Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 08, 2016, 12:54:54 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on March 08, 2016, 12:37:29 AM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 08, 2016, 12:10:34 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on March 07, 2016, 11:44:48 PM

Quote from: JayJuanGee on March 07, 2016, 11:08:19 PM

O.k... take for example, when a few months ago, he said that Coinbase was going to support Classic XT etc...

FTFU - Coinbase said they were going to test XT...

Ok. thanks.. I was kind of shooting off the cuff.. by memory... but what you say sounds exactly correct... and much more accurate than what I said.. but my point, in part, was that Armstrong has been increasing and increasing and increasing his involvement in the debate, rather than merely making statements regarding what his company was going to do.. he is currently seeming to be involved in an ongoing battle of persuasion to convince a lot others what they should do, too... which for me is beginning to come off as a bit much and causing me desires to remove some of my dinero from their system.

Armstrong's is working in the best interests of his investors. His investors are invested in a decentralized control of Bitcoin where they can leverage there competitive advantage.

A lot of people are ignoring the centralized authoritative control over the direction bitcoin development is taking, but the fact remains as much as I dislike Coinbase there company's success is built on the success of the same Bitcoin I'm invested in.

Blockstream are working to change bitcoin in a way that will undermine Coinbase, it will undermine the Bitcoin I'm invested in. Should Bitcoin be optimized today as a settlement network their company vision and business model is dead in the water. That in its self is not a reason to not optimist bitcoin to be a settlement network. I have a preference to see bitcoin evolve organically, I think its premature to limit the block size as a stimulus to catalyse bitcoin as a settlement network. I want to decentralize financial control and totally disrupt incumbent financial players.

I want as many people as is technically feasible to settle directly with each other on the blockchain, that doesn't mean I don't want to see LN, or off chane networks, it just means I want LN or Coinbase to succeed or fail on there own merits I don't want to see anyone controlling the development direction in bitcoin to favor one or the other business models.

Sure... fair enough that you described your perception of what the interests are here, yet I don't agree that you are reflecting it accurately when you suggest that coinbase is aiming for decentralized bitcoin and that somehow blockstream is in control of core's direction.

I personally see the current situation as classic, xt, coinbase and other advocates of change failing to meet their burdens of evidence and/or persuasion and therefore, core sticks with the status quo. At the same time the advocates of classic, xt and coinbase etc are very vocal and emotional about the lack of change because they believe that they have sufficiently met the burden of evidence and/or persuasion... or that being louder is going to carry some weight in the decision making regarding change or future direction of bitcoin etc.

There is no ruling out future changes so long as any such proposed changes are presented as convincing to a large majority of the stakeholders in order to test and adopt the changes. At this point, no one is really controlling bitcoin.. it remains decentralized, and the fact that neither xt or classic were implemented helps to show that it remains decentralized.. sure at some point some version of various aspects of each xt and/or classic may be incorporated.. just like seg wit is currently in the works. whether it is blockstream, coinbase or any other company, they will need to work around these anticipated directions, and I am repeating that I am pulling a lot of my money out of coinbase because I continue to perceive that they are continuing to be too pushy in the space in their efforts to achieve consensus by stick rather than carrot... or maybe just having less activism from Coinbase would be more appealing to me under these current circumstances.

I see bitcoin first and foremost as a value exchange protocol and code second, the change to the economic incentives that preserve bitcoin as the biggest threat we see today, and while the Core Developers will have the code peer reviewed they have no economic insight to suggest their changes are economically sound, let alone a peer review of any economic impact study.

The evidence is there, the problem is FUD a result of the inability to appropriately assess the risks. I may just rate the relative risks differently. Blockstream's conflict of interest and the fact many of the Core Developers have a salary dependant on not understanding the risks is beyond suspicious.