Gregory Maxwell biggest mistake is a "bit too much polite tolerance for Gavin".

[nanarjan]

By Gregory Maxwell - "Our New Great BitCoin Leader"!

https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comme ... ts/cxxfqsj

[BitcoinXio]

nullc: I think Bitcoin Core is generally pretty smoothly functioning; the biggest error we've made is a bit too much polite tolerance of obstruction and antagonism from you and Mike in the hopes of future cooperation. I think it's become clear enough now that there is little potential or benefit from that... and I think things are gelling nicely around a productive path forward for the project.

I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs that Greg Maxwell basically just said he doesn't want to work with Gavin and being kind to him has been a mistake (on the auspice that they would continue to work together on a block size solution).

I'm not sure how it happened, but it seems that Blockstream has become majority controller of the Bitcoin network. They clearly do not want bigger blocks, as it doesn't fit into their business plan. For anyone that doesn't understand, they need to read or re-read the sidechains whitepaper. It clearly states in the paper that sidechains can be a solution to Bitcoin's scalability problem (block size problem); and in order to make sure that sidechains is successful, Blockstream must keep Bitcoin's blocks small, so that users will have a solution to the block size issue (by using sidechains to achieve scalability).

[kerneldump]

Not good.

[LiteCoinGuy]

nullc: I think Bitcoin Core is generally pretty smoothly functioning; the biggest error we've made is a bit too much polite tolerance of obstruction and antagonism from you and Mike in the hopes of future cooperation. I think it's become clear enough now that there is little potential or benefit from that... and I think things are gelling nicely around a productive path forward for the project.

I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs that Greg Maxwell basically just said he doesn't want to work with Gavin and being kind to him has been a mistake (on the auspice that they would continue to work together on a block size solution).

I'm not sure how it happened, but it seems that Blockstream has become majority controller of the Bitcoin network. They clearly do not want bigger blocks, as it doesn't fit into their business plan. For anyone that doesn't understand, they need to read or re-read the sidechains whitepaper. It clearly states in the paper that sidechains are the solution to Bitcoin's scalability problem (block size problem); and in order to make sure that sidechains is successful, Blockstream must keep Bitcoin's blocks small, so that users will have a solution to the block size issue (by using sidechains to achieve scalability).

i know that it is important to keep the groundlayer of bitcoin small and decentralized so that we have a resilient system.
all blockstream guys are heavily invested in bitcoin too. why should they hinder bitcoins success in your opinion?

[BitcoinXio]

nullc: I think Bitcoin Core is generally pretty smoothly functioning; the biggest error we've made is a bit too much polite tolerance of obstruction and antagonism from you and Mike in the hopes of future cooperation. I think it's become clear enough now that there is little potential or benefit from that... and I think things are gelling nicely around a productive path forward for the project.

I think it's a pretty sad state of affairs that Greg Maxwell basically just said he doesn't want to work with Gavin and being kind to him has been a mistake (on the auspice that they would continue to work together on a block size solution).

I'm not sure how it happened, but it seems that Blockstream has become majority controller of the Bitcoin network. They clearly do not want bigger blocks, as it doesn't fit into their business plan. For anyone that doesn't understand, they need to read or re-read the sidechains whitepaper. It clearly states in the paper that sidechains are the solution to Bitcoin's scalability problem (block size problem); and in order to make sure that sidechains is successful, Blockstream must keep Bitcoin's blocks small, so that users will have a solution to the block size issue (by using sidechains to achieve scalability).

i know that it is important to keep the groundlayer of bitcoin small and decentralized so that we have a resilient system.
all blockstream guys are heavily invested in bitcoin too. why should they hinder bitcoins success in your opinion?

I'm still trying to understand it myself. I don't really get it. For example, GMaxwell has said on a couple occasions I think in reddit that he would literally quit bitcoin if blocks were increased because he believes once that happens bitcoin would then become something he doesn't believe it should be. However, I just read yesterday an interaction with Adam Back where he was saying they (Blockstream) needs larger blocks for sidechains. Being that GMaxwell and Adam both founded Blockstream, I feel their visions contradict each other.

If sidechains are made as a solution to trading assets on the blockchain due to small blocks, maybe it's in Blockstream's best interest to keep block sizes small? If the block size let's say hypothetically was unlimited, keeping assets on the blockchain wouldn't be an issue, and sidechains wouldn't be needed? Again, I'm not sure I'm still trying to understand it all. It doesn't help that Blockstream says conflicting things and that all discussion is censored on /r/bitcoin so people can't even discuss this in a manner that is conducive to education and learning what is actually happening.

[LiteCoinGuy]

"Being that GMaxwell and Adam both founded Blockstream, I feel their visions contradict each other."

yes, i guess that is true. gavin said this some weeks ago in an interview. even the blockstream guys dont agree on one solution at the moment.
maybe they can find a middle course with adams 2-4-8 proposal.

[BitcoinXio]

"Being that GMaxwell and Adam both founded Blockstream, I feel their visions contradict each other."

yes, i guess that is true. gavin said this some weeks ago in an interview. even the blockstream guys dont agree on one solution at the moment.
maybe they can find a middle course with adams 2-4-8 proposal.

Ha! I didn't see that interview, but it totally makes sense.