So what's the worst case scenario for Bitcoin if SegWit gets introduced? Please don't give me a one-liner. I want details. Is it that they'd go around suing everyone running a full node for patent infringement?
1. SegWit contains copyrighted code from the privately funded company BlockStream.
2. Despite CTO Grerg Maxwell making a "Pledge" to only use the patents "defensively" there is nothing stopping the company from trying to monetize their patents on a portion of the Bitcoin code once the Code is implemented.
3. They would begin to sue large US based exchanges for infringement and demand a small percentage of transfer fees from any exchange using Bitcoin or any part of the "SegWit" code.
4. Companies would slow Bitcoin support and the Crypto community would be further segment, delaying adoption overall but making massive amounts of money for BlockStream.
5. Option 2 is that with their code in Bitcoin, they will be able to sell their services for a much higher price and it will give them a huge amount of leverage in the future.
6. The "Soft" forking and the "User Activated" forking mechanisms devised by BlockStream to get their code into Bitcoin is devious to say the least. They both set the stage for further manipulative changes to the code base, this part of the work is mostly done by one user, BS hired hand, Luke Jr.
7. And finally, as users are pushed off the Bitcoin network due to High Fees and Slow Transactions, BlockStream is supporting development of a "2nd layer" network (patented) from which Node owners will earn the transaction fees and not the Miners, the way it is now, this type of setup would be more like a shared Google Doc or SQL file rather than a blockchain as it is not blocked by computing power.
SegWit contains copyrighted code from the privately funded company BlockStream...
Despite CTO Grerg Maxwell making a "Pledge" to only use the patents "defensively" there is nothing stopping the company from trying to monetize their patents on a portion of the Bitcoin code once the Code is implemented.
Do you have a cite for either of these? Someone mentioned them downthread. It sounds ridiculous that someone would commit code into the Bitcoin client which some third party has copyrighted (what OSS project permits this?) and I can't find any evidence that Blockstream holds any relevant patents. I can only find them saying once that they don't [0].
I downvoted you because saying a bunch of false stuff confidently seems really bad, but I will take it away if it seems like I was wrong.
> SegWit contains copyrighted code from the privately funded company BlockStream
If by "copyrighted code" you mean the standard copyright and MIT license at the start of every piece of code in Bitcoin Core, sure. That's how open source software works -- you copyright it and use that copyright to place it in a permissive license. Segwit doesn't make any modifications to the copyright status of Bitcoin Core in any way. It is exactly the same!
> Despite CTO Grerg Maxwell making a "Pledge" to only use the patents "defensively" there is nothing stopping the company from trying to monetize their patents on a portion of the Bitcoin code once the Code is implemented.
There is in fact a lot stopping that from happening, such as the innovator's patent agreement.
But this is a distraction anyway because this thread is about segwit, and Blockstream has no patents, provisional patents, or anything else on that technology. And the time period for filing such patents has expired. It's hard to monopolize and monetize a patent that doesn't exist.
> They would begin to sue large US based exchanges for infringement
Infringement of what? Again, there are no patents!
> Companies would slow Bitcoin support and the Crypto community would be further segment, delaying adoption overall but making massive amounts of money for BlockStream
...How? How does Blockstream, a bitcoin services company, benefit from a dying bitcoin?
> Option 2 is that with their code in Bitcoin, they will be able to sell their services for a much higher price and it will give them a huge amount of leverage in the future
It's FOSS. They have no special privileges over anyone else.
> The "Soft" forking and the "User Activated" forking mechanisms devised by BlockStream to get their code into Bitcoin is devious to say the least. They both set the stage for further manipulative changes to the code base, this part of the work is mostly done by one user, BS hired hand, Luke Jr.
Soft forks are how every single change to bitcoin consensus logic has been deployed since the very early days (2011+) and predates Blockstream by a laaaarge margin. The founding of Blockstream is closer to today than the first use of soft forks by the bitcoin development team.
User activated soft forks have nothing to do with Blockstream. Blockstream's CTO has even come out against the UASF on the mailing list. It's a complete red herring to bring it up here. Luke-Jr hasn't done any work on the UASF, just provided some technical peer review, as he has for many proposals, including ones he disagrees with.
> BlockStream is supporting development of a "2nd layer" network (patented)
Again please provide some facts to backup your assertions. I can only assume you are talking about Lightning, which Blockstream has no patents on, and for which the window for filing patents has pretty much closed. Do your research: go type "Blockstream" into your favorite patent search engine. The only hits you find will have to do with sidechains and confidential transactions, neither of which have anything to do with segwit or lightning.
Please come back to reality. Base you opinions on fact and stop spouting conspiracy nonsense. HN is better than this.
2. Despite CTO Grerg Maxwell making a "Pledge" to only use the patents "defensively" there is nothing stopping the company from trying to monetize their patents on a portion of the Bitcoin code once the Code is implemented.
3. They would begin to sue large US based exchanges for infringement and demand a small percentage of transfer fees from any exchange using Bitcoin or any part of the "SegWit" code.
4. Companies would slow Bitcoin support and the Crypto community would be further segment, delaying adoption overall but making massive amounts of money for BlockStream.
5. Option 2 is that with their code in Bitcoin, they will be able to sell their services for a much higher price and it will give them a huge amount of leverage in the future.
6. The "Soft" forking and the "User Activated" forking mechanisms devised by BlockStream to get their code into Bitcoin is devious to say the least. They both set the stage for further manipulative changes to the code base, this part of the work is mostly done by one user, BS hired hand, Luke Jr.
7. And finally, as users are pushed off the Bitcoin network due to High Fees and Slow Transactions, BlockStream is supporting development of a "2nd layer" network (patented) from which Node owners will earn the transaction fees and not the Miners, the way it is now, this type of setup would be more like a shared Google Doc or SQL file rather than a blockchain as it is not blocked by computing power.