Let's start with the definition of a conflict of interest before we go any further: A *conflict of interest* (COI) is a situation in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests (financial, emotional, or otherwise), one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization. Just because a conflict of interest exists does not necessarily mean the individual with a conflict of interest has engaged in any wrongdoing. They could be a saint. However, to not even be able to acknowledge that such a conflict of interest exists when debating such a serious issue as the bitcoin blocksize is incredibly naive. On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 7:40 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > Baseless accusations also have no place on this mailing list. They are > unprofessional, and poisonous to the consensus-building process we all seek > to engage in. > > The Lightning Network effort at Blockstream is purposefully structured to > avoid any conflict of interest. ALL code related to lightning is available > on Github. There is absolutely nothing that we are holding back, and the > protocol itself is entirely p2p. There is no privileged entity, Blockstream > or otherwise. > > On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Please take the lightning 101 discussion to another thread. >> >> The main point I was trying to make was that Mike is clearly >> misrepresenting the views of a great number of people who have deep, >> intimate knowledge of how things work and are almost certainly not >> primarily motivated by their own potential for profits. >> >> On Aug 15, 2015, at 4:04 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev < >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> >> Being an early hub provider would be an obvious place to start >> capitalizing on lightning. Early lightning adopters would be in the best >> position to do this. >> >> Long term, Bitcoin needs to scale the blockchain in a reasonable manner >> and implement things like lightning. >> >> Limiting the blocksize is a blatant conflict of interest because it >> creates artificial demand for lightning that would not otherwise exist if >> the blockchain scaled in a reasonable manner. >> >> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:55 PM, Mark Friedenbach >> wrote: >> >>> I would like very much to know how it is that we're supposed to be >>> making money off of lightning, and therefore how it represents a conflict >>> of interest. Apparently there is tons of money to be made in releasing >>> open-source protocols! I would hate to miss out on that. >>> >>> We are working on lightning because Mike of all people said, >>> essentially, " if you're so fond of micro payment channels, why aren't you >>> working on them?" And he was right! So we looked around and found the best >>> proposal and funded it. >>> On Aug 15, 2015 3:28 PM, "Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev" < >>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>> >>>> I know full well who works for Blockstream and I know you're not one of >>>> those folks. The Blockstream core devs are very vocal against a reasonable >>>> blocksize increase (17% growth per year in Pieter's BIP is not what I >>>> consider reasonable because it doesn't come close to keeping with >>>> technological increases). I think we can both agree that more on-chain >>>> space means less demand for lightning, and vice versa, which is a blatant >>>> conflict of interest. >>>> >>>> I'm also trying to figure out how things like lightning are not >>>> competing directly with miners for fees. More off-chain transactions means >>>> less blockchain demand, which would lower on-chain fees. I'm not sure what >>>> is controversial about that statement. >>>> >>>> The lightning network concept is actually a brilliant way to take fees >>>> away from miners without having to make any investment at all in SSH-256 >>>> ASIC mining hardware. >>>> >>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Eric Lombrozo >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 3:01 PM, Ken Friece via bitcoin-dev < >>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What are you so afraid of, Eric? If Mike's fork is successful, >>>>> consensus is reached around larger blocks. If it is rejected, the status >>>>> quo will remain for now. Network consensus, NOT CORE DEVELOPER CONSENSUS, >>>>> is the only thing that matters, and those that go against network consensus >>>>> will be severely punished with complete loss of income. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I fully agree that core developers are not the only people who should >>>>> have a say in this. But again, we’re not talking about merely forking some >>>>> open source project - we’re talking about forking a ledger representing >>>>> real assets that real people are holding…and I think it’s fair to say that >>>>> the risk of permanent ledger forks far outweighs whatever benefits any >>>>> change in the protocol might bring. And this would be true even if there >>>>> were unanimous agreement that the change is good (which there clearly IS >>>>> NOT in this case) but the deployment mechanism could still break things. >>>>> >>>>> If anything we should attempt a hard fork with a less contentious >>>>> change first, just to test deployability. >>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure who appointed the core devs some sort of Bitcoin Gods >>>>> that can hold up any change that they happen to disagree with. It seems >>>>> like the core devs are scared to death that the bitcoin network may change >>>>> without their blessing, so they go on and on about how terrible hard forks >>>>> are. Hard forks are the only way to keep core devs in check. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Again, let’s figure out a hard fork mechanism and test it with a far >>>>> less contentious change first >>>>> >>>>> Despite significant past technical bitcoin achievements, two of the >>>>> most vocal opponents to a reasonable blocksize increase work for a company >>>>> (Blockstream) that stands to profit directly from artificially limiting the >>>>> blocksize. The whole situation reeks. Because of such a blatant conflict of >>>>> interest, the ethical thing to do would be for them to either resign from >>>>> Blockstream or immediately withdraw themselves from the blocksize debate. >>>>> This is the type of stuff that I hoped would end with Bitcoin, but alas, I >>>>> guess human nature never changes. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> For the record, I do not work for Blockstream. Neither do a bunch of >>>>> other people who have published a number of concerns. Very few of the >>>>> concerns I’ve seen from the technical community seem to be motivated >>>>> primarily by profit motives. >>>>> >>>>> It should also be pointed out that *not* making drastic changes is the >>>>> default consensus policy…and the burden of justifying a change falls on >>>>> those who want to make the change. Again, the risk of permanent ledger >>>>> forks far outweighs whatever benefits protocol changes might bring. >>>>> >>>>> Personally, I think miners should give Bitcoin XT a serious look. >>>>> Miners need to realize that they are in direct competition with the >>>>> lightning network and sidechains for fees. Miners, ask yourselves if you >>>>> think you'll earn more fees with 1 MB blocks and more off-chain >>>>> transactions or with 8 MB blocks and more on-chain transactions… >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Miners are NOT in direct competition with the lightning network and >>>>> sidechains - these claims are patently false. I recommend you take a look >>>>> at these ideas and understand them a little better before trying to make >>>>> any such claims. Again, I do not work for Blockstream…and my agenda in this >>>>> post is not to promote either of these ideas…but with all due respect, I do >>>>> not think you properly understand them at all. >>>>> >>>>> The longer this debate drags on, the more I agree with BIP 100 and >>>>> Jeff Garzik because the core devs are already being influenced by outside >>>>> forces and should not have complete control of the blocksize. It's also >>>>> interesting to note that most of the mining hashpower is already voting for >>>>> 8MB blocks BIP100 style. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don’t think the concern here is so much that some people want to >>>>> increase block size. It’s the *way* in which this change is being pushed >>>>> that is deeply problematic. >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 5:32 PM, Eric Lombrozo via bitcoin-dev < >>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> You deeply disappoint me, Mike. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not only do you misrepresent many cogent, well thought out positions >>>>>> from a great number of people who have published and posted a number of >>>>>> articles detailing an explaining in-depth technical concerns…you also seem >>>>>> to fancy yourself more capable of reading into the intentions of someone >>>>>> who disappeared from the scene years ago, before we even were fully aware >>>>>> of many things we now know that bring the original “plan” into question. >>>>>> >>>>>> I ask of you, as a civilized human being, to stop doing this divisive >>>>>> crap. Despite your protestations to the contrary, YOU are the one who is >>>>>> proposing a radical departure from the direction of the project. Also, as >>>>>> several of us have clearly stated before, equating the fork of an open >>>>>> source project with a fork of a cryptoledger is completely bogus - there’s >>>>>> a lot of other people’s money at stake. This isn’t a democracy - consensus >>>>>> is all or nothing. The fact that a good number of the people most >>>>>> intimately familiar with the inner workings of Satoshi’s invention do not >>>>>> believe doing this is a good idea should give you pause. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please stop using Bitcoin as your own political football…for the sake >>>>>> of Bitcoin…and for your own sake. Despite your obvious technical abilities >>>>>> (and I sincerely do believe you have them) you are discrediting yourself >>>>>> and hurting your own reputation. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Eric >>>>>> >>>>>> On Aug 15, 2015, at 10:02 AM, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev < >>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> As promised, we have released Bitcoin XT 0.11A which includes the >>>>>> bigger blocks patch set. You can get it from >>>>>> >>>>>> https://bitcoinxt.software/ >>>>>> >>>>>> I feel sad that it's come to this, but there is no other way. The >>>>>> Bitcoin Core project has drifted so far from the principles myself and many >>>>>> others feel are important, that a fork is the only way to fix things. >>>>>> >>>>>> Forking is a natural thing in the open source community, Bitcoin is >>>>>> not the first and won't be the last project to go through this. Often in >>>>>> forks, people say there was insufficient communication. So to ensure >>>>>> everything is crystal clear I've written a blog post and a kind of >>>>>> "manifesto" to describe why this is happening and how XT plans to be >>>>>> different from Core (assuming adoption, of course). >>>>>> >>>>>> The article is here: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://medium.com/@octskyward/why-is-bitcoin-forking-d647312d22c1 >>>>>> >>>>>> It makes no attempt to be neutral: this explains things from our >>>>>> point of view. >>>>>> >>>>>> The manifesto is on the website. >>>>>> >>>>>> I say to all developers on this list: if you also feel that Core is >>>>>> no longer serving the interests of Bitcoin users, come join us. We don't >>>>>> bite. >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> bitcoin-dev mailing list >>>> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >>>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >>>> >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> bitcoin-dev mailing list >> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org >> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev >> >> >