Topic: Is Blockstream the reason why 4 core developer won´t increase the blocksize? - page 5. (Read 7092 times)

I'm 100% with Gavin in any decision he makes. But we've actually started making progress in countries where Bitcoin was once illegal, how do we rebuild these achievements and what will the ultimate consequence be for Bitcoin & XT?

The "in house" fighting is going to kill the coin. How does that saying go... Too many cooks spoils the broth?

It is time for Satoshi to step out of the darkness and to have his/her/their say.... Just a shove in the right direction. 

The current Core developers seem to have lost the plot. {Big head syndrome and self interest, has become more important than the chicken laying the golden eggs}

A very sad situation for the Bitcoin community.   

If even a tiny bit true - very serious indeed.  Can't Gavin just comment?  Someone else? 

this is why it's better to have only one dev in charge of a project, other should be only auxiliary dev nothing else, after all this started with one man only(we presume)

and it's strange that they(all four) are against the 20MB for the same reason, are they partnered together or something?

This warrants more community investigation, and should we find it to be true, we boycott Blockstream and go with the 20MB increase.

Well, now this is an interesting theory.  If it is true it shows a significant conflict of interest by the people that oppose a bigger block size.  I am not technically versed enough to make 100% sense of this but what does everyone else think?

So what do you think about my theory, while about 80% of the bitcoin community vote yes for bigger blocksize, some bitcoin core devs won´t .
source: http://www.poll-maker.com/results233857xDa614c79-9#tab-2

Core Developer Gregory Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Matt Corallo and Luke Dashjr are involved in the company Blockstream, source: https://www.blockstream.com/team/
They got a $21M seed round, source: http://blockstream.com/2014/11/17/blockstream-closes-21m-seed-round/

Their opinion about bigger blocksize:

Gregory Maxwell
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090559/

Pieter Wuille
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07466.html

Matt Corallo
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits
Comments: http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34090292/

Luke Dashjr
Current Affiliations: Eligius Mining Pool
Bitcoin Core: top 10 core developer by # of commits
Comments: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/34y48z/mike_hearn_the_capacity_cliff_and_why_we_cant_use/cqzadpn

They want Blockstream being successful and are already working with the lightning network, which provides an alternative for scaling the blocksize:
https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/
About lighning network: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVzw912wPo

Maybe they are financially motivated to not increasing the blocksize. Gregory Maxwell, Pieter Wuille, Matt Corallo annd Luke Dashjr doesn´t want bigger blocksize because they want to be successful with their Blockstream company which is about sidechains, source: https://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

Nothing against Blockstream, but prevent bigger blocksize to force the bitcoin community using Blockstream, respective sidechains might be a big reason why this gentlemens stand against bigger blocksize, isn´t it?

I hope someone more technical can schedule on my theory.