AWARD-WINNING

CASINO CRYPTO EXCLUSIVE

CLUBHOUSE 1500+

GAMES 2 MIN

CASH-OUTS 24/7

SUPPORT 100s OF

FREE SPINS PLAY NOW vertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Adertised sites are notendorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.

sAt0sHiFanClub



Offline



Activity: 532

Merit: 500





Warning: Confrmed Gavinista







Hero MemberActivity: 532Merit: 500Warning: Confrmed Gavinista Re: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream August 29, 2015, 01:39:08 PM #10 Quote from: Har01d on August 29, 2015, 02:58:40 AM Now its not surprising that investors must be puzzled about whats going on now with all this FUD, because they werent told that there were other solutions. And thats exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people dont want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Cores developers Its that simple.





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.



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. We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange

brg444



Offline



Activity: 644

Merit: 504



Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks







Hero MemberActivity: 644Merit: 504Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks Re: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream August 29, 2015, 03:25:31 PM #11 Quote from: Har01d on August 29, 2015, 02:58:40 AM



What happened with all this Blockstream, BIPs & XT mess is just a solid presentation of Bitcoins weakest sides and flaws.



Here are three main problems that I see:



1. Blockstream is a cancer for Bitcoin



Personally, I cant (or I dont want to) believe that just $21M, which Blockstream has got from a bunch of investors, will actually ruin Bitcoin as we know it now. The problem is that many people just dont understand the simplest thing: if someone has invested the money in something, they want to get it back in the future. So one way or another, Blockstream is a commercial company, which wants to benefit from the Lightning Network (or the sidechains).



It is absolutely obvious that the smaller the block size is, the more money Blockstream will make. Lets theorize for a moment, that BIP100 has been implemented and miners have voted for 1 KB blocks, so 1 block = 1 transaction. That would be the perfect situation for Blockstream, because as they can take fees in the LN, they would be the only entity who is economically motivated to pay a very big fee for creating a clearing transaction in the blockchain. So the entire blockchain from this moment would consist of single clearing transactions.



Now lets get back to the ground and suppose that we will have 1 MB or 2 MB, or even 10 MB blocks implemented by BIP100, but this size will not rise in the future. Well, now it all depends on how big will Bitcoin grow. If in 2020 we will have 1.000.000 transactions each 10 minutes and the same 1 MB blocks, the calculation is simple and not really different from 1 KB blocks. Lets suppose that Blockstream will get $0.05 for each transaction on the LN as a fee, so for a million LN-transactions the total fee would be $50.000. Now, if Blockstream will use the blockchain for the clearing transactions, they could use the entire 1 MB (~1.500 transactions) for this purpose. $50.000 / 1.500 transactions = $33 per transaction. So no one will have an incentive to push a transaction for $33 in the blockchain while there will be an option to use a sidechain for $0.05. I understand that these calculations are awfully approximate, but this is the economic model of Blockstream. And this is the end of Bitcoins be your own bank as we know it know, because Blockstream is a centralized thing, you know: Sorry, you are banned from the Lightning Network because you havent verified your ID.



And I have another thought about Blockstream I cant stop think about. How in the world do you think they have convinced the investors (who merely understand technical details of Bitcoin protocol) that sidechains is what is needed for Bitcoin? Right, they said exactly the following: Bitcoin has a flow: the block size is limited and cant be increased, because its hardcoded. We solve this problem!. Now its not surprising that investors must be puzzled about whats going on now with all this FUD, because they werent told that there were other solutions. And thats exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people dont want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Cores developers Its that simple.



2. It is not that obvious who decides the future for Bitcoin. Despite the fact that in theory it is the economic majority who should decide the future for Bitcoin, miners still can destroy it in the process



Many people theorize that the majority of miners will not do anything stupid (like accepting 1 KB block size limit or raising the 21M bitcoins limit) because the price will momentarily go down to zero and the miners will lose their money. Yes, they will. And you will too. Or may be they do something stupid and the price will just slightly go down. The global problem is if for any reason in the world the majority would want to commit a suicide, they actually could do it. For example, they could be confused by the greedy guys like Blockstream Anything. And there is literally nothing anyone could do to stop them.



3. The censorship on top of the fact that many people dont understand how Bitcoin (and the Bitcoin consensus in particular) works



Well, I was very confused when I got to know that Theymos was banning all the irrelevant discussions. I dont know whether he is paid by Blockstream or he isnt, but thats not the problem. The problem is that here in the Russian section there are almost no discussions about the Blockstream problem at all! Everybody just thinks that Bitcoin XT will ruin Bitcoin, because it is a fork, so the best option is to sit still and have 1 MB blocks. Thats all. And thats because all articles here in the Russian section are translated from the western media. So the people who doesnt speak English just cant dig into the problem.



And, in my opinion, the problem is not with the Russian section. I believe that there can be a similar problem in the Chinese one. And this problem is a real one, because all top miners are from China.



I dont know what can I do about it



Well, I believe if XT wont succeed and Blockstreams solution will get accepted, I will have only one option: to sell my coins, as it is the only way I can vote. Thats sad, but I dont believe that sidechains are the true Bitcoin.



And as the conclusion, Id like to say that its all about corruption. Well, here we have corrupted Core developers, who develop a commercial project on top of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was invented as a replacement for traditional money to fix some economical problems. If you look at the big picture, it would be interesting to think, that at some point in time, fiat money (which were backed by gold) were invented to fix some problems too. And in time, some people corrupted the idea of fiat money with the current banking system. My point is that if Bitcoin can be broken by corrupted people, it will inevitably be broken. And my biggest fear it has already happened.

I rarely post anything on the forums because I dont speak English as fluently as I want, but this situation is an extraordinary case, so I think I cant resist the temptation to write about it in my broken EnglishWhat happened with all this Blockstream, BIPs & XT mess is just a solid presentation of Bitcoins weakest sides and flaws.Here are three main problems that I see:Personally, I cant (or I dont want to) believe that just $21M, which Blockstream has got from a bunch of investors, will actually ruin Bitcoin as we know it now. The problem is that many people just dont understand the simplest thing: if someone has invested the money in something, they want to get it back in the future. So one way or another, Blockstream is a commercial company, which wants to benefit from the Lightning Network (or the sidechains).It is absolutely obvious that the smaller the block size is, the more money Blockstream will make. Lets theorize for a moment, that BIP100 has been implemented and miners have voted for 1 KB blocks, so 1 block = 1 transaction. That would be the perfect situation for Blockstream, because as they can take fees in the LN, they would be the only entity who is economically motivated to pay a very big fee for creating a clearing transaction in the blockchain. So the entire blockchain from this moment would consist of single clearing transactions.Now lets get back to the ground and suppose that we will have 1 MB or 2 MB, or even 10 MB blocks implemented by BIP100, but this size will not rise in the future. Well, now it all depends on how big will Bitcoin grow. If in 2020 we will have 1.000.000 transactions each 10 minutes and the same 1 MB blocks, the calculation is simple and not really different from 1 KB blocks. Lets suppose that Blockstream will get $0.05 for each transaction on the LN as a fee, so for a million LN-transactions the total fee would be $50.000. Now, if Blockstream will use the blockchain for the clearing transactions, they could use the entire 1 MB (~1.500 transactions) for this purpose. $50.000 / 1.500 transactions = $33 per transaction. So no one will have an incentive to push a transaction for $33 in the blockchain while there will be an option to use a sidechain for $0.05. I understand that these calculations are awfully approximate, but this is the economic model of Blockstream. And this is the end of Bitcoins be your own bank as we know it know, because Blockstream is a centralized thing, you know: Sorry, you are banned from the Lightning Network because you havent verified your ID.And I have another thought about Blockstream I cant stop think about. How in the world do you think they have convinced the investors (who merely understand technical details of Bitcoin protocol) that sidechains is what is needed for Bitcoin? Right, they said exactly the following: Bitcoin has a flow: the block size is limited and cant be increased, because its hardcoded. We solve this problem!. Now its not surprising that investors must be puzzled about whats going on now with all this FUD, because they werent told that there were other solutions. And thats exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people dont want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Cores developers Its that simple.Many people theorize that the majority of miners will not do anything stupid (like accepting 1 KB block size limit or raising the 21M bitcoins limit) because the price will momentarily go down to zero and the miners will lose their money. Yes, they will. And you will too. Or may be they do something stupid and the price will just slightly go down. The global problem is if for any reason in the world the majority would want to commit a suicide, they actually could do it. For example, they could be confused by the greedy guys like Blockstream Anything. And there is literally nothing anyone could do to stop them.Well, I was very confused when I got to know that Theymos was banning all the irrelevant discussions. I dont know whether he is paid by Blockstream or he isnt, but thats not the problem. The problem is that here in the Russian section there are almost no discussions about the Blockstream problem at all! Everybody just thinks that Bitcoin XT will ruin Bitcoin, because it is a fork, so the best option is to sit still and have 1 MB blocks. Thats all. And thats because all articles here in the Russian section are translated from the western media. So the people who doesnt speak English just cant dig into the problem.And, in my opinion, the problem is not with the Russian section. I believe that there can be a similar problem in the Chinese one. And this problem is a real one, because all top miners are from China.Well, I believe if XT wont succeed and Blockstreams solution will get accepted, I will have only one option: to sell my coins, as it is the only way I can vote. Thats sad, but I dont believe that sidechains are the true Bitcoin.And as the conclusion, Id like to say that its all about corruption. Well, here we have corrupted Core developers, who develop a commercial project on top of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was invented as a replacement for traditional money to fix some economical problems. If you look at the big picture, it would be interesting to think, that at some point in time, fiat money (which were backed by gold) were invented to fix some problems too. And in time, some people corrupted the idea of fiat money with the current banking system. My point is that if Bitcoin can be broken by corrupted people, it will inevitably be broken. And my biggest fear it has already happened.

Hi Harold, greetings from Canada!



Let me clear up a little bit of your misconceptions since its evident truth hasn't made its way to your homeland yet!



About Blockstream:



1. They are currently participating on a voluntary basis to the development of the Lightning network. The lightning network being an open source development they have no proprietary advantage over its monetization. In fact, you should know the theory behind this protocol was NOT invented by Blockstream whose incorporation and 21 million $ funding round predates the announcement of the Lightning network by a full year. It was only recently following the hiring of developer Rusty Russel that Blockstream began their involvement with lightning development seeing as Rusty had shown previous interest in payment networks (he was working on a micro-transaction network before being hired). Out of a team of probably a dozen developers Rusty is the only one involved with Lightning work at Blockstream. You can find here the lightning development mailing list where you should realise a couple of different developers outside of Blockstream are collaborating to the development progress of this network :



2. On sidechains, you will find that they were scarcely advertised as a scaling solution for very good reason: they don't scale particularly well in their existing form. In fact, a little research should reveal to you that transactions between sidechains and the mainchains compete with regular transactions for space in blocks. It follows then that bigger blocks are advantageous to the development of sidechains and their scale. You should understand this particular bit of information defeats your argument.





Hi Harold, greetings from Canada!Let me clear up a little bit of your misconceptions since its evident truth hasn't made its way to your homeland yet!About Blockstream:1. They are currently participating on a voluntary basis to the development of the Lightning network. The lightning network being an open source development they have no proprietary advantage over its monetization. In fact, you should know the theory behind this protocol was NOT invented by Blockstream whose incorporation and 21 million $ funding round predates the announcement of the Lightning network by a full year. It was only recently following the hiring of developer Rusty Russel that Blockstream began their involvement with lightning development seeing as Rusty had shown previous interest in payment networks (he was working on a micro-transaction network before being hired). Out of a team of probably a dozen developers Rusty is the only one involved with Lightning work at Blockstream. You can find here the lightning development mailing list where you should realise a couple of different developers outside of Blockstream are collaborating to the development progress of this network : http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/ . All this to say that Blockstream's economic model is evidently not based on the Lightning network and this development will not centralize the utility model of Bitcoin to their advantage.2. On sidechains, you will find that they were scarcely advertised as a scaling solution for very good reason: they don't scale particularly well in their existing form. In fact, a little research should reveal to you that transactions between sidechains and the mainchains compete with regular transactions for space in blocks. It follows then that bigger blocks are advantageous to the development of sidechains and their scale. You should understand this particular bit of information defeats your argument. "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

knight22



Offline



Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000





--------------->¿?







LegendaryActivity: 1372Merit: 1000--------------->¿? Re: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream August 29, 2015, 03:34:45 PM #12 Quote from: brg444 on August 29, 2015, 03:25:31 PM Quote from: Har01d on August 29, 2015, 02:58:40 AM



What happened with all this Blockstream, BIPs & XT mess is just a solid presentation of Bitcoins weakest sides and flaws.



Here are three main problems that I see:



1. Blockstream is a cancer for Bitcoin



Personally, I cant (or I dont want to) believe that just $21M, which Blockstream has got from a bunch of investors, will actually ruin Bitcoin as we know it now. The problem is that many people just dont understand the simplest thing: if someone has invested the money in something, they want to get it back in the future. So one way or another, Blockstream is a commercial company, which wants to benefit from the Lightning Network (or the sidechains).



It is absolutely obvious that the smaller the block size is, the more money Blockstream will make. Lets theorize for a moment, that BIP100 has been implemented and miners have voted for 1 KB blocks, so 1 block = 1 transaction. That would be the perfect situation for Blockstream, because as they can take fees in the LN, they would be the only entity who is economically motivated to pay a very big fee for creating a clearing transaction in the blockchain. So the entire blockchain from this moment would consist of single clearing transactions.



Now lets get back to the ground and suppose that we will have 1 MB or 2 MB, or even 10 MB blocks implemented by BIP100, but this size will not rise in the future. Well, now it all depends on how big will Bitcoin grow. If in 2020 we will have 1.000.000 transactions each 10 minutes and the same 1 MB blocks, the calculation is simple and not really different from 1 KB blocks. Lets suppose that Blockstream will get $0.05 for each transaction on the LN as a fee, so for a million LN-transactions the total fee would be $50.000. Now, if Blockstream will use the blockchain for the clearing transactions, they could use the entire 1 MB (~1.500 transactions) for this purpose. $50.000 / 1.500 transactions = $33 per transaction. So no one will have an incentive to push a transaction for $33 in the blockchain while there will be an option to use a sidechain for $0.05. I understand that these calculations are awfully approximate, but this is the economic model of Blockstream. And this is the end of Bitcoins be your own bank as we know it know, because Blockstream is a centralized thing, you know: Sorry, you are banned from the Lightning Network because you havent verified your ID.



And I have another thought about Blockstream I cant stop think about. How in the world do you think they have convinced the investors (who merely understand technical details of Bitcoin protocol) that sidechains is what is needed for Bitcoin? Right, they said exactly the following: Bitcoin has a flow: the block size is limited and cant be increased, because its hardcoded. We solve this problem!. Now its not surprising that investors must be puzzled about whats going on now with all this FUD, because they werent told that there were other solutions. And thats exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people dont want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Cores developers Its that simple.



2. It is not that obvious who decides the future for Bitcoin. Despite the fact that in theory it is the economic majority who should decide the future for Bitcoin, miners still can destroy it in the process



Many people theorize that the majority of miners will not do anything stupid (like accepting 1 KB block size limit or raising the 21M bitcoins limit) because the price will momentarily go down to zero and the miners will lose their money. Yes, they will. And you will too. Or may be they do something stupid and the price will just slightly go down. The global problem is if for any reason in the world the majority would want to commit a suicide, they actually could do it. For example, they could be confused by the greedy guys like Blockstream Anything. And there is literally nothing anyone could do to stop them.



3. The censorship on top of the fact that many people dont understand how Bitcoin (and the Bitcoin consensus in particular) works



Well, I was very confused when I got to know that Theymos was banning all the irrelevant discussions. I dont know whether he is paid by Blockstream or he isnt, but thats not the problem. The problem is that here in the Russian section there are almost no discussions about the Blockstream problem at all! Everybody just thinks that Bitcoin XT will ruin Bitcoin, because it is a fork, so the best option is to sit still and have 1 MB blocks. Thats all. And thats because all articles here in the Russian section are translated from the western media. So the people who doesnt speak English just cant dig into the problem.



And, in my opinion, the problem is not with the Russian section. I believe that there can be a similar problem in the Chinese one. And this problem is a real one, because all top miners are from China.



I dont know what can I do about it



Well, I believe if XT wont succeed and Blockstreams solution will get accepted, I will have only one option: to sell my coins, as it is the only way I can vote. Thats sad, but I dont believe that sidechains are the true Bitcoin.



And as the conclusion, Id like to say that its all about corruption. Well, here we have corrupted Core developers, who develop a commercial project on top of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was invented as a replacement for traditional money to fix some economical problems. If you look at the big picture, it would be interesting to think, that at some point in time, fiat money (which were backed by gold) were invented to fix some problems too. And in time, some people corrupted the idea of fiat money with the current banking system. My point is that if Bitcoin can be broken by corrupted people, it will inevitably be broken. And my biggest fear it has already happened.

I rarely post anything on the forums because I dont speak English as fluently as I want, but this situation is an extraordinary case, so I think I cant resist the temptation to write about it in my broken EnglishWhat happened with all this Blockstream, BIPs & XT mess is just a solid presentation of Bitcoins weakest sides and flaws.Here are three main problems that I see:Personally, I cant (or I dont want to) believe that just $21M, which Blockstream has got from a bunch of investors, will actually ruin Bitcoin as we know it now. The problem is that many people just dont understand the simplest thing: if someone has invested the money in something, they want to get it back in the future. So one way or another, Blockstream is a commercial company, which wants to benefit from the Lightning Network (or the sidechains).It is absolutely obvious that the smaller the block size is, the more money Blockstream will make. Lets theorize for a moment, that BIP100 has been implemented and miners have voted for 1 KB blocks, so 1 block = 1 transaction. That would be the perfect situation for Blockstream, because as they can take fees in the LN, they would be the only entity who is economically motivated to pay a very big fee for creating a clearing transaction in the blockchain. So the entire blockchain from this moment would consist of single clearing transactions.Now lets get back to the ground and suppose that we will have 1 MB or 2 MB, or even 10 MB blocks implemented by BIP100, but this size will not rise in the future. Well, now it all depends on how big will Bitcoin grow. If in 2020 we will have 1.000.000 transactions each 10 minutes and the same 1 MB blocks, the calculation is simple and not really different from 1 KB blocks. Lets suppose that Blockstream will get $0.05 for each transaction on the LN as a fee, so for a million LN-transactions the total fee would be $50.000. Now, if Blockstream will use the blockchain for the clearing transactions, they could use the entire 1 MB (~1.500 transactions) for this purpose. $50.000 / 1.500 transactions = $33 per transaction. So no one will have an incentive to push a transaction for $33 in the blockchain while there will be an option to use a sidechain for $0.05. I understand that these calculations are awfully approximate, but this is the economic model of Blockstream. And this is the end of Bitcoins be your own bank as we know it know, because Blockstream is a centralized thing, you know: Sorry, you are banned from the Lightning Network because you havent verified your ID.And I have another thought about Blockstream I cant stop think about. How in the world do you think they have convinced the investors (who merely understand technical details of Bitcoin protocol) that sidechains is what is needed for Bitcoin? Right, they said exactly the following: Bitcoin has a flow: the block size is limited and cant be increased, because its hardcoded. We solve this problem!. Now its not surprising that investors must be puzzled about whats going on now with all this FUD, because they werent told that there were other solutions. And thats exactly why there is so many censorship on the main Bitcoin boards nowadays: if the investors realize that people dont want to use sidechains, they will not invest more money. Since the Blockstream team consists of the Cores developers Its that simple.Many people theorize that the majority of miners will not do anything stupid (like accepting 1 KB block size limit or raising the 21M bitcoins limit) because the price will momentarily go down to zero and the miners will lose their money. Yes, they will. And you will too. Or may be they do something stupid and the price will just slightly go down. The global problem is if for any reason in the world the majority would want to commit a suicide, they actually could do it. For example, they could be confused by the greedy guys like Blockstream Anything. And there is literally nothing anyone could do to stop them.Well, I was very confused when I got to know that Theymos was banning all the irrelevant discussions. I dont know whether he is paid by Blockstream or he isnt, but thats not the problem. The problem is that here in the Russian section there are almost no discussions about the Blockstream problem at all! Everybody just thinks that Bitcoin XT will ruin Bitcoin, because it is a fork, so the best option is to sit still and have 1 MB blocks. Thats all. And thats because all articles here in the Russian section are translated from the western media. So the people who doesnt speak English just cant dig into the problem.And, in my opinion, the problem is not with the Russian section. I believe that there can be a similar problem in the Chinese one. And this problem is a real one, because all top miners are from China.Well, I believe if XT wont succeed and Blockstreams solution will get accepted, I will have only one option: to sell my coins, as it is the only way I can vote. Thats sad, but I dont believe that sidechains are the true Bitcoin.And as the conclusion, Id like to say that its all about corruption. Well, here we have corrupted Core developers, who develop a commercial project on top of Bitcoin. Bitcoin was invented as a replacement for traditional money to fix some economical problems. If you look at the big picture, it would be interesting to think, that at some point in time, fiat money (which were backed by gold) were invented to fix some problems too. And in time, some people corrupted the idea of fiat money with the current banking system. My point is that if Bitcoin can be broken by corrupted people, it will inevitably be broken. And my biggest fear it has already happened.

Hi Harold, greetings from Canada!



Let me clear up a little bit of your misconceptions since its evident truth hasn't made its way to your homeland yet!



About Blockstream:



1. They are currently participating on a voluntary basis to the development of the Lightning network. The lightning network being an open source development they have no proprietary advantage over its monetization. In fact, you should know the theory behind this protocol was NOT invented by Blockstream whose incorporation and 21 million $ funding round predates the announcement of the Lightning network by a full year. It was only recently following the hiring of developer Rusty Russel that Blockstream began their involvement with lightning development seeing as Rusty had shown previous interest in payment networks (he was working on a micro-transaction network before being hired). Out of a team of probably a dozen developers Rusty is the only one involved with Lightning work at Blockstream. You can find here the lightning development mailing list where you should realise a couple of different developers outside of Blockstream are collaborating to the development progress of this network :



2. On sidechains, you will find that they were scarcely advertised as a scaling solution for very good reason: they don't scale particularly well in their existing form. In fact, a little research should reveal to you that transactions between sidechains and the mainchains compete with regular transactions for space in blocks. It follows then that bigger blocks are advantageous to the development of sidechains and their scale. You should understand this particular bit of information defeats your argument.







Hi Harold, greetings from Canada!Let me clear up a little bit of your misconceptions since its evident truth hasn't made its way to your homeland yet!About Blockstream:1. They are currently participating on a voluntary basis to the development of the Lightning network. The lightning network being an open source development they have no proprietary advantage over its monetization. In fact, you should know the theory behind this protocol was NOT invented by Blockstream whose incorporation and 21 million $ funding round predates the announcement of the Lightning network by a full year. It was only recently following the hiring of developer Rusty Russel that Blockstream began their involvement with lightning development seeing as Rusty had shown previous interest in payment networks (he was working on a micro-transaction network before being hired). Out of a team of probably a dozen developers Rusty is the only one involved with Lightning work at Blockstream. You can find here the lightning development mailing list where you should realise a couple of different developers outside of Blockstream are collaborating to the development progress of this network : http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/ . All this to say that Blockstream's economic model is evidently not based on the Lightning network and this development will not centralize the utility model of Bitcoin to their advantage.2. On sidechains, you will find that they were scarcely advertised as a scaling solution for very good reason: they don't scale particularly well in their existing form. In fact, a little research should reveal to you that transactions between sidechains and the mainchains compete with regular transactions for space in blocks. It follows then that bigger blocks are advantageous to the development of sidechains and their scale. You should understand this particular bit of information defeats your argument.

You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you.



Quote from: meono on August 20, 2015, 06:37:01 AM 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 You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you. Want to know about the banking system scam? Watch this:

The Biggest Scam In The History of Mankind

Money as Debt I & Money as Debt II - Promises Unleashed "We can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years" - Satoshi Nakamoto

1B8XGHhAeXegTUPzysMrAgrPxSqCrcQyyn 1B8XGHhAeXegTUPzysMrAgrPxSqCrcQyyn

brg444



Offline



Activity: 644

Merit: 504



Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks







Hero MemberActivity: 644Merit: 504Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks Re: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream August 29, 2015, 03:53:01 PM #13 Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 03:34:45 PM



Quote from: meono on August 20, 2015, 06:37:01 AM 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 You are so funny. Here some cold truth for you.



Do you have any argument? Let me adjust that list for you to make it... shall we say... a little more honest?



Developer Employer In favor of Gavin Andresen MIT, Coinbase 8mb+ Mike Hearn Google, now Vinumeris, Circle 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 Nick Szabo N/A 1mb Alex Morcos Chaincode Labs 1mb Suhas Daftuar Chaincode Labs 1mb Eric Lombrozo Ciphrex 1mb Jorge Timon N/A 1mb Bram Cohen Bittorrent 1mb

Do you have any argument? Let me adjust that list for you to make it... shall we say... a little more honest? "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

brg444



Offline



Activity: 644

Merit: 504



Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks







Hero MemberActivity: 644Merit: 504Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks Re: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream August 29, 2015, 04:03:28 PM #15 Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 03:57:01 PM You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.



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 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 believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

acquafredda



Offline



Activity: 966

Merit: 1002



Codl water with lemon







LegendaryActivity: 966Merit: 1002Codl water with lemon Re: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream August 29, 2015, 04:13:07 PM #16 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... You only live once, but if you do it right, once is enough

brg444



Offline



Activity: 644

Merit: 504



Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks







Hero MemberActivity: 644Merit: 504Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks Re: Thoughts from Russia on the block size situation and Blockstream August 29, 2015, 04:31:18 PM #19 Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 04:17:51 PM Quote from: brg444 on August 29, 2015, 04:03:28 PM Quote from: knight22 on August 29, 2015, 03:57:01 PM You don't seem to grasp the confilct of interest between blocksteam and Core development. I doubt you someday will because you don't seem to know what a conflict of interest actually is. That's OK.



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 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?

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.

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.

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?



Quote from: brg444 on August 29, 2015, 04:03:28 PM Maybe... try harder?

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? "I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010