4 ms·

Hey nullc, I'm a software consultant for my own developing firm. I don't have a conflict of interest. As I've said before, this is a new account and my only ac

by ptokb3 10y ago

Hey nullc, I'm a software consultant for my own developing firm. I don't have a conflict of interest. As I've said before, this is a new account and my only account here. I've read HN for some 5-7 years now as a morning news source and have not gotten involved in the conversation until this point. To the issue: MIT would probably be happy to support more Core developers and that would definitely lessen the current conflict of interest. Is it hard to see that one company paying most of the top developers in the accepted codebase is something that makes people uneasy? It does and the considerable pushback from modest on-chain scaling (which needs to happen eventually anyway) has people worried that you're (Blockstream) is trying to control or limit Bitcoin due to your funding from AXA.

nullc 10y ago
> MIT would probably be happy to support more MIT doesn't support _any_ developers. MIT DCI pays MIT and is funded by undisclosed parties, but you never even care to ask about that. (And not that MIT is magically benevolent, in any case...) We've tried for _years_ to get sustainable funding for development; but the Bitcoin 'industry' is just not interested. > paying most of the top developers Why do you keep repeating this misinformation? As I pointed out, e.g. three of the top ten by commit activity work for blockstream (and all of us were founders of the company). This is not most. > has people worried Has pseudonomyous sock accounts on the Internet who appear to own not much (to zero) Bitcoins; worried, at least. > modest on-chain scaling (which needs to happen eventually anyway) I think all the engineers at blockstream that work on Bitcoin supported segwit which roughly doubles block transaction capacity. (in a backwards compatible while improving scalability, to keep the operating costs low). > due to your funding from AXA Pretty perplexing, AXA isn't even to be broken out in the reports I have (we have many investors). I've never even had a conversation with anyone from AXA myself.
- ptokb3 10y ago
  It was my understanding that Gavin and Wladimir were part of the MIT Media Lab payroll. > you never even care to ask about that Honestly, I don't know where that would be public information to know to ask about it. > to own not much (to zero) Bitcoins; That is not the case. Most people who have been very vocal pushing for larger blocks have significant Bitcoin investments. > segwit which roughly doubles block transaction capacity This only happens if all wallets adopt it, which makes them write/fix their wallet software upstream. That takes time. It's not a quick enough solution for an urgent problem. Last, if you're taking money from someone there is a conflict of interest there. "It's hard to get a man to understand something if his job depends on him not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair Large investors usually want something back for their investments. Maybe you don't know what that is right now, but it's legitimate for regular users to be weary of it.
  - petertodd 10y ago
    > It was my understanding that Gavin and Wladimir were part of the MIT Media Lab payroll. They aren't. The Digital Currency Inititive (DCI) != MIT. Rather, it's a separate entity that's effectively paying MIT for use of the MIT name and administrative infrastructure; we do not know who is actually funding DCI.
    - ptokb3 10y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps the DCI could fund more developers. https://www.media.mit.edu/research/highlights/media-lab-digital-currency-initiative https://www.media.mit.edu/research/highlights/media-lab-digi... It's clearly part of MIT's infrastructure. What you're saying is that the money is not coming directly from MIT.
      - nullc 10y ago
        The money is not coming from MIT. (Though, if it were, I would expect the next complaint would be about the military funding it. :) )
    - sk55 10y ago
      https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/announcing-a-900-000-bitcoin-developer-fund-6e8b7e8b0861#.eychwbpd5 https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative... "Together, we’ve raised $900,000. Donors include companies (BitFury, Bitmain, Chain, Circle and Nasdaq) and individuals (Jim Breyer, Jim Pallotta, Jeff Tarrant, Reid Hoffman and Fred Wilson)...while the funds will be limited to support Bitcoin protocol development, the donors do not have any influence over the developers."
      - petertodd 10y ago
        Ah good, they finally published part of the list (I was discussing that with them in early march in person at MIT). That said, I believe that list is incomplete.
  - nullc 10y ago

by ptokb3 10y ago

nullc 10y ago

> MIT would probably be happy to support more MIT doesn't support _any_ developers. MIT DCI pays MIT and is funded by undisclosed parties, but you never even care to ask about that. (And not that MIT is magically benevolent, in any case...) We've tried for _years_ to get sustainable funding for development; but the Bitcoin 'industry' is just not interested. > paying most of the top developers Why do you keep repeating this misinformation? As I pointed out, e.g. three of the top ten by commit activity work for blockstream (and all of us were founders of the company). This is not most. > has people worried Has pseudonomyous sock accounts on the Internet who appear to own not much (to zero) Bitcoins; worried, at least. > modest on-chain scaling (which needs to happen eventually anyway) I think all the engineers at blockstream that work on Bitcoin supported segwit which roughly doubles block transaction capacity. (in a backwards compatible while improving scalability, to keep the operating costs low). > due to your funding from AXA Pretty perplexing, AXA isn't even to be broken out in the reports I have (we have many investors). I've never even had a conversation with anyone from AXA myself.

ptokb3 10y ago
It was my understanding that Gavin and Wladimir were part of the MIT Media Lab payroll. > you never even care to ask about that Honestly, I don't know where that would be public information to know to ask about it. > to own not much (to zero) Bitcoins; That is not the case. Most people who have been very vocal pushing for larger blocks have significant Bitcoin investments. > segwit which roughly doubles block transaction capacity This only happens if all wallets adopt it, which makes them write/fix their wallet software upstream. That takes time. It's not a quick enough solution for an urgent problem. Last, if you're taking money from someone there is a conflict of interest there. "It's hard to get a man to understand something if his job depends on him not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair Large investors usually want something back for their investments. Maybe you don't know what that is right now, but it's legitimate for regular users to be weary of it.
- petertodd 10y ago
  > It was my understanding that Gavin and Wladimir were part of the MIT Media Lab payroll. They aren't. The Digital Currency Inititive (DCI) != MIT. Rather, it's a separate entity that's effectively paying MIT for use of the MIT name and administrative infrastructure; we do not know who is actually funding DCI.
  - ptokb3 10y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. Perhaps the DCI could fund more developers. https://www.media.mit.edu/research/highlights/media-lab-digital-currency-initiative https://www.media.mit.edu/research/highlights/media-lab-digi... It's clearly part of MIT's infrastructure. What you're saying is that the money is not coming directly from MIT.
    - nullc 10y ago
      The money is not coming from MIT. (Though, if it were, I would expect the next complaint would be about the military funding it. :) )
  - sk55 10y ago
    https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/announcing-a-900-000-bitcoin-developer-fund-6e8b7e8b0861#.eychwbpd5 https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative... "Together, we’ve raised $900,000. Donors include companies (BitFury, Bitmain, Chain, Circle and Nasdaq) and individuals (Jim Breyer, Jim Pallotta, Jeff Tarrant, Reid Hoffman and Fred Wilson)...while the funds will be limited to support Bitcoin protocol development, the donors do not have any influence over the developers."
    - petertodd 10y ago
      Ah good, they finally published part of the list (I was discussing that with them in early march in person at MIT). That said, I believe that list is incomplete.
- nullc 10y ago