Any circumstances where Blockstream’s actions could actually be seen as a “positive” for Bitcoin?

Any circumstances where Blockstream’s actions could actually be seen as a “positive” for Bitcoin? Any chain of events which would make Blockstream’s actions contribute more faith in Bitcoin or the Bitcoin ecosystem? Misguidedness of Blockstream’s Core roadmap (for their own self-serving motives), and how their conceptualisation is figuratively destroying the entire Bitcoin ecosystem. Not to cite the censorship, the DDOS attacks, the propaganda, the backroom deals, the centralization of miners & Core developers, etc.

It isn’t exclusively about success or failure of the technology conceptualization they have taken. For me it is also about governing and centralization – and currently Blockstream-Core IS failing the governance test. Bitcoin has become controlled and centralized by a group that has put its business interests ahead of the community interests. There is no evidence that can be made currently that changes my mind on that issue. The only thing that could be done, is to instantly allow the block size to scale to 2 mb, and to stop the whole Segwit is a Softfork bunk , and to then do it honestly, as a Hard Fork, which I am not necessarily against. It is such a small thing, and it doesn’t endanger Blockstream’s ability to go on to develop Lightening.

The small block side devs are very gifted , no doubt, and they are pushing for forward engineering progress on Bitcoin. That’s a plus. The problem comes in the form of preparation , outlook and adaptability , though.

From day one Bitcoin, for all it wanted to achieve, had future scaling challenges. It was always thought the technical team will find solutions along with natural technology improvements and development would sufficiently address these. So I saw a model including heavy dependence on off-chain transactions from the earliest days on Bitcointalk. However, I did think the core network would itself handle a significant amount of volume, far more than the capacity at the time, which is the same as it is today at 1MB blocks.

So while everyone acknowledged the scaling problem, it seems we all had differing ideas on how to address it. I didn’t know it at the time, but apparently Greg Maxwell always believed what he believes today, that approx 1MB blocks would be permanent with external systems attached to it handling transactions.

I’d say that’s a fairly radical view for what the community in general believed. I do think there is a chance it could work. I just think the chance is smaller than it need be. The problem is the Blockstream side of the argument is prepared to take a chance on a riskier vision/model working and accepting failure of the whole project if it doesn’t. Bitcoin is guaranteed to fail should it not meet community capacity needs. Nobody disputes that. OTOH there is only a possibility that centralization occurs if the network takes on too much  load, and even there we don’t know where that threshold is, and even then there is nothing saying the centralization would be permanent (tech would continue improving). So why such insistence on not handling any significant volume on the core network? That’s IMO where the small block side seems too stubborn and unreasonable.

Leave a Reply