How dedicated are these developers, if Gavin did not work on Bitcoin for nearly 2 years, and Mike worked on "The Lightning Project" to win a $40 000 bounty from Oliver and also developed a competing fork for Bitcoin?
We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.
Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin. ^hmf^
We should have a dedicated team of people, who work on Bitcoin 100% of their time. Not as a little side project.
Wladimir seems to carry on at his own pace, and is willing to kick the can down the road, as he put it.
Nobody is really 100% committed to making Bitcoin work. In my opinion these guys are being paid to sabotage and slow down Bitcoin. ^hmf^
Like these guys: https://blockstream.com/team/ ?
Let have a broader look at all the bitcoin "expert" to see where the problem lies , ok? :
| Developer | Employer | In favor of |
| Gavin Andresen | MIT | 8mb+ |
| Mike Hearn | Google, now Vinumeris | 8mb+ |
| Meni Rosenfeld | Israeli Bitcoin Association, Bitcoil | tentative 8mb+ |
| Jeff Garzik | Bitpay, now Dunvegan Space Systems, Inc. | 2mb+ |
| Peter Todd | Viacoin et al. | 1mb |
| Luke-JR | Subcontracted by Blockstream | 1mb |
| Adam Back | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb |
| Matt Corallo | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb |
| Gmaxwell | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb |
| Peter Wuille | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb |
| Mark Friedenbach(Maaku7) | Blockstream Co-Founder | 1mb |
| laanwj | MIT | 1mb |
See any pattern? Remember Blockstream got tens of millions from investors. VCs dont just invest to have a fair game with competitors, they invest because they want to jump ahead of the game.
Take away the Blockstream crew and you still have an undecided split. Plus, some questionable experts on that list and others not even listed.
I'm not gonna argue about that but this list include all the people that this forum consider "consensus network" (5 person from the list)
That in itself is a centralized issue but everyone ignore it.
Sure, one cannot but wonder if 5 developers have personal motivation for not wanting larger blocks but....
Why did Gavin and Mike decide to bring up the block size "issue" now? (which isn't an issue as we have 0.4 - 0.5 mb blocks)
Since they knew that their co-workers on Bitcoin have handled it with the use of Blockstream and there is NO immediate need for larger block sizes anyway,
doesn't it seem a bit odd, or convienient if I may say?
If I was to attempt to take over then that is exactly what I would do and blame the other devs for having personal motivation.
There is no immediate need for larger blocks, and since it would have been handled by Blockstream, then what is the deal with Gavin and Mike?
The fact that they have blacklisting code doesn't make them very credible to me, and of course the way they are attempting to take over.
Personally, I do not agree that ANY member of the core team should be in the core dev team if they have personal gain by doing or not doing something.
That includes both sides of this circus we are seeing lately.
And to be honest I agree with the OP.
It is time the community stepped up and removed them from their "thrones" because their are not working for the good of Bitcoin and the community anymore.
