3 ms·

You think the likelihood of all these things are comparable? The president of the Bilderburg group literally provided the bulk of the funding for Blockstream.

You think the likelihood of all these things are comparable? The president of the Bilderburg group literally provided the bulk of the funding for Blockstream. That should be considered with some seriousness shouldn't it?

frankenst1 6y ago
> You think the likelihood of all these things are comparable? Epstein contributed funding to MIT Media Labs which run the Digital Currency Group which provided funding to Bitcoin developers. Boom. Conspiracy confirmed. Conspiracy theories are just like playing a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon. The reason why you need to introduce large players like MasterCard or AXA or whatever is because the larger they are the more likely you are able to draw a connection to anything in the world. Unless you can produce a falsifiable prediction based on your conspiracy theory they are no more than an entertaining drinking game.
- briefcomment 6y ago
  I believe the claim is that Blockstream supporting smaller block sizes could be a conflict of interest because they sell transaction services. This suggests that Mastercard could be backing them as a hedge for their transaction fee business, meaning the market's call for larger block sizes could be someday be manipulated/disregarded. Only reason I'm paying attention to this is that if the market one day wants larger block sizes (i.e. hardware gets to a point where more people can run nodes to the point that a reasonable amount of decentralization is possible with larger blocks), Blockstream may hold bitcoin back from transitioning, and something with a larger block size could see a considerable increase in market size. I would think they would accede if there were a reasonable risk of bitcoin losing share because they are keeping blocks too small, but maybe not.
  - frankenst1 6y ago
    Could you explain how Blockstream could influence the Bitcoin development process to act against the "market's call", e.g. which developers do you have in mind which currently work for Blockstream and have the power to overrule/manipulate other Bitcoin developers against their/the market's will?
    - briefcomment 6y ago
      Idk, that's why I need to read into this further. Many seriously think Adam is Satoshi though, so what he wants could get outsized support, regardless if there is explicit coercion or not.
      - frankenst1 6y ago
        > Idk, that's why I need to read into this further. So you are spreading conspiracy theories without substance and hide behind "I don't know, I am just asking questions"? Here is the list of all contributors (even those just fixing typos in the docs) to the latest Bitcoin release: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.21.0.md#credits https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-n... Can you name just one who is also employed by Blockstream (let alone one with the weight to convince others to act against consensus)?

frankenst1 6y ago

> You think the likelihood of all these things are comparable? Epstein contributed funding to MIT Media Labs which run the Digital Currency Group which provided funding to Bitcoin developers. Boom. Conspiracy confirmed. Conspiracy theories are just like playing a game of six degrees of Kevin Bacon. The reason why you need to introduce large players like MasterCard or AXA or whatever is because the larger they are the more likely you are able to draw a connection to anything in the world. Unless you can produce a falsifiable prediction based on your conspiracy theory they are no more than an entertaining drinking game.

briefcomment 6y ago
I believe the claim is that Blockstream supporting smaller block sizes could be a conflict of interest because they sell transaction services. This suggests that Mastercard could be backing them as a hedge for their transaction fee business, meaning the market's call for larger block sizes could be someday be manipulated/disregarded. Only reason I'm paying attention to this is that if the market one day wants larger block sizes (i.e. hardware gets to a point where more people can run nodes to the point that a reasonable amount of decentralization is possible with larger blocks), Blockstream may hold bitcoin back from transitioning, and something with a larger block size could see a considerable increase in market size. I would think they would accede if there were a reasonable risk of bitcoin losing share because they are keeping blocks too small, but maybe not.
- frankenst1 6y ago
  Could you explain how Blockstream could influence the Bitcoin development process to act against the "market's call", e.g. which developers do you have in mind which currently work for Blockstream and have the power to overrule/manipulate other Bitcoin developers against their/the market's will?
  - briefcomment 6y ago
    Idk, that's why I need to read into this further. Many seriously think Adam is Satoshi though, so what he wants could get outsized support, regardless if there is explicit coercion or not.
    - frankenst1 6y ago
      > Idk, that's why I need to read into this further. So you are spreading conspiracy theories without substance and hide behind "I don't know, I am just asking questions"? Here is the list of all contributors (even those just fixing typos in the docs) to the latest Bitcoin release: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-notes/release-notes-0.21.0.md#credits https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/release-n... Can you name just one who is also employed by Blockstream (let alone one with the weight to convince others to act against consensus)?