt to contort reason to justify otherwise reprehensible behaviour.  I suppose that it's difficult, without the benefit of hindsight, to recognize the extent to which we are guilty of this ourselves.

Does "Fee" work?

I am not sure that tax is the appropriate word to use, however I certainly agree with the OP's point.

As Bitcoin grows in popularity and user adoption increases, if the max block size does not increase then tx fees will inevitability rise. Eventually tx fees will rise enough so that Bitcoin will be prohibitively expensive to use. This is where things like blockstream's Lighting network and Blockstream's side chains come into play, as people will use them as an alternative, which will allow Blockstream to profit, and will cause Bitcoin to be to expensive to use except when used for very large financial transactions (aka only the big players can afford to use Bitcoin).

The above scenario will happen unless the maximum block size is increased in the near future. The best course of action is for the core devs to all support a larger block size that increases over time (to allow for bitcoin adoption to grow over time, and for technology to become more advanced to support larger block sizes). All of the core devs supporting larger block sizes over time will make it so the decision to support this kind of hard fork would be more obvious to the major economic players in the bitcoin economy.

While there is speculation that Bitcoin will become more centralized with a higher block size limit, it is all but certain that Bitcoin will become substantially more centralized with the block size limit remaining unchanged, probably more centralized then what would happen if such speculation would be true.

"nonsense" differs from person to person.

There is a ton of inconsistency on the moderators/admins parts on what you wrote above.

Clearly there is another agenda when consistency goes out the window while censorship is allowed into the window.

It is worth asking the questions about Blockstream's revenue generation plan.

If their main source of income is charging fees (ie.e taxing bitcoin users) by opening side chains or payment channels then they are not for the original vision satoshi created when he created bit coin.

Very simple.

The is a conflict of interest.  What time will tell is the extent to which they were acting upon it.  

There is nothing in general wrong with a conflict of interest, but it should be openly disclosed.


On a related note, I'd love to hear Jonald's and Carton's view of the ongoing censorship at /r/bitcoin and to a lesser extent at this forum.  For example, Bitcoin[redacted] was defined as an alt-coin by the moderators at /r/bitcoin and all talk related to it has been deemed off-topic.  Several people were banned for linking to sub-reddits that emerged as a result of the censorship.  

Here at our own forum, Cypherdoc's "Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin UP" thread was locked by the Admin, despite it having over 1.4 million views and over 30,000 comments.  The rational given by BadBear is that threads that are broad in scope ("mega-threads") are no longer permitted on this forum.  

What are your views on these recent events?



More on this here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12198527

it is simple. their side chains crap is only useful while bitcoin block size is capped.

raise the 1 MB limit and blockstream now becomes OBSOLETE and IRRELEVANT.

simple...price of bitcoin must rise in order to account for decreased reward supply.

A hard fork is a difficult thing in the best of circumstances.

Scaling through simplistic and very modest capacity increases is a dead-end, so what's the point?  Scaling through simplistic and sufficient capacity increases promises to mutate Bitcoin into a system which is worse than nothing.  To me at any rate, and I strongly suspect to many of the folks who are now working under the Blockstream banner.  I have no reason to believe anything other than that is nearly the sole reason the organization came together.  If I wanted a job (I don't) I would likely try to hire on at Blockstream because I could be doing something which I believe can make a positive difference.  I imagine that most of the people working under that Banner feel the same way and this is one of the reasons I have more confidence in them than most.

Another reason is that the Blockstream dudes collectively are hugely responsible for getting Bitcoin itself to where it is today and as much as I might bash Bitcoin I find it a remarkable achievement.

In my mind one of the biggest questions which remains unanswered is:  Even if sidechains are nearly completely dependent on their backing store (Bitcoin) as a source of value, what induces them to support the Bitcoin infrastructure?  Can they not just hitch a free ride and hope someone else picks up the slack?  The best answer I can come up with is that they compete with other users of the blockchain not only in fees, but also in supporting mining operations which will get them and their transactions a slot within a reasonable amount of time.  Competition for transaction capacity would have to be a factor.  I doubt I am alone in waiting for scarcity here to finally come into play.  After half a decade at Satoshi's 1MB setting we still are not pushing into this aspect of the system and are still relying almost entirely on currency base inflation.  I'm in no hurry to see a hard fork before transaction fees start carrying a little bit of the support reward load.

jonald, I might be wrong, but you seem to be over-familiar with the "static limit, scheduled increase" model. Do you appreciate why creating a market for block sizes would be a viable alternative? If not, take a look at upal's thread over in Technical Discussion, it features some well thought out stuff (from people who are actually discussing this in the context of software engineering, not a political stand-off).

If 75% of ppl jump then thats not nonsense.

Do you know the old saying: If i see an asshole in the morning, hes an asshole. But if i see assholes all day, i AM the asshole.

if you think its nonsense you dont have anything to fear...
or do you believe 75% of all bitcoiners will jump?

It's too bad that you weren't able to see the forest because all of those stupid trees were blocking your view.

I wish some of the retards here atleast understand the bold statement above.

Forget the technicality of bitcoin because its way over their heads anyway.

we are against nonsense. Is not a free choice when someone want to jump from 4 floor

You are free to make choices now, you weren't able to few weeks ago.

No one is forcing the network to choose BIP101.

Everyone that is against the freedom of choice is blinded, or in bad faith.

why?
only because he tries to make bitcoin ready for mass adoption?

he has my support...
and i think his way is ok. i dont see any better way to make this change happen.