bitcoin incorporated

[John Newman]

> On May 15, 2017, at 3:53 PM, juan <juan.g71 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>    
>    Here's a little company called
> 
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream
> 
>    with direct ties to the most toxic, anti 'cypherpunk' forces on
>    the planet.
> 
>    http://www.coindesk.com/blockstream-21-million-seed-capital/
> 
>    "Additional investment firms...Google chairman Eric Schmidt’s
>    Innovation Endeavors, "
>    
>    It turns out that  blockstream's 'leaders' are pretty
>    'influential' bitcoin developers. They seem opposed to
>    increasing the block size limit at the moment but they pretend
>    that their political decision is 'apolitical' 'unbiased' 'code'.
> 
>    Now some background. Bitcoin, allegedly
> 
>    "A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow
>    online payments to be sent directly from one party to another
>    without going through a financial institution."
> 
>    keywords, peer to peer, no financial middlemen.    
> 
>    Now it gets interesting. Blockstream has a solution to
>    increase bitcoin's capacity, which I don't think can be
>    described as "purely peer-to-peer" and involving no middlemen
>    at all. As a matter of fact, blockstream solution is to create
>    middlemen that will process the vast majority of
>    transaction...because they can't scale bitcoin (technical
>    failure) or they don't want (political failure).
> 
> 


Once the big money starts sniffing around naturally they want to blow bitcoin up as big as possible... unfortunately (for them), it's transaction model is not scalable to the daily level of individual regular old  CC transactions, so i think the idea is to act as a middle man, doing big transactions in bulk, or a series of middle men, who clear out their ledgers with one another at the end of the day in bulk.

meanwhile, it completely defeats the point of bitcoin! it's just another bank. 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>