Topic: Evil Blockstream to rule the world? (Read 951 times)

More sophisticated feature are useful to more sophisticated users.  You probably don't need to worry about it very much.  Just pick a sidechain operator who gives you what you want (e.g., 'free shit') and go with them.  The operator will be using such features to protect you and you won't even have to know it.  Be happy!

It's now confirmed he's a stupid noob with nothing to contribute except lies.  What is it with Gavinistas and misleading the public?

If benighted22 had bothered to click the link, he would have easily found this in the Implementation section:


What a fucktard.  Probably never written a line of code in his life, much less studied computer science.   

Oh look, here more "vaperware" from Blockstream:




Benighted22, get rekt you clueless chump!   

This is the closest answer we could get at the moment which is, not much:


https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-242-meet-the-lightning-network

What a sad individual you are 

So much praise for vaperware 

Blockstream's chocolate factory is already producing scrumptious crypto-candy.

Their tendency to induce hissy fits in disgruntled Gavinistas is just a nice side benefit.   

xpost:

 

IMPOSSIBRUH!

This is simply not true. There are many ways to monetize Free Libre Open Source Software. Ever heard of Red Hat?  https://www.google.ca/finance?cid=663462

Edit: Red Hat has been a much better investment than Microsoft over the last 12 years.

Maybe the motivation is to make the Bitcoin blockchain the ONE blockchain to rule the world  

With sidechains anyone could build on top of the most secure blockchain in the world. could it be possible their motivation is to add value to the Bitcoin blockchain

Huh?  Carlton said:


So, where are the plans? 

Self profit comes from proprietary gains. When you release your stuff as open source you give away the chance to have proprietary software and thus the profit.
I don't believe the argument that blockstream is looking for profit when they stay with core development.

Is this some kind of joke 

If the business plans are public, id like to read them.   Link, please?

Why do you keep running around every thread spreading misconceptions that you have been repeatedly told are not valid?

If you can't understand sidechains have someone explain them to you but until then maybe you ought to spot making assumptions

Any arguments that their plans to monetise aren't public are not credible. Plans are public and benign to the interest of the stakeholders. Known shills in this thread claim otherwise when it has been explained to them already.

Any arguments that suggest this centralises the dev team further are not credible. It's centralised now, it was centralised before, and it will be centralised under any other management. That's how the development process works.  


However, any arguments that Blockstream are deficient in their design ideas are those that I am willing to entertain. I'm not as familiar with their proposal as I could be, still haven't read it in full. But if Blockstream ever appear to be against the spirit of Bitcoin, I will not favour their solution, or anything that promotes it.

Superficially at least, Blockstream satisfies that basic stipulation; Blockstream's proposals thus far only enhance Bitcoin. We will have wait to see if that's what materialises.

Of course they intend to make money.  There's no way they would be given millions in VC without a business plan.  Unfortunately I don't think we don't get to see what that is.  So we can only speculate.  You're absolutely right that their revenue model is unclear.  

If their plan is to, say, help banks integrate Bitcoin with side chains, and charge the banks consulting fees, and the sidechains only would be necessary if the blocksize is small, then that kind of scenario is one where Blockstream profits but the blocksize decision isn't necessarily in the interests of the community as a whole.  I'm not saying this is the exact scenario that would happen, but this is the kind of situation that I would be concerned about.

Given at least the potential of a conflict of interest -- the fact that they took millions in VC and are also the core developers of Bitcoin, don't you think the public has a right to know exactly what their plans are ?

This is only an assumption. My assumption is that specialised hardware like https://bitseed.org will keep running full nodes for fairly cheap because there is a lot of demand from individual and companies for running full node. The fear of centralization is very overblown IMO. Centralization of development is much more dangerous IMO.

I don't understand how blockstream works but I fail to see how Bitcoin remains decentralized when it depends on a private company to essentially process transactions that aren't considered worthy of being "on-chain".. Bitcoin XT's result would be much worse tho, the big blocks would mean centralization of nodes. And centralization of nodes and mining (which already is centralized) would mean the end of Bitcoin as we know it.

Seconded

I've heard this 1000 times.  I've never heard quite how they are supposed to do this?  At some point those making this proposition are going to have to piss or get off the pot and provide a plausible mechanism by which these nefarious punks (several of them current and very productive Bitcoin core devs) are going to pull this off.

For my part I put some effort into figuring out how they were supposed to make money, or even if they intend that as a primary goal.  Given that they seem pretty dedicated to open source and seem pretty transparent about what they are working on (e.g., Maxwell's presentation on 'elements') there are some questions about this.  It is just plain due-diligence to evaluate such questions.

Seems to me that if Blockstream is to open-source their stuff, pretty much anyone could take it and run.  Normally people open-source stuff because that is exactly what they hope will happen.  It seems in character with the work that many of those associated with Blockstream have previously demonstrated.

My first thought on how Blockstream was going to 'make money' was that they would act as consultants to provide advice and customization to clients who wished to run sidechains or whatever other core technology they had developed.  Also that if they remain a trusted group, their involvement with an organization running a sidechain would impart some credibility.  This is not an uncommon model in our tech sector today.  I think that Maxwell had mentioned basically the same strategy some time after I anticipated it.

Anyway, I hope some of the army of people asserting that Blockstream is going to exploit us all and somehow dominate the world will produce some plausible explanations about the mechanisms they are going to use.  Really!  For my own purposes I am going to have to decide how much to trust them going forward.