Quote from: tvbcof on November 01, 2014, 01:28:13 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on October 31, 2014, 09:56:21 PM

...
alarm bells should be going off in all Bitcoin holders heads right now. this isn't right even if the SC concept were valid, which i don't think it is.

Alarm bells went of in my head when Gavin visited the CFR and would not commit to transparency. Then when he got back he wouldn't even give a debriefing about what went down.

Long before that alarm bells went off in my head about Hearn (who you seem to have a man crush on for some reason) who has tried every thing he can to get Bitcoin under control of TPTB. Unlimited growth, 'red'listing, positive ID through mainstream passports, etc, etc.

When Gavin newly proposed exponential blocksize growth that sealed it for me. He did some good stuff back before he became 'principle scientist' and started the Bitcoin Foundation, but I've seen nothing since then. Even his dev priorities when he did seem to have his head in more or less the right place have done very little to actually strengthen the solution. I dunno what his trip is, but I'm convinced that it is not good for Bitcoin or my stash.

As for the Blockstream guys, making a living off an open-source project is very common and most often benefits both the community and the clients who will pay them. You may be serious in trying to spin this thing as something nefarious, but in that case you are just showing more of you ignorance.

The point is less that "it happens all the time", and more that SC are potentially competition for Bitcoin as much as they are collaboration with Bitcoin.
How many of your competition work in the core engine of your business, and how comfortable are you with that notion?