Author Topic: Bitcoin Core developers along with Blockstream are destroying Bitcoin  (Read 126 times)

Offline administrator

  • Administrator
  • Newbie
  • *****
  • Posts: 37660
    • View Profile
source: https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@satoshibakery/bitcoin-core-developers-along-with-blockstream-are-destroying-bitcoin

Quote
Bitcoin Core developers are evil

Right now the miners are using software they fork from github/bitcoin, which is in control of Bitcoin Core developers and Blockstream.
If Segwit2x happens, the miners will use different Github Repository to get the software, effectively "firing" the Core members, making Blockstream lose control and influence over Bitcoin.

And what is Blockstream? It's a company that employs and pays Bitcoin Core developers for their contribution.
Let's not forget to mention that they were funded with 76M$ of capital by the VC firms. With traditional funding, there are also traditional obligations. These were not donations, the investors ofcorse expect to get returns from their invested dollars.

With the 2x part of the fork, the Blockstream loses influence over Bitcoin development and they can
can no longer lead Bitcoin in the path that could provide them with revenue to repay the investors - somehow.

So Blockstream is defending their interests by paying Core developers to continue the propaganda that Segwit2x is an attack on Bitcoin .

And is it really important for Core developers that Bitcoin gets adapted as widely as possible meaning the Bitcoin would raise in value?

One would certainly think so, but i have found out otherwise.
Some days after hurricane Irma there was a fundraiser for one of the Core developers, whose house had been damaged by hurricane. The goal of the fundraiser was to raise 5 Bitcoins for the Luke Dash jr(Bitcoin Core developer) in order to fix his house and property.

Luke Dash has developed first Bitcoin mining pool in 2011. At that time Bitcoin was worth around 0.3$.
Someone who knew about Bitcoin in 2011 and devoted it's time to work on the project, did not invest anything?!?! That tells us, that Luke Dash is not a speculator, he does not know anything about economics, all he is - is a programmer and that's all he knows to do.
It's also important to mention that out of all the developers, he is the one who backs 1MB blocksize limit most of them all! Even worse, he proposed to decrease the blocksize limit to 0.3MB. One would think this is some kind of a joke?

So Luke Dash obviously doesn't own (m)any Bitcoins considering he needed to raise funds for the repairs of his house and property, so he can only make money by getting paid from Blockstream for the development. And i would guess most other core members are like this. They are programmers. They enjoy coding and improving Bitcoin as they did from the start. They did not buy Bitcoins hoping they would get rich, but they probably looked at it from a programming perspective.
Their salary now depends on Blockstream and they have to follow the rules.

Core members have said it in the past that increase of the block size would be okay, even up to 8MB!! So what is wrong with the segwit2x now that it is considered an attack?
The answer is simple. Segwit2x means firing Core developers and Blockstream losing impact, so they will ofcorse do all they can in order to prevent this.

So the conclusion is: segwit2x would only do good for Bitcoin, but Bitcoin Core members are trying to prevent it - only reason being they would lose the influence. If one team of developers gets to decide what happens - is that not centralisation?

Is there any good argument against Blocksize increase? And don't mention the blockchain getting too big. In one year the blockchain has grown from 85GB to 135GB, increasing by 50GB. With 2x block size increase, this would be 100GB per year. The cost for storage is rapidly decreasing as technology is progressing, and in 10 years the estimate block size(with segwit2x) would be 1,135TB. At current prices this would cost around 50$, and we all know in 10 years 1TB of storage could cost a few dollars.
And how many people actually run a full node? It seems all nonsense to me.

Anyways there are a lot of things that i do not understand, that i could be wrong on, so please DO correct me and DO comment, because i do not understand and i would like to know , whether is this theory completly wrong, could be right or something completely else?