Quote from Jeff Garzik about the Blockstream satellite:
> It’s cheap to write a check to another satellite provider to do a broadcast for you. It’s a centralized data service, with a centralized [satellite] provider, and carries plenty of shutdown and censorship risk.
> It’s also a great way to centralize everybody on Blockstream’s version of the blockchain, as it appears that Blockstream are the only ones transmitting (uplinking) to the satellite.
Why is Blockstream being disingenuous about their satellite service promoting it as a path to decentralization when in reality it’s a centralized chokepoint?
Also, why is Blockstream actively destroying BTC’s value proposition by turning BTC into a settlement layer for the Lightning Network?
The reason being is that the owners of Bitcoin.org are actively trying to rewrite the white paper even against the larger community’s wishes. I believe sometime in the near future the owners will go ahead with their plans anyways as they seem to do that when it comes to other issues too.
Considering 43 million people user Tumblr, even if 5% of Tumblr users tried it ONCE - Tumblr would generate over $2 million dollars - yep.
Now for the ones that use it more than once, that's extra revenue. This could easily generate $2-3 million in revenue in 2012, and maybe half a million or so each year thereafter.
> It’s cheap to write a check to another satellite provider to do a broadcast for you. It’s a centralized data service, with a centralized [satellite] provider, and carries plenty of shutdown and censorship risk.
> It’s also a great way to centralize everybody on Blockstream’s version of the blockchain, as it appears that Blockstream are the only ones transmitting (uplinking) to the satellite.
Why is Blockstream being disingenuous about their satellite service promoting it as a path to decentralization when in reality it’s a centralized chokepoint?
Also, why is Blockstream actively destroying BTC’s value proposition by turning BTC into a settlement layer for the Lightning Network?