Quote from: xyzzy099 on August 28, 2015, 11:15:21 PM

Quote from: billyjoeallen on August 28, 2015, 10:45:35 PM

Quote from: JorgeStolfi on August 28, 2015, 08:27:40 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on August 28, 2015, 03:06:40 PM

all this time we were worried about central control systems from outside but it turns out they are like cancer they grow from within.

And they thrive because the organism fails to recognize tumors as malignant, and even feeds them more than the sane organs.

I am in agreement with Stolfi? This isn't the end of Bitcoin. It's the end of the world! Shocked

1. Seriously, the core dev's involvement with Blockstream is a real conflict of interest. Sidechains can be used as a way to route around a bottleneck. They will profit from bottlenecks that they created in the first place.

2. There is something wrong with a protocol if there is no diversity of code running on top of it, or that can run on top of it.

3. It's silly to argue about the trade-offs in scalability vs mining decentralization when code development is so centralized that it is essentially a monopoly.

1) I don't think see any way this can be avoided. The top Bitcoin developers will always be in demand by the top Bitcoin-related companies, and developers are free to work for anyone they want. I don't think it's really a problem in the long run. If people really believe that the Bitcoin Core project is compromised by developer self-interest, someone will start a BitcoinXT-like project, and Core will no longer define what IS Bitcoin.

I would caution that you shouldn't assume out-of-hand that developers are acting purely in their own interest, like Dr. Stolfi does. Isn't it possible that the Core devs who are also Bitstream devs have thought a lot longer and harder about this problem than most of us, and realized (like I said earlier) that there really IS no way (as of now) to have Bitcoin be both scalable AND decentralized, and set about building a project that might insure that Bitcoin will still be usable anyway? Sure they MIGHT be acting solely (or even partly) in their own interest. But making money out of having the foresight to anticipate this problem does not, a priori, mean that their solution is not the RIGHT solution.

2) I can't parse this. If you think a protocol must have multiple, conflicting versions of itself, you may not understand what the word 'protocol' means. If you mean something related to alt coins, I would point out that there are plenty of those already.

3) It's not just an issue of mining scalability - it's a matter of even being able to just run a validating node. There is no monopoly, as Gavin and Mike have proven. Anyone who is unhappy can fork, and if the world agrees with them, their fork will become Bitcoin.

A rational post for once. 10/10. Would read again