Re:Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain T...
by bachback on Thursday July 14, 2016 @07:32AM
(#12092920)
why can't you face up to the fact that Blockstream is the de-facto governance body for Bitcoin? It claims it is, and you spend countless hours on the Internet trying to show the opposite. "Cryptographic votes" - duh, that's what the Bitcoin consensus should be for. I can't fathom that somehow so deeply engaged in the project doesn't understand this most obvious fact.
Re:Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain T...
by out_of_protocol on Thursday July 14, 2016 @05:23AM
(#12092549)
I'm looking at this mess for quote a while and still don't understand - why not bigger blocks? Is there good reason for that? (Combibed with thin blocks it doesn't increase propagation and stuff even for chinese miners). I'd like to hear that developers think
Thats a common claim made on easily sockpuppeted forums, but when put to cryptographic votes, we find pretty much the opposite response: http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-win...
Similarly, I've found in person meetings to also yield similar results.
> But a few devs
Really, almost the _entire_ technical community; with the exception of a few high profile companies and their consultants.
> have unilaterally been able to block the changes
That isn't how Bitcoin works.