
Bitcoin Block Size Debate: "Blockstream has a very serious conflict of interest" - notsony
http://sourceforge.net/p/bitcoin/mailman/message/34223117/
======
notsony
Here is the key part of the response to Adam Back, founder of $20m funded
BlockStream, who wrote a long post with lots of accusatory questions directed
at Mike Hearn and by extension Gavin Andresen:

=== SNIP ===

\- Did you accept payment from companies to lobby for 20MB blocks?

Oh please. Conspiracy theories, now, Adam? My position has been consistent for
years. I don't care whether the figure is 20 or something else (looks like
it'll be lucky 8 instead), but I have always been clear that the limit must
rise.

But for the avoidance of doubt: the answer is no.

Gavin is paid by MIT. The MIT deal gives Gavin complete independence.

I am currently self employed and most of income comes from a client that is
actually interested in Lighthouse. Luckily they have given me some leeway to
do general Bitcoin development as well, which this business falls under. I
would _much_ rather be working on Lighthouse than this, and so would they.

But seeing as you've gone there - let me flip this around. Blockstream has a
very serious conflict of interest in this situation. I am by no means the
first to observe this. You are building two major products:

    
    
       1. Sidechains, a very complex approach to avoid changing the Bitcoin
       consensus rules to add new features.
       2. Lightning, a so-called "layer two" system for transaction routing
    

No surprise, the position of Blockstream employees is that hard forks must
never happen and that everyone's ordinary transactions should go via some new
network that doesn't yet exist.

The problem is that rather than letting the market decide between ordinary
Bitcoin and Lightning, you are attempting to strangle the regular Bitcoin
protocol because you don't trust people to spontaneously realise that they
should be using your companies products.

I know that many of you guys had these views before joining Blockstream. I am
not saying you are being paid to have views you didn't previously have. I
realise that birds of a feather flock together.

Regardless, that conflict of interest DOES exist, whether you like it or not,
because if you succeed in running Bitcoin out of capacity your own company
stands to benefit from selling consulting and services around your preferred
solutions.

With respect to user rights: all the polling done so far suggests users who
are paying attention strongly support increasing the block size. For example:

Q: "Should the bitcoin block size be raised in the next two years" A: 92% yes

[http://www.poll-maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2](http://www.poll-
maker.com/results329839xee274Cb0-12#tab-2)

