I’ve only been keeping loose track of what’s going on, but bitcoin core/blockstream feels like a hostile corporate takeover of bitcoin, especially with how they’ve been trying to patent things and then implement technical changes conducive to the success of those patents.
The decisions made in the name of partial backwards compatibility (the way P2SH works, segwit) have been extremely poor from a technical standpoint and seem more like a bid for job security through obfuscation than anything that belongs in high-assurance software.
As far as I can tell, everyone involved is questionable. The “Bitcoin Cash” fork has a number of important and relevant points on bitcoin scaling … and then puts forward Craig “not Satoshi” Wright as any sort of expert in anything whatsoever. What. (And Wright’s company, nChain, is also accumulating patents at a rate of knots and sabre-rattling about who they will and won’t licence them to.)
I think belief in Craig Wright’s claims of being Satoshi vary a lot. I think it’s unfair to draw a connection between Bitcoin Cash and Craig Wright - there’s no official connection at all and most people like me consider him an irritant in the community rather than a luminary. While some Bitcoin Cash supporters believe Craig Wright that doesn’t speak for everyone. Given that he’s being investigated by a fraud squad I feel his claim is dubious at best.
I think he’s deep in the guts of the Bitcoin Cash effort and is working directly with its promoters, c.f. a speaking slot at Future Of Bitcoin, he and his many fans (all of a remarkably similar writing style) on /r/btc, etc., etc., etc. They’re actively putting him forward, he’s not just showing up of his own volition and jumping to the front of some existing crowd.
I also don’t see how anyone could look at the evidence and think Craig Wright had anything whatsoever to do with the creation of Bitcoin. I mean, evidently >0 do, but what the.
Blockstream has some patents on LN stuff, which I believe they’ve put under the Defensive Patent LIcense. People are patenting blockchain-related stuff, so not patenting may not be a viable option.
I’ve been keeping a close eye on things and to me it seems like the exact opposite. Bitcoin core developers are the only group that care about the longer term viability and improvement of bitcoin. They make technically justified decisions towards improving the protocol with as little disruption to the ecosystem as possible.
In contrast, most other entities seek short term benefits. Miners want higher profits, businesses want to remain relevant and maximize profits, users want tx fees to be as low as possible right now. But very few seem to care about how today’s decisions shape the protocol long term.
I think your assessment is pretty accurate. Blockstream is a company who wants to make a profit by selling their only product “Liquid”. I believe their strategy is to take over the core development team and then deliberately mismanage bitcoin in such a way that fees are unpredictable and high. This part has already happened. With all these problems at some point Liquid looks like a necessary technology just to make things work again. Once adoption of Liquid is widespread they can start making money by acting as fees gatekeepers on bitcoin.
It seems like a dumb plan but given that Liquid is literally their only product it’s the only business plan that makes sense given their actions.
Divide and conquer - the more currencies on the market, the less value they represent and people are more confused. This is very good for ‘old economy’.
I’ve only been keeping loose track of what’s going on, but bitcoin core/blockstream feels like a hostile corporate takeover of bitcoin, especially with how they’ve been trying to patent things and then implement technical changes conducive to the success of those patents.
The decisions made in the name of partial backwards compatibility (the way P2SH works, segwit) have been extremely poor from a technical standpoint and seem more like a bid for job security through obfuscation than anything that belongs in high-assurance software.
As far as I can tell, everyone involved is questionable. The “Bitcoin Cash” fork has a number of important and relevant points on bitcoin scaling … and then puts forward Craig “not Satoshi” Wright as any sort of expert in anything whatsoever. What. (And Wright’s company, nChain, is also accumulating patents at a rate of knots and sabre-rattling about who they will and won’t licence them to.)
The BitCoin landscape in a nutshell right there :)
I think belief in Craig Wright’s claims of being Satoshi vary a lot. I think it’s unfair to draw a connection between Bitcoin Cash and Craig Wright - there’s no official connection at all and most people like me consider him an irritant in the community rather than a luminary. While some Bitcoin Cash supporters believe Craig Wright that doesn’t speak for everyone. Given that he’s being investigated by a fraud squad I feel his claim is dubious at best.
I think he’s deep in the guts of the Bitcoin Cash effort and is working directly with its promoters, c.f. a speaking slot at Future Of Bitcoin, he and his many fans (all of a remarkably similar writing style) on /r/btc, etc., etc., etc. They’re actively putting him forward, he’s not just showing up of his own volition and jumping to the front of some existing crowd.
I also don’t see how anyone could look at the evidence and think Craig Wright had anything whatsoever to do with the creation of Bitcoin. I mean, evidently >0 do, but what the.
where can i read more about this?
Blockstream has some patents on LN stuff, which I believe they’ve put under the Defensive Patent LIcense. People are patenting blockchain-related stuff, so not patenting may not be a viable option.
I’ve been keeping a close eye on things and to me it seems like the exact opposite. Bitcoin core developers are the only group that care about the longer term viability and improvement of bitcoin. They make technically justified decisions towards improving the protocol with as little disruption to the ecosystem as possible.
In contrast, most other entities seek short term benefits. Miners want higher profits, businesses want to remain relevant and maximize profits, users want tx fees to be as low as possible right now. But very few seem to care about how today’s decisions shape the protocol long term.
I wonder which BitCoin fork will be the straw that breaks the camel’s back?
Currently, many people seem to buy Bitcoin and dump Ethereum and other altcoins. At the Bitcoin Cash fork, both currencies went up.
I think your assessment is pretty accurate. Blockstream is a company who wants to make a profit by selling their only product “Liquid”. I believe their strategy is to take over the core development team and then deliberately mismanage bitcoin in such a way that fees are unpredictable and high. This part has already happened. With all these problems at some point Liquid looks like a necessary technology just to make things work again. Once adoption of Liquid is widespread they can start making money by acting as fees gatekeepers on bitcoin.
It seems like a dumb plan but given that Liquid is literally their only product it’s the only business plan that makes sense given their actions.
Divide and conquer - the more currencies on the market, the less value they represent and people are more confused. This is very good for ‘old economy’.