bily bob zorton
you forget
adamback CEO
gmaxwell CTO

hypocrite

as for other hypocrites who pretend to be defending bitcoin decentralisation and "free market"

here is carlton before he became a blockstream defender

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 17, 2015, 05:41:20 PM

Dynamic resizing is the obvious compromise between the camps. Everyone can get what they claim to want from it, without having to compromise either.

The market could even try out bigger blocks, decide it doesn't work, try the alternative, dislike that more than bigger blocks, and then revert to some compromoise blocksize. Y'know, it's almost as if the free market works better than central planning...

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 31, 2015, 11:29:15 AM

That's similar to my position also. I support an algorithmically determined blocksize limit, but sadly we don't have any complete proposals yet.

here is carlton at the same month transitioning to being a blockstream defender

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 31, 2015, 12:47:27 AM

Quote from: MarketNeutral on August 31, 2015, 12:16:58 AM

If I could pick a Bitcoin dictator, I'd pick Szabo.

And you have to. This area (the dev team) is where the decentralisation paradigm loses its usefullness.

People keep making the argument: "Decentralise everything! Let the users decide on difficult technical problems!"

Software Development teams can only be a small number of individuals, with a preferably smaller number of members with commit access to the project. The fact that we have a really amiable, pragmatic guy in that role right now has been consistently good for Bitcoin; Wladimir van der Laan is exactly the type of leader I like.

and just as he transitions to be a blockstream defender

Quote from: Carlton Banks on August 29, 2015, 09:34:24 PM

Any arguments that their plans to monetise aren't public are not credible. Plans are public and benign to the interest of the stakeholders. Known shills in this thread claim otherwise when it has been explained to them already.

Any arguments that suggest this centralises the dev team further are not credible. It's centralised now, it was centralised before, and it will be centralised under any other management. That's how the development process works.

However, any arguments that Blockstream are deficient in their design ideas are those that I am willing to entertain. I'm not as familiar with their proposal as I could be, still haven't read it in full. But if Blockstream ever appear to be against the spirit of Bitcoin, I will not favour their solution, or anything that promotes it.

Superficially at least, Blockstream satisfies that basic stipulation; Blockstream's proposals thus far only enhance Bitcoin. We will have wait to see if that's what materialises.

and then when he is full on centralist blockstream defender. and no longer bitcoin decentralised defender
revealing that blockstream want their TIER network where devs control bitcoin

Quote from: Carlton Banks on September 23, 2015, 10:50:25 AM

It's tiered. 3 tiers.

Tier 1 is the development team
Tier 2 is the miners.
Tier 3 is the users.

and as segwit is now revealing. that blockstream want to be the upstream filters of their TIER network [blockstream segwit Fibre] to totally dominate not just proposals. but the users control. leaving the rest of the network in a cess pool of prunned, spv, witness stripped nodes that cant sync with each other and are reliant on blockstream nodes.