How does Blockstream plan on ensuring an ROI for its investors? I understand there is some time-locked bitcoin involved... but this is a business, right?
Sure, discussed at some length in posts here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhn1hlIf you look out there, there are major technical problems in using Bitcoin and applying Bitcoin-like technology to broader industry-- for an example that couldn't be included in the above write-up, though it's surprising to many the #1 cited complain is the lack of commercial privacy in Bitcoin: No one wants their competitors tracking their books, or their customers criticizing their margins.
So, Adam Back and I went out and created confidential transactions; which specifically solved that (currently for private sidechains, but hopefully someday its successors will be available in Bitcoin proper). Who else is going to do that kind of original powerful work? If you don't see the business case for solving the hardest problems in this space, and or enabling the reach of Bitcoin more broadly, then you may be underestimating how powerful and world changing cryptocurrency can be. Fortunately, our investors aren't. And _ensuring_? There are no guarantees in investment.
But even ignoring all that... lets just assume for a moment that Blockstream is really malevolent, and that the protections we built into it (described on that Reddit thread) all failed. What then? We're just a part of Bitcoin Core; and the message I'm giving you is also held by the vast majority of the non-blockstream contributors. I applaud paranoia, but it wouldn't make sense to dismiss the work of the hardest working independent people in the space because of an unsubstantiated maybe about a generous contributor they have collaborated with. If you're going to go down that route, you'll find yourself jumping at every shadow. After all, blockstream could have been kept completely secret-- why would you assume someone really out to serve a private interest wouldn't do so. It is, sadly, not unheard of for people working on Bitcoin to fail to disclose their affiliations. Ironic that some would attack those who disclose them without asking any questions of the rest.
In terms of revenue, you've mentioned private side chains, I assume either by subscription or fee? Some would infer that a somewhat expensive and crowded main chain environment might incubate such services, for transactions generally, not just those seeking confidentiality. Why are they wrong?
Gregory, I'm not trying to diminish the work you've done, which is much more than I will ever do. Some people just have some questions, and I sincerely appreciate your responses.