Topic: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream - page 9. (Read 7429 times)

Another thing you don't seem to grasp is that before XT blockstream developers was in position to block any Core development about the block size incentivised by their conflic of interest. This situation is so obvious to everyone but you. Funny isn't it?

I've seen many definitions of sidechains, so maybe we use different terminology. What I mean is I'm against using the blockchain for clearing transactions only, it doesn't matter whether this would be the Lightning Network or the sidechains.


First of all, I'd like to clarify that I don't think there is something really that bad about the Lightning Network itself. It may be a good idea for microtransactions or something like that. But it definitely should not finally replace traditional blockchain transactions. Blockstream developers have some very interesting ideas too, but that's off-topic here.

Can you answer one simple question for me? Because I've been reading materials on the topic for over 2 weeks now, but I haven't found the answer.
If, as you say, Blockstream's economic model won't be based on the fees coming from the LN, then it will based on what? How do investors plan to profit from "voluntary development"? I believe you have no answer. Even if the things are not as bad as I described, there is absolutely clear conflict of interests.

The next question is why if the LN and BIP101 8 Mb (or even Gb) blocks can coexist, and, as you say, Blockstream won't profit from the LN, there is so much censorship about it? Who is behind the censorship in the "open-source peer-to-peer without-needing-an-intermediary" community? Everyone agrees that block size should be increased. Well, even if someone is afraid that Mr. Anderson and Mr. Hearn may become "evil", why not to implement BIP101 into the Core? As for me, the answer is clear. BIP101 implementation with its 1 Gb blocks obviously will be not as profitable for Blockstream as if it were 1 Mb blocks. That's why we have this BIP100 nonsense.




Thank you

Your English is great. 

Cool defense - They are all doing it, so why can't we?  This is the best example yet of your ideological bankruptcy.  

You are the one who needs to try harder. You're basic strategy of insults, lies and quick changes of course don't fool anyone ( unless they want to be fooled)

Honesty does not rest easy with you. But you are willing to blag your way through, in the vain hope that sufficient volume will make up for lack of wisdom.

Scientific papers are published every day with stated conflicts of interest by their authors. It's nothing new really.

Moreover, core devs have to get paid somehow. You expect them to put in these types of hours for free? Do you happen to know under what model Blockstream was incorporated and what their stated goals are?

It's really curious and quite honestly hypocritical for you to rail against the Blockstream paid core devs but make no mentions of Gavin's tie to MIT, Coinbase & Mike's work with Circle or Jeff Garzik & BitPay. I suppose that "doesn't count" right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9K796cnJ5o

Nope that's not how it works. Do you know that the opinion of experts in a position of conflict of interest are automatically disregarded in a court trial? The reason is simple, there is no way to prove if an intention is ill or not so they ate considered as ill by default.

Core devs shouldn't have put themselves in the position of working for Core and a private company in the first place. In no ways it should be considered as acceptable.

Thank you Har01d.
I think you said something very intelligent here. Don't be so shy: your English is good.
You made your point very clear to me. And I?m really sorry about your post being deleted... but that's how it goes.

Post more often...

I do understand it but from the list above you should understand, if you actually care about honesty, that there is a load of conflicts of interests to share between all Bitcoin developers. Conflict of interest does not imply ill intentions. You have to prove them. So far you trolls haven't done such a good job at providing factual information to back up your claims. Maybe... try harder?

I'm sure the presentations deliberately played down the key risks to the blockstream strategy. Its up to due diligence on the part of investors to confirm these. This debate serves to highlight them. A controversy like this can leave even the most carefully crafted value proposition in tatters.

The attempts to subdue the debate with threats (NotXT - nice one, Adam Back), blatant censorship and plain misinformation will further damage Blockstreams standing and ability to secure funding.

Corruption is shocking by its very nature as it can involve people that were once very
honest taking a different course.  It is hard for us to imagine that some of the guys
who worked so hard to make Bitcoin what it is today, to do anything that isn't the absolute
best interest of Bitcoin.  

I don't think the Blockstream guys have sunk into overt dishonesty, but I can imagine
them now thinking along the lines of: "How can we do good for Bitcoin while also
doing good for our company.". I would be thinking the same way.  That's the nature of
a conflict of interest.

some people call it corruption ..