Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain Transactions • Hacker News Board

Re: Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain Transactions

#111

Post by sk55 » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 4:38 AM UTC

petertodd wrote: post #105

ptokb3 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was my understanding that Gavin and Wladimir were part of the MIT Media Lab payroll. > you never even care to ask about that Honestly, I don't know where that would be public information to know to ask about it. > to own not much (to zero) Bitcoins; That is not the case. Most people who have been very vocal pushing for larger blocks have significant Bitcoin investments. > segwit which roughly doubles block transac…

> It was my understanding that Gavin and Wladimir were part of the MIT Media Lab payroll. They aren't. The Digital Currency Inititive (DCI) != MIT. Rather, it's a separate entity that's effectively paying MIT for use of the MIT name and administrative infrastructure; we do not know who is actually funding DCI.

https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative...

"Together, we’ve raised $900,000. Donors include companies (BitFury, Bitmain, Chain, Circle and Nasdaq) and individuals (Jim Breyer, Jim Pallotta, Jeff Tarrant, Reid Hoffman and Fred Wilson)...while the funds will be limited to support Bitcoin protocol development, the donors do not have any influence over the developers."

Re: Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain Transactions

#112

Post by fraggle222 » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 3:26 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #101

wellthissukz wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, these are lies from Gregory Maxwell (Blockstream CTO). Please provide details on funding. Specifically, how much AXA paid? "A couple people out of a community of around 50-200 depending on the phase of the moon." Again a lie. The top Core devs are Blockstream employees. Blockstream has created a toxic environment and a huge ivory tower. "Uh. You know that Bitcoin is a decenteralized system that no one controls…

> Please provide details on funding. Specifically, how much AXA paid? Dunno, not enough to be broken out on the reports I have. They're not an investor that I've ever met with-- we have a lot of investors. Though it's a cute technique that y'all have been using where you try asking something that would be confidential, to try to inhibit a response on the long list of leading questions that follows. >> "A couple peopl…

>Unfortunately, the block size limit was set too large and this created outsized returns for large consolidations.

Can you clarify this statement?

Re: Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain Transactions

#113

Post by ptokb3 » Fri, Jul 15, 2016, 9:22 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #110

ptokb3 wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was my understanding that Gavin and Wladimir were part of the MIT Media Lab payroll. > you never even care to ask about that Honestly, I don't know where that would be public information to know to ask about it. > to own not much (to zero) Bitcoins; That is not the case. Most people who have been very vocal pushing for larger blocks have significant Bitcoin investments. > segwit which roughly doubles block transac…

> That is not the case. Most people who have been very vocal pushing for larger blocks have significant Bitcoin investments. Some claim it, but like that guy pretending to be Bitcoin's creator. They fail to prove it. People opposing politically adjusting Bitcoin rules have proved that they own Bitcoin. http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-win... > That takes time. It's not a quick enough solution…

On the homepage,"I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground". That's the most small-block biased question I've ever seen. I wonder who owns that site; probably some small-block nutcase.

If we could vote in some other way to prove our funds outside of this site I will be glad to take part.

Re: Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain Transactions

#114

Post by petertodd » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 5:26 AM UTC

sk55 wrote: post #111

petertodd wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It was my understanding that Gavin and Wladimir were part of the MIT Media Lab payroll. They aren't. The Digital Currency Inititive (DCI) != MIT. Rather, it's a separate entity that's effectively paying MIT for use of the MIT name and administrative infrastructure; we do not know who is actually funding DCI.

https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative... "Together, we’ve raised $900,000. Donors include companies (BitFury, Bitmain, Chain, Circle and Nasdaq) and individuals (Jim Breyer, Jim Pallotta, Jeff Tarrant, Reid Hoffman and Fred Wilson)...while the funds will be limited to support Bitcoin protocol development, the donors do not have any influence over the developers."

Ah good, they finally published part of the list (I was discussing that with them in early march in person at MIT).

That said, I believe that list is incomplete.

Re: Lightning Network: Scalable, Instant Bitcoin/Blockchain Transactions

#115

Post by dooglus » Sat, Jul 16, 2016, 8:04 PM UTC

ptokb3 wrote: post #113

nullc wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is not the case. Most people who have been very vocal pushing for larger blocks have significant Bitcoin investments. Some claim it, but like that guy pretending to be Bitcoin's creator. They fail to prove it. People opposing politically adjusting Bitcoin rules have proved that they own Bitcoin. http://bitcoinocracy.com/arguments/if-non-core-hard-fork-win... > That takes time. It's not a quick enough solution…

On the homepage,"I believe that If non-Core hard fork wins, major holders will sell BTC, driving price into the ground". That's the most small-block biased question I've ever seen. I wonder who owns that site; probably some small-block nutcase. If we could vote in some other way to prove our funds outside of this site I will be glad to take part.

The site was created by a big-block "nutcase", presumably to demonstrate how the economic majority is in favor of bigger blocks. Unfortunately for him it demonstrated exactly the opposite.

Here he is advocating for increasing the blocksize limit to 8MB as soon as possible: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1238605.msg12897706#...

And here's his post announcing the launch of the service: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1133634

The site allows anyone to propose statements which all Bitcoin holders can then support or oppose by signing messages with their coins. The anti-small-block question wasn't written by the site owner, but is currently the most supported statement on the site.