What is their agenda? | Bitcointalksearch.org

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 17, 2015, 11:43:19 AM

normally it is not allowed to answer your question but i want to help:

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

could be a reason.

Quote from: ashour on August 17, 2015, 03:05:53 PM

There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.

Quote from: meono on August 17, 2015, 04:45:01 PM

Quote from: ashour on August 17, 2015, 03:05:53 PM

There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.

Because tps limit issue of blockchain is the whole focus to push ppl over to Blockstream. Its not rumor, its a fact.

Hi OP!

BTW these are lying trolls Grin

Holliday

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1012

My agenda: Bitcoin to remain a robust peer to peer network which isn't designed to work in the best of times, but the worst of times. The network which provides censorship-proof money should be designed in a way that allows it to work when there are groups actively trying to prevent the flow of information. The more information required to make it work, the less robust it becomes.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

MPFAGS, take note:

Quote

It is essentially pointless to discuss it with many of the involved developers, as they have too great a stake seeing the block size remain where it is

Linuld

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 17, 2015, 11:43:19 AM

normally it is not allowed to answer your question but i want to help:

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

could be a reason.

I think the illogical reasons against a raise of the max blocksize limit that some bitcoiners bring up can only be explained by something like that. Which is a pity when true. I mean ok, if i would have invested a lot of money into something then i would want to make it a success but i surely would not use my position to exploit the trust others have put into me.

And yes, if bitcoin keeps the 1MB limit then this would mean, at some time, that bitcoin will be slow, unreliable, expensive and so on. Which would lead to transactions move into altcoins or sidechains like lightning network.

Meuh6879

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Quote

What is the agenda

September 2015 : Financial Services collapse
October 2015 : Bitcoin Rise
November 2015 : BIP102 emerge in Bitcoin Core (Block at 2mb)

...

meono

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: ashour on August 17, 2015, 03:05:53 PM

There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.

Because tps limit issue of blockchain is the whole focus to push ppl over to Blockstream. Its not rumor, its a fact.

ashour

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 250

There are some companies/persons that benefit with the no block increase. There have been rumors that blockcstream is actively pushing for a no size block increase.

cafucafucafu

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 509

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 17, 2015, 11:43:19 AM

normally it is not allowed to answer your question but i want to help:

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

could be a reason.

But they are small in number. There are others who are also against an increase. They talk about decentralisation, but surely it cant all just be technical? There must be some monetary/idealogical reason.

Ilove-Obama

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: cafucafucafu on August 17, 2015, 11:31:19 AM

A lot has been said recently about XT but what about the other side?

What is the agenda of those who disagree with a block size increase? What do they gain to lose?

You need to increase the block, otherwise the spam affects bitcoin

RoadTrain

legendary

Activity: 1386

Merit: 1009

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 17, 2015, 11:43:19 AM

normally it is not allowed to answer your question but i want to help:

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

could be a reason.

Quote from: RoadTrain on August 12, 2015, 12:51:36 AM

Quote from: flix on August 11, 2015, 04:07:35 PM

Interesting summary of the often mentioned accusation against devs that oppose any block size increase:

The Blockstream Business Plan
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

Quote

tl;dr: Blockstream wants to choke transactions on the blockchain in order to spur adoption of sidechannels and the Lightning Network, where they will be perfectly situated to collect fees for providing that service.

What is sidechannels btw? Did he mean sidechains?

In fact, even the LN paper states that it needs bigger blocks to operate smoothly.

The OP is arguing that LN itself is centralized, so it's dishonest for Blockstream devs to argue against Bitcoin centralization. One question: what's better - to have a centralized system build on top of a decentralized one or a centralized system built on top of a centralized one? Also, these two kinds of centralization are probably very different, e.g. how costly is it to set up and operate a payment hub as compared to setting up and operating a mining farm of comparable characteristics (can we even compare them)?

Moreover, the OP downplays that Blockstream was created to develop sidechains (a completely different matter which he doesn't discuss at all) in the first place, and they became involved in the LN only very recently. Then he assumes they have a plan to monetize on the LN, but doesn't discuss what was their plan before the advent of the LN (did they plan to monetize of sidechains? How?). He's assuming that Blockstream investors want direct monetization, but that's not neccessarily true, e.g. investors can monetize by using their innovation in business.

This post might seem good at first glance, but if we dig deeper, it's full of baseless assumptions.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 2965

Terminated.

Here I go again, having to explain something multiple times on this forum just because we have too many threads on the same subject.
Supporting a block size increase =/= supporting XT.

I personally support a block size increase (to what limit, is debatable), but I'm completely against XT. To completely understand those who are completely against a block size limit, you would have to talk to Gregory Maxwell for example.

Quote from: LiteCoinGuy on August 17, 2015, 11:43:19 AM

-snip-
https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/
could be a reason.

Partially, yes.

Quote from: pedrog on August 17, 2015, 11:44:34 AM

As far as I know, there's only one argument against block size increase, blockchain gets big, but that's an inevitability even with 1mb max blocks, eventually it will get too big for desktop computers.
-snip-

No. The pruning feature is already partially available in 0.11.0 and should be completely implemented soon, so storage for the average user is not the issue anymore.

pedrog

legendary

Activity: 2786

Merit: 1031

As far as I know, there's only one argument against block size increase, blockchain gets big, but that's an inevitability even with 1mb max blocks, eventually it will get too big for desktop computers.

Any change to the network that can be made with 1mb blocks can also be made with 8mb blocks or bigger, so the other proposals can also be implemented.

LiteCoinGuy

legendary

Activity: 1148

Merit: 1014

In Satoshi I Trust

normally it is not allowed to answer your question but i want to help:

https://de.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/

could be a reason.

cafucafucafu

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 509

A lot has been said recently about XT but what about the other side?

What is the agenda of those who disagree with a block size increase? What do they gain to lose?

Topic: What is their agenda? (Read 830 times)