brg444

x-post of one of my reddit post. (disclaimer: I am employed by Blockstream)

It's helpful to evaluate the contribution of Blockstream developers to Bitcoin Core versus other non-Blockstream developers in the last year. Let's see

Greg Maxwell: 46

Jorge Timon: 17

Pieter Wuille: 163 (the only developer at Blockstream dedicated full time to Core development)

Mark Friedenbach: 0

Patrick Strateman: 31

Warren Togami: 6

Adam Back: 0

Greg Sanders: 32

Glenn Willen: 0

Total commits for listed Blockstream developers: 295

Wladimir Van Der Laan: 210

Marco Falke: 170

Corey Fields: 152

Jonas Schnelli: 87

Suhas Daftuar: 73

Alex Morcos: 65

fanquake: 56

Pavel Janik: 45

Total commits for listed non-Blockstream developers: 858

So about 35%. 15% if we remove Pieter, but I can confidently say everyone at Blockstream is hugely proud of his contributions and in no way shape or form are we interested in diminishing his accomplishment. From my perspective he has been the single most important contributor to Bitcoin development for many years now.

In short, this narrative is a huge disrespect to every other contributors building the software we all depend on. The obsession of certain people to lend power to specific individuals is simply an attempt to shut down their ideas by attacking their character.

--

I would add that most of the Core contributors working at Blockstream had been contributing before the company was founded and certainly did not "infiltrate the Bitcoin development team".

The previous lead developer had barely contributed anything before he quit out of his own volition after a series of failed attempt to politicize Bitcoin and force through a contentious hard fork. The last straw was of course when he was naively led to believe that notorious scam artist Craig Wright was Satoshi.

With regards to the "off-blockchain" solutions you refer to. Here's a couple of facts:

Fact 1: The Lightning Network was created by Bitcoin developers not involved with the Core project

Fact 2: No Core developer is involved in a business whose revenue model revolves around the success of the Lightning Network

Fact 3: There is very little profit to be made from operating the Lightning Network infrastructure/protocol.

Fact 4: The Lightning Network will happen regardless of the outcome of the current contention.

Fact 5: Bitcoin developers have no control over the consensus code being enforced by independent peers participating in the network. Bitcoin is a voluntary system.

I suggest you return to your economic and history books. Gold has no intrinsic value as you would probably call it. It is only because of some VERY distinctive properties that are not found in other metals that gold was ultimately selected as the better store of value available. Its only value comes from a market agreement.

Bitcoin is essentially the same as it replicates the same properties of gold while having a more predictable supply and features that allow it to be used more commonly as a currency, unlike gold.

Doing what you suggested would very much destroy any value existing in BTC. The USD is not actually a reference in terms of store of value.

It's deflationary property is a feature, not a flaw.

I understand but I'm afraid you are being misled by the article.

While I believe it is an interesting scenario. I do not envision something like that will happen. The only reason it might is for its "consumer protection" value.

I appreciate that Greg realises some of the promises of Bitcoin but the true value for "billions of people" is not an optimized "clearing house". I expect Bitcoin to scale to a point where the store of value and liquidity concerns are non-existent.

At this point, high-inflation economies will turn to Bitcoin, and not gateways that will convert their already worthless currencies to USD or whatever. This provided value will ultimately catch on over here at which point some will find it largely preferable to hold BTC and not their "normal currency. Hell, some already do.

exponential growth of other technologies did not stop until they reached mainstream adoption. Bitcoin is very far from that

* Bitcoin the Network may ultimately be more valuable than BTC the currency

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of Bitcoin. Because each and every Bitcoin function as a sort of "token" that provides access to this payment network, their value is closely tied to the value of the network. For Bitcoin to become an international payment gateway system, liquidity requires every Bitcoin to be worth a lot.