I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.
I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).
Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.
But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.
I may be completely wrong, but probably not.
I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).
Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.
But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.
I may be completely wrong, but probably not.
Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.
If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.
The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.
Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.
By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?
Yes, in part.
From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.
But doesn't blockstream have a financial incentive to keep blocks small enough so that users want to use them as a 3rd party intermediary for smaller transactions that would cost more to do on chain rather than with blockstream?
Yes? No?
No!
If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.
Read my posts above. Blockstream is first and foremost about extending the features of Bitcoin (asset issuance, improved privacy, segregated witness, safer zero-conf transactions), not scaling.
Thank you for answering my question.
Now that you said "No!", how do you think their business model will work if they do not have a financial incentive to keep certain users off the block chain?
How do they make their money if they are in fact a for-profit company?
