Judging by the way people behave Blockstream within the Bitcoin community, I am absolutely sure that Blockstream and / or its owners have patents related to Segwit, and they plan to use them offensively. Even without reading the documents related to these patents, as they can be kept secret for a long time, I have come to this conclusion after observing the behavior of Blockstream is exactly the same as many entities that have gone into bankruptcy in the past 20 years.
Early in my career I worked as a representative of Microsoft in the development of standards for telecommunications. Once a month should meet with representatives of the most recognized companies in the sector (Nokia, Ericsson and AT & T, among others), to negotiate what would be included in future standard .
During these negotiations it was clear that everyone tried to enter the maximum possible number of patents of its own portfolio in the industry standard, using arguments based strictly on technical merit assumptions facade. Some managed their duties. Other failed miserably.
A typical example of the latter were those who posed the X function should use the mechanism (for which they had not declared patents) appealing to a technical argument pointless. When technical experts in the room pointed out the inconsistency, they repeated that the X function should use the mechanism, but now based on a completely new argument, which did not make sense.
The real reason we were pressing both the mechanism "Y" was used, of course, it was that they had patents that mechanism and wanted their patented technology to be included in the industry standard. However, they were unable to present a coherent argument, which resisted the scrutiny of technicians to explain why this was the best solution available.
In other words: the classic trick to move the hoop to prevent the opponent the ball layup.
At some point, our technical team -made up of different companies- many people ran out of patience and no reason to assume good faith on the part of those who, appealing to false technical justifications, trying to get something patented in the standard as we knew we were only timely inventions but still we had to follow the stream up to a certain point, because if they did not surrender even after losing the technical debate, we all knew what was really going on-.
But Blockstream strategy to move the hoop is not limited to technical issues.
When I later devoted to politics, this pattern saw much more clearly basically in every decision that is taken into politics. We called the strategy of "high and low ratios reasons". "High" ratio , or "noble" - is one that is presented to the public to promote certain political measure. "Low" is one reason that explains why the politician in question is truly interested in the measure. Many times it was not easy to find a direct connection between both.
These conflicts between "high ratios" and "low ratios" were detectable in small details. For example, when a new measure to defend invasive surveillance said the aim was to combat terrorism. Then, when you read the law in depth, the text actually said "terrorism and other crimes", a detail not less than anyone paying attention. Two years after the law was passed, it turned out that the new surveillance systems had been used by 98% to combat teenagers sharing music and movies together, and who originally had promoted was closely linked to the copyright industry .
As expected, the strategy of using an argument to cover up a shameful publicly goal was also present in politics. But there is another pattern, which will be discussed later: "We want to incorporate this function for X reason, or for any other reason."
Before proceeding, make a summary of the dialogue of the last three years between Blockstream (BS) and Bitcoin non-Blockstream (CB) community:
BS: We are developing Lightning Network as a second layer solution (mounted on the chain blocks)! Require some additional features that are really cool!
CB: Ok, sounds good, but we also need to quickly increase capacity within the chain.
BS: We created the Segwit package to enable Lightning Network. It is complicated, but it solves the problem of quadratic malleability and growth of transaction data. It might help a little climbing too, but not really a solution scalability, so we do not like to call it so.
BC: Of course, then do that and also we increase the limit on the size of the block.
BS: We understand that want to increase the size of the block.
BC: Yes. At this time it would be appropriate to a limit of 20 MB.
BS: We propose to 2 megabytes, and then increase to four and eight.
BC: That's ridiculous, but that's okay, as long as the idea is to continue climbing exponentially.
BS: Actually, we changed our minds. No way we will increase the limit on the size of the block.
BC: Well, then we will choose Bitcoin Classic.
BS: Hello miners! ¿Sign an agreement to use the software exclusively Core in exchange we promise them a hardfork 2 megabytes (outside Segwit)?
Miners: Well, maybe. But only if you sign the CEO of Blockstream.
Adam: *firma como CEO de Blockstream*
Miners: Good. Let's see if we can trust you.
Adam: * immediately revoke your signature and signature as "individual" *
Miners: That's dishonest, but we will not be dishonest just because you are.
BS: Actually, we changed our minds again. We will not make a hardfork 2 megabytes.
BC: We analyzed Segwit more closely; It is a really horrible invention. Is dead. I descártenlo.
BS: Segwit get 95% support! We've talked to all major businesses!
BC: There are 20% of the computing power that opposes Segwit. It is impossible to reach 95% support.
BS: Segwit is the solution for scalability! It is a real increase in block size!
BC: We need a pact to end the stalemate.
BS: Segwit was and is part of the covenant! There should be no limit increase the size of the block! Segwit is increasing block size!
This is only a small sample, but it could go on indefinitely. For example, remembering that Blockstream had said the number of nodes was an irrelevant issue when nodes Bitcoin Classic began to increase, and computing power was the only valid measure while now that Bitcoin Unlimited has between 40% and 50% of computing power Blockstream says no, Cries exactly the opposite.
This is typical of someone who is trying to drive a covert project aims pattern; since, due to the unchanging nature of the chain, if Segwit is implemented will be Bitcoin forever.
But there's more. Another typical behavior of those who intended to distract and confuse the community is trying to build external enemies . "Hawks" in governments always do that when they want to go to war: impose a story aggressively, called traitor and saboteur anyone who challenges this story, and they beat the drums of war. It's a tribal thing, but it works. In this case, Blockstream has pointed to two individuals as "enemies" and has encouraged people who want to feel part of the community to attack them , an attitude that mimics scenes from the movie 1984.
And all this just to introduce its patent in Bitcoin, whether in the process as much as the community Bitcoin are destroyed.
There is no other way to explain their behavior. Again I want to emphasize that I have not read any of patent applications Blockstream. Anyway, it would be useless to try because it could not access the full text, as patents can be kept secret for about 18 months. But based on the behavior of Blockstream, I can say with absolute certainty that I have seen this same behavior many times in the past and always in people who have reasons to different audience that truly motivate the proposed course of action.
That said, Blockstream has something called "Commitment patent defense." It is a legal document that basically says that only use their patents for defensive actions, or for any other action.
Did you read that last part?
That phrase is strikingly similar to "terrorism and other crimes" where "and other crimes" form a set that includes "terrorism", and therefore detracts relevance to the first part of the sentence.
The politician says: "Terrorism and other crimes."
The public hears: "Terrorism".
The true meaning is: "Any crime, including bad crossing the street."
Commitment defensive Patent Blockstream has exactly the pattern: Blockstream patents only use defensively or otherwise deemed appropriate.
Blockstream says, "with only defensive purposes or any other purpose."
The public hears "only for defensive purposes."
The real meaning is "any other purpose".
Let's assume for a moment that Greg Maxwell and Adam Back, of Blockstream, acting in good faith, they really have no intention of using patents offensively, and signed the commitment patents all your personal credibility.
Still no good.
In case of bankruptcy, all assets -including Blockstream these patents- go to a liquidator, whose job is to make the most of the assets at stake and it will not be bound by any promises you made the previous administration bankruptcy.
In addition, Blockstream owners can replace their managers-and I predict that Haran, in which case the personal promises of individuals who have been replaced have no weight for the new management. If a company makes a statement about his intentions, it is also free to declare the opposite in the future, and is likely to do so when they are other people who speak for the company.
This leads us to ask who are the owners of Blockstream: Who would benefit if managers are replaced?
Blockstream owners are traditional financial institutions -especially AXA, which has more invertido- who have everything to lose if criptomonedas are gaining ground.
And they have purchased ( "they have invested in") a company that has the opportunity to own patents associated with the chain of Bitcoin, and therefore directly prohibit its use to certain people, or get a good income from anyone who uses .
Here the conclusion is inescapable: Blockstream strategy to move the hoop place has consistently had undercover target Blockstream owners take ownership of Bitcoin effectively through the right granted by patents.
Although that statement may sound frightening, is the only IT ONLY -the explaining the actions of Blockstream over the past three years.
Early in my career I worked as a representative of Microsoft in the development of standards for telecommunications. Once a month should meet with representatives of the most recognized companies in the sector (Nokia, Ericsson and AT & T, among others), to negotiate what would be included in future standard .
During these negotiations it was clear that everyone tried to enter the maximum possible number of patents of its own portfolio in the industry standard, using arguments based strictly on technical merit assumptions facade. Some managed their duties. Other failed miserably.
A typical example of the latter were those who posed the X function should use the mechanism (for which they had not declared patents) appealing to a technical argument pointless. When technical experts in the room pointed out the inconsistency, they repeated that the X function should use the mechanism, but now based on a completely new argument, which did not make sense.
The real reason we were pressing both the mechanism "Y" was used, of course, it was that they had patents that mechanism and wanted their patented technology to be included in the industry standard. However, they were unable to present a coherent argument, which resisted the scrutiny of technicians to explain why this was the best solution available.
In other words: the classic trick to move the hoop to prevent the opponent the ball layup.
At some point, our technical team -made up of different companies- many people ran out of patience and no reason to assume good faith on the part of those who, appealing to false technical justifications, trying to get something patented in the standard as we knew we were only timely inventions but still we had to follow the stream up to a certain point, because if they did not surrender even after losing the technical debate, we all knew what was really going on-.
But Blockstream strategy to move the hoop is not limited to technical issues.
When I later devoted to politics, this pattern saw much more clearly basically in every decision that is taken into politics. We called the strategy of "high and low ratios reasons". "High" ratio , or "noble" - is one that is presented to the public to promote certain political measure. "Low" is one reason that explains why the politician in question is truly interested in the measure. Many times it was not easy to find a direct connection between both.
These conflicts between "high ratios" and "low ratios" were detectable in small details. For example, when a new measure to defend invasive surveillance said the aim was to combat terrorism. Then, when you read the law in depth, the text actually said "terrorism and other crimes", a detail not less than anyone paying attention. Two years after the law was passed, it turned out that the new surveillance systems had been used by 98% to combat teenagers sharing music and movies together, and who originally had promoted was closely linked to the copyright industry .
As expected, the strategy of using an argument to cover up a shameful publicly goal was also present in politics. But there is another pattern, which will be discussed later: "We want to incorporate this function for X reason, or for any other reason."
Before proceeding, make a summary of the dialogue of the last three years between Blockstream (BS) and Bitcoin non-Blockstream (CB) community:
BS: We are developing Lightning Network as a second layer solution (mounted on the chain blocks)! Require some additional features that are really cool!
CB: Ok, sounds good, but we also need to quickly increase capacity within the chain.
BS: We created the Segwit package to enable Lightning Network. It is complicated, but it solves the problem of quadratic malleability and growth of transaction data. It might help a little climbing too, but not really a solution scalability, so we do not like to call it so.
BC: Of course, then do that and also we increase the limit on the size of the block.
BS: We understand that want to increase the size of the block.
BC: Yes. At this time it would be appropriate to a limit of 20 MB.
BS: We propose to 2 megabytes, and then increase to four and eight.
BC: That's ridiculous, but that's okay, as long as the idea is to continue climbing exponentially.
BS: Actually, we changed our minds. No way we will increase the limit on the size of the block.
BC: Well, then we will choose Bitcoin Classic.
BS: Hello miners! ¿Sign an agreement to use the software exclusively Core in exchange we promise them a hardfork 2 megabytes (outside Segwit)?
Miners: Well, maybe. But only if you sign the CEO of Blockstream.
Adam: *firma como CEO de Blockstream*
Miners: Good. Let's see if we can trust you.
Adam: * immediately revoke your signature and signature as "individual" *
Miners: That's dishonest, but we will not be dishonest just because you are.
BS: Actually, we changed our minds again. We will not make a hardfork 2 megabytes.
BC: We analyzed Segwit more closely; It is a really horrible invention. Is dead. I descártenlo.
BS: Segwit get 95% support! We've talked to all major businesses!
BC: There are 20% of the computing power that opposes Segwit. It is impossible to reach 95% support.
BS: Segwit is the solution for scalability! It is a real increase in block size!
BC: We need a pact to end the stalemate.
BS: Segwit was and is part of the covenant! There should be no limit increase the size of the block! Segwit is increasing block size!
This is only a small sample, but it could go on indefinitely. For example, remembering that Blockstream had said the number of nodes was an irrelevant issue when nodes Bitcoin Classic began to increase, and computing power was the only valid measure while now that Bitcoin Unlimited has between 40% and 50% of computing power Blockstream says no, Cries exactly the opposite.
This is typical of someone who is trying to drive a covert project aims pattern; since, due to the unchanging nature of the chain, if Segwit is implemented will be Bitcoin forever.
But there's more. Another typical behavior of those who intended to distract and confuse the community is trying to build external enemies . "Hawks" in governments always do that when they want to go to war: impose a story aggressively, called traitor and saboteur anyone who challenges this story, and they beat the drums of war. It's a tribal thing, but it works. In this case, Blockstream has pointed to two individuals as "enemies" and has encouraged people who want to feel part of the community to attack them , an attitude that mimics scenes from the movie 1984.
And all this just to introduce its patent in Bitcoin, whether in the process as much as the community Bitcoin are destroyed.
There is no other way to explain their behavior. Again I want to emphasize that I have not read any of patent applications Blockstream. Anyway, it would be useless to try because it could not access the full text, as patents can be kept secret for about 18 months. But based on the behavior of Blockstream, I can say with absolute certainty that I have seen this same behavior many times in the past and always in people who have reasons to different audience that truly motivate the proposed course of action.
That said, Blockstream has something called "Commitment patent defense." It is a legal document that basically says that only use their patents for defensive actions, or for any other action.
Did you read that last part?
That phrase is strikingly similar to "terrorism and other crimes" where "and other crimes" form a set that includes "terrorism", and therefore detracts relevance to the first part of the sentence.
The politician says: "Terrorism and other crimes."
The public hears: "Terrorism".
The true meaning is: "Any crime, including bad crossing the street."
Commitment defensive Patent Blockstream has exactly the pattern: Blockstream patents only use defensively or otherwise deemed appropriate.
Blockstream says, "with only defensive purposes or any other purpose."
The public hears "only for defensive purposes."
The real meaning is "any other purpose".
Let's assume for a moment that Greg Maxwell and Adam Back, of Blockstream, acting in good faith, they really have no intention of using patents offensively, and signed the commitment patents all your personal credibility.
Still no good.
In case of bankruptcy, all assets -including Blockstream these patents- go to a liquidator, whose job is to make the most of the assets at stake and it will not be bound by any promises you made the previous administration bankruptcy.
In addition, Blockstream owners can replace their managers-and I predict that Haran, in which case the personal promises of individuals who have been replaced have no weight for the new management. If a company makes a statement about his intentions, it is also free to declare the opposite in the future, and is likely to do so when they are other people who speak for the company.
This leads us to ask who are the owners of Blockstream: Who would benefit if managers are replaced?
Blockstream owners are traditional financial institutions -especially AXA, which has more invertido- who have everything to lose if criptomonedas are gaining ground.
And they have purchased ( "they have invested in") a company that has the opportunity to own patents associated with the chain of Bitcoin, and therefore directly prohibit its use to certain people, or get a good income from anyone who uses .
Here the conclusion is inescapable: Blockstream strategy to move the hoop place has consistently had undercover target Blockstream owners take ownership of Bitcoin effectively through the right granted by patents.
Although that statement may sound frightening, is the only IT ONLY -the explaining the actions of Blockstream over the past three years.