Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 01:55:59 AM

Quote from: justusranvier on December 31, 2014, 01:43:54 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 01:31:54 AM

so i ask you, Adam, why should i do a 180 degree flip in what i was sold back then and now "trust" you to do what's right for Bitcoin when you have a fiduciary duty to do what's right for Blockstream?

Despite all promises made, my question was never answered:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhni79

furthermore, imo for global adoption to occur, Bitcoin must be free from all conflicts of interest. it has evolved to the level of a public good.

For conflict freedom to occur (and I think its an interesting and useful objective) bitcoin perhaps needs to be simplified and frozen, maybe moved to a formally provable specification rather than code as definition. Soft-forks could be prevented by consensus rule if we were convinced of perfect correctness.

Hard-forks are harder to foist on people because they require a near absolute majority whereas soft-forks are a bit more miner influenceable.

If we had an extension mechanism that doesnt touch core once setup, the core becomes that bit closer to freezable & formal specifiable refactor becoming possible. If we have the possibility for live-betas we are more likely to be able to get to formal specification as definition. (Thats a hard-fork for sure).

Another aspect of conflict freedom (other than freezing and forcing change to be hard-fork) is to enable permissionless innovation - then there's no conflict, people who want to try things can go try them without lobbying for changes to bitcoin. Also good.

Adam