I'm sure closed source, pay Blockstream per month, federated chains, using multi sig secured collateral have a place in the ecosystem. I welcome them and applaud the effort in their creation.
However, there is a real concern regarding the motivations of veto wielding devs. Are they making decisions that would be best for Bitcoin, or decisions that might mold Bitcoin towards an environment that benefits Blockstream software products?
However, there is a real concern regarding the motivations of veto wielding devs. Are they making decisions that would be best for Bitcoin, or decisions that might mold Bitcoin towards an environment that benefits Blockstream software products?
This was the last I could find from Wladimir. He's responding to a question regarding whether he is still against "raising the blocksize limit immediately".
“Yes. [my previous opinion remains]
I mostly have a problem with proposals that bake in expected exponential bandwidth
growth. I don’t think it’s realistic. If we’ve learned anything from the 2008 subprime
bubble crisis it should be that nothing ever keeps growing exponentially, and assuming
so can be hazardous.
It reduces a complex geographical issue, the distribution of internet connectivity over the
planet for a long time to come, to a simple function.
On the other hand a hardfork is extremely hard to coordinate. Even one that just involves
changing one parameter. Everyone with a full node has to upgrade. This is not something
that can be done regularly. Certainly not with such a near time horizon.
Changing the rules in a decentralized consensus system is a very difficult problem and I
don’t think we’ll resolve it any time soon.”
I mostly have a problem with proposals that bake in expected exponential bandwidth
growth. I don’t think it’s realistic. If we’ve learned anything from the 2008 subprime
bubble crisis it should be that nothing ever keeps growing exponentially, and assuming
so can be hazardous.
It reduces a complex geographical issue, the distribution of internet connectivity over the
planet for a long time to come, to a simple function.
On the other hand a hardfork is extremely hard to coordinate. Even one that just involves
changing one parameter. Everyone with a full node has to upgrade. This is not something
that can be done regularly. Certainly not with such a near time horizon.
Changing the rules in a decentralized consensus system is a very difficult problem and I
don’t think we’ll resolve it any time soon.”
What is very clear is that this way of thinking makes it very difficult to change course when things change. There is no reason why they couldn't just implement BIP101 and simply change the blocksize limit again if the assumptions behind BIP101 turns out not to be true. Except for his/their fear of doing something "wrong" and get the blame for it. So he wants it done "right" this time. Which is ok, unless knowing what's "right" requires certain knowledge of the future. And it looks like it might.
So what if he/they make a decision sometime late 2016/early 2017, and it turns out to be the "wrong" one? Will they spend three years to change that as well?
Source: http://coinjournal.net/who-asked-wlad-what-does-bitcoins-lead-developer-say-about-scaling-debate-exclusive/
