5 ms·

That completely mis-characterizes Maxwell and Blockstream's position. It isn't that "the rules are the rules and we got to live with them." Rather larger, slowe

by maaku 11y ago

That completely mis-characterizes Maxwell and Blockstream's position. It isn't that "the rules are the rules and we got to live with them." Rather larger, slower to validate, slower to relay blocks creates centralization pressures, and centralization destroys the user protections at the heart of Bitcoin's value proposition. Blockstream has no position on the block size debate, other than supporting the consensus building process (whatever the outcome might be). Blockstream's business model does not depend in any way shape or form on small blocks. That is pure FUD. In fact, small blocks are a hindrance to things like sidechains, which generally use much larger transactions for the two-way peg smart contracts. Some of the risks called out in the sidechains whitepaper are that Bitcoin blocks might be too small to contain a return peg, or that full blocks will make it difficult to get a fraud proof on chain before the expiry. Everyone stands to benefit from larger blocks, but only so long as the network remains decentralized. The debate is over where to draw that line. (Disclaimer: I'm a co-founder of Blockstream.)

bachback 11y ago
Core/blockstream's position is not consistent and logical. Should users be able to make decisions? Should core developers be able to over-ride those decisions? Bitcoin is a system with majority decision making. Making Side-chains the major cornerstone of the Bitcoin ecosystem will turn out to be a mistake. Side-chains don't make much sense if you understand incentives and risk. The same applies to Lightning which will equally be a failure. Unfortunately in the Bitcoin core dev bubble there isn't much actual discussion of these things. Talking about FUD, when Core/Blockstream has very massive leverage I find misleading. There are better ways to handle governance in OSS and cryptocurrency then founding a private enterprise.
- Anonobread 11y ago
  > There are better ways to handle governance in OSS and cryptocurrency then founding a private enterprise First, only one core developer with commit access, Pieter Wuille, is affiliated with Blockstream. Yes - the fact that founders of Blockstream are PhDs in distributed systems and cryptography, and the fact that many of them have authored essential elements of the Bitcoin system like libsecp256k1 gives them a purely meritocratic sway over developer mindshare, and for good reason. Second, according to your words here you've done the impossible - you've finally figured out how to handle all money issues in open source projects. Gosh, that's really something. Don't just leave us hanging like that, do divulge what you think is the optimum way to ensure highly skilled developers and researchers work on open source projects for free.
  - bachback 11y ago
    > researchers work on open source projects for free. There is 6B$ in Bitcoin wealth floating around, surely there are means for funding a few salaries. And that's what is going to happen in the future. Funding will take place through on-blockchain methods, some Cryptocurrency projects do this already. Money and opensource is now tightly connected, but Bitcoiners generally haven't figured this out yet. For more innovative ways checkout Ethereum, Bitshares, Nxt, etc.
    - Anonobread 11y ago
      Gosh, you almost had me for a second there. But no, I'm afraid you'll have to do a bit more than merely allude to (non-)solutions, or point out how paper gains are enough motivation to keep experts who could otherwise be earning 6 figure incomes, to instead work full time on difficult solutions for free. That you've taken absolutely no effort to spell out any of this magic success formula and instead chosen to allude to altcoins is sadly typical. Bottom line: nobody has figured out how to sustainably support open source projects with money, period. In the best case, it's the blind leading the blind. You do what works. And whose to say what works? It's ridiculously subjective.
      - maaku 11y ago
        Also, paper gains don't put food on the table. I _tried_ the "live off community contributions and bitcoin appreciation" approach. It put me $30k in debt and almost destroyed my marriage. Said the GP: > There is 6B$ in Bitcoin wealth floating around, surely there are means for funding a few salaries. Isn't that exactly what Blockstream is doing?
- maaku 11y ago
  > Core/blockstream's position is not consistent and logical. Please don't conflate Bitcoin Core and Blockstream. > Should users be able to make decisions? Should core developers be able to over-ride those decisions? Bitcoin is a system with majority decision making. Bitcoin is not a majority-rule system. The only point in which a majority rule applies is a tie-breaking strategy for resolving valid ledger branching. And that vote doesn't enfranchise users! Bitcoin is a system that explicitly rejects majority rule. It replaces user determination with fixed, inflexible machine arbitration. It is from this fact that Bitcoin is not a democracy that it derives all of its user-protecting properties like irrevocable payments and inflationary protections. > Making Side-chains the major cornerstone of the Bitcoin ecosystem will turn out to be a mistake. Side-chains don't make much sense if you understand incentives and risk. The same applies to Lightning which will equally be a failure. You are welcome to your own opinions. Thankfully your permission is not required to new, innovative use of scripting features that were built into bitcoin from day 1.

by maaku 11y ago

bachback 11y ago

Core/blockstream's position is not consistent and logical. Should users be able to make decisions? Should core developers be able to over-ride those decisions? Bitcoin is a system with majority decision making. Making Side-chains the major cornerstone of the Bitcoin ecosystem will turn out to be a mistake. Side-chains don't make much sense if you understand incentives and risk. The same applies to Lightning which will equally be a failure. Unfortunately in the Bitcoin core dev bubble there isn't much actual discussion of these things. Talking about FUD, when Core/Blockstream has very massive leverage I find misleading. There are better ways to handle governance in OSS and cryptocurrency then founding a private enterprise.

Anonobread 11y ago
> There are better ways to handle governance in OSS and cryptocurrency then founding a private enterprise First, only one core developer with commit access, Pieter Wuille, is affiliated with Blockstream. Yes - the fact that founders of Blockstream are PhDs in distributed systems and cryptography, and the fact that many of them have authored essential elements of the Bitcoin system like libsecp256k1 gives them a purely meritocratic sway over developer mindshare, and for good reason. Second, according to your words here you've done the impossible - you've finally figured out how to handle all money issues in open source projects. Gosh, that's really something. Don't just leave us hanging like that, do divulge what you think is the optimum way to ensure highly skilled developers and researchers work on open source projects for free.
- bachback 11y ago
  > researchers work on open source projects for free. There is 6B$ in Bitcoin wealth floating around, surely there are means for funding a few salaries. And that's what is going to happen in the future. Funding will take place through on-blockchain methods, some Cryptocurrency projects do this already. Money and opensource is now tightly connected, but Bitcoiners generally haven't figured this out yet. For more innovative ways checkout Ethereum, Bitshares, Nxt, etc.
  - Anonobread 11y ago
    Gosh, you almost had me for a second there. But no, I'm afraid you'll have to do a bit more than merely allude to (non-)solutions, or point out how paper gains are enough motivation to keep experts who could otherwise be earning 6 figure incomes, to instead work full time on difficult solutions for free. That you've taken absolutely no effort to spell out any of this magic success formula and instead chosen to allude to altcoins is sadly typical. Bottom line: nobody has figured out how to sustainably support open source projects with money, period. In the best case, it's the blind leading the blind. You do what works. And whose to say what works? It's ridiculously subjective.
    - maaku 11y ago
      Also, paper gains don't put food on the table. I _tried_ the "live off community contributions and bitcoin appreciation" approach. It put me $30k in debt and almost destroyed my marriage. Said the GP: > There is 6B$ in Bitcoin wealth floating around, surely there are means for funding a few salaries. Isn't that exactly what Blockstream is doing?
maaku 11y ago
> Core/blockstream's position is not consistent and logical. Please don't conflate Bitcoin Core and Blockstream. > Should users be able to make decisions? Should core developers be able to over-ride those decisions? Bitcoin is a system with majority decision making. Bitcoin is not a majority-rule system. The only point in which a majority rule applies is a tie-breaking strategy for resolving valid ledger branching. And that vote doesn't enfranchise users! Bitcoin is a system that explicitly rejects majority rule. It replaces user determination with fixed, inflexible machine arbitration. It is from this fact that Bitcoin is not a democracy that it derives all of its user-protecting properties like irrevocable payments and inflationary protections. > Making Side-chains the major cornerstone of the Bitcoin ecosystem will turn out to be a mistake. Side-chains don't make much sense if you understand incentives and risk. The same applies to Lightning which will equally be a failure. You are welcome to your own opinions. Thankfully your permission is not required to new, innovative use of scripting features that were built into bitcoin from day 1.