Hacker News Reader

Comment by ShellGh0st | Hacker News Reader

Yep, it basically looks like core devs have this plan to:

-Keep bitcoin broken so fees go sky-high

-Push people towards their sketchy off-chain transactions

Bitcoin then becomes "bank coin", where large providers handle all the micro transactions and "settle up" with huge 1000+ btc chunks.

It's a scam and while I have my own reservations about bitcoin unlimited and making miners "too powerful" at least their plan is 100% on-chain.

Core dev's plan is suicide for bitcoin, major investors have been jumping ship to etherium driven by their insanity.

View on HN

You realize a lot of people pushing the supposedly nefarious agenda you're saying here own a lot of bitcoins, and even belong to companies where timelocked bitcoins act as an incentive program, right? The conspiracy theories surrounding Core's agenda never have sensical incentive structures. This is why nobody listens to the conspiracy theorists when it comes to designing a protocol that relies entirely on incentives adding up.

It is nothing sinister though. It is just when Mr. Maxwell and Dr. Back started Blockstream they expected the 1 mb blocksize to stay 1 mb. On this assumption they built their company and sold their services as "Core" maintainers.

The Fork to a chain that does scale on its own seems inevitable and was fully expected by the original developer. It seems like an uphill battle for Core to convince people to NOT upgrade the network.

The "sketchy" off chain stuff is not sketchy either, it is just off chain. If you mean that they may be able to profit from it, I don't see why that is evil or even wrong, it is just their business plan.

That is incorrect. Literally nobody expects blocksize to stay at 1MB permanently. If they did, SW wouldn't exist, since that is a blocksize increase to about 2MB.

Obviously, you don't understand off-chain transactions.

If you do a tad bit of investigation, you will find that your fears are entirely unfounded.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com