Well, then please refer me to the post that addresses my last question: Does Gavin's salary paid by the Bitcoin Foundation create a conflict of interest?
Or another question: Does Bitcoin Foundation try to discourage development of off-chain transactions technologies, in favour of increasing the block size?
If you're going to ask that question it's also reasonable to demand that everybody who is opposed to raising the limit disclose whether or not they are developing or invested in competing cryptocurrencies or transaction processing systems.
That is also a conflict of interests.
The only things I've ever been interested in are ways to allow scalability since that bothered me about Bitcoin within seconds of understanding the basics of the network and the design of it's decentralization.
- 'http://bakcoin.org' I abandoned, but it was envisioned to support 'best-of-breed' exchange currencies and thus, hopefully, Bitcoin.
- 'http://bitcoin-legacy.org' is arguably Bitcoin. (Oh, I need to make a slight correction there...done.)
- 'http://paracoin.org' is Bitcoin by design...until Bitcoin 'fails' at least.
I've never held any alternate crypto-currencies or had much interest in them since none that I know of focus on real scaling issues. I have given BTC to friend and encouraged them to knock themselves out playing with alternates in the hopes that some good ideas and code spring from them, but generally it's not worth my time to play with them.
The idea of a 'debt based' system which can move 'debt' to where it is needed is a powerful one and very interesting. But Ripple is is closed source and centralized from the get-go which is a non-starter for me. It's a completely opposite beast than Bitcoin (in my mind), but that is fine and actually a good thing.
Open Transactions seems to rock, and is exactly the class of solution I see as being the best hope for Bitcoin in any capacity where it has a realistic chance of being worth a shit (where 'worth' is not meant to be taken as in monetary terms.)
edit: url fix