The block size debate carries into 2016 with no resolution in sight, even though it started as a technical discussion among developers. The debate has devolved into name-calling. Both camps have slung
The block size debate carries into 2016 with no resolution in sight, even though it started as a technical discussion among developers. The debate has devolved into name-calling. Both camps have slung insults at each other over their preferred approach. Critics blame Blockstream for dictating Bitcoin Core's direction and advancing their own business interests over the network's future.
Erik Voorhees runs ShapeShift.io, a service that lets users swap different cryptocurrencies. The Bitcoin.com Podcast interviewed him this week, with Zach Doty posing questions about the turmoil surrounding Bitcoin's development. Voorhees wanted to add some clarity to the discussion, targeting a specific question: does Blockstream wield too much influence over Bitcoin development?
When asked whether Blockstream controls Bitcoin Core development, Voorhees didn't hesitate. He said the company does have conflicting interests, given that Blockstream builds products that benefit from certain blockchain properties. But he didn't treat this as scandalous or new. "They seem to have a conflict of interest; that's not necessarily bad or a problem. Conflicts of interest exist everywhere all the time; no one's immune from them."
Users on Reddit's /r/btc have spread theories that Blockstream keeps blocks small on purpose to push people toward sidechains and the Lightning Network, alternative solutions that benefit the company. Voorhees dismissed the narrative and defended Blockstream against attacks for pursuing smaller-block solutions. He said: "I don't think Blockstream should be vilified for having a solution that may be more valuable if blocks are small, and it does not mean that the Core developers are corrupted into making Bitcoin worse for the benefit of one company."
The actual safeguard against Blockstream's motives, Voorhees argued, lies in the people staffing the company. Many Blockstream employees had established Bitcoin careers long before the company existed. Greg Maxwell and Pieter Wuille have contributed to Bitcoin Core since 2011, years before Blockstream was founded. Austin Hill and Adam Back spent decades developing digital cash protocols before Bitcoin was even invented. Their investment in Bitcoin predates any company affiliation.
Voorhees explained his position this way: "It's possible [Blockstream is corrupt], but I don't think it is, and I will give people the benefit of the doubt. A lot of people in Blockstream were involved with Bitcoin long before Blockstream. They are very dedicated and passionate about the project as a whole, and I would bet that their allegiances are largely more to Bitcoin in general than they are to Blockstream in particular."
Reid Hoffman, who co-founded LinkedIn, has invested in Blockstream. In November 2014, he published thoughts on Blockstream's purpose. Hoffman described the company's mission: "In this instance, the first objective is to increase the public good by strengthening the overall openness and functionality of the Bitcoin ecosystem through 'sidechains' technology. Delivering returns to investors is an objective as well – but it's a secondary objective." Hoffman presented Blockstream's business goals as aligned with Bitcoin's health, not opposed to it.
Voorhees believes Blockstream has delivered on its promises to build useful technology. The company has worked on sidechains, the Lightning Network, confidential transactions, segregated witness, and Liquid. These are all technical advances that supporters believe will improve Bitcoin or related systems. "I think Blockstream is an excellent company. They're building some very cool stuff. I'm glad that they exist, and I don't think people should be vilifying them to the extent that they have been."
The underlying tension in Voorhees's comments reflects a broader reality: conflicting interests show up in any organization. Bitcoin development is no exception. The question isn't whether conflicts exist. Conflict and corruption aren't the same thing.
