And, (as noted on /r/bitcon) here we have Charley Cooper, Managing Director of R3, pre-announcing Mike Hearn's "break-up" with Bitcoin at a Brookings' "Beyond Bitcoin" conf (full of regulators, policy people, financial folks, etc) yesterday:
Ironically enough, Barry Silbert spoke immediately before this guy.
In a way we can see these guys as allies-enemies rather than straight out enemies. They are publicising blockchain etc - thus indirectly publicising bitcoin - they giving it credibility when they say this technology is real, here to stay, etc. So I think over all they are a good thing for bitcoin, but of course also a danger.
Bitcoin is the open global permissionless ledger. These guys are bitranets. That is why it is extremely important that the open ledger scales because if it does not these guys - and not LN nonsense - win by default.
Ironically, or maybe not, blockstream is much closer to these guys than to bitcoin. LN is just a sideshow - blockstream's actual/main business is in developing and providing bitranets (although they call them sidechains) - that is private blockchains for companies or banks or whatever.
Unfortunately, blockstream can't even be allies-enemies because bitcoin can't compete with them because they control/wish-to-control bitcoin and of course the interests of bitranets and the open ledger are often in direct competition thus harming one means the other wins by default.
This battle therefore isn't really about the blocksize, but about a vision of the world in 10-20 years. Do we want a world with an open blockchain accessible to all, like the internet, or do we want private walled gardens where you have to pay a fee to play and provide whatever kyc etc like the intranet.
Ideally we want, and probably will have, both just as during the early days of the internet. Companies will, probably rightly to begin with, try and keep control by using bitranets, but then they will see that the open net is far more dynamic, far more secure, far more innovative, faster moving, with a lot more users and most importantly far cheaper than running their own - so bitranets would cease to be offered to the consumers, but they probably would still find small application within companies just as intranets continue to be in use.
Once the size is lifted, therefore, the real, greater and much more exciting battle of ideas will be between the open bitcoin and the for profit companies trying to sell their bitranets.
In regards to BTCC's comments, I am worried that miners are playing games. They signed 8mb in blood so to speak, now they whining about 2-4 mb. Next they'll want us to compromise to 500kb. Moreover, I do not see why he thinks he requires permission from core or why he keeps begging them when core no longer exists. There is no core without the two most seniour developers Gavin and Jeff - there is a team with a vision fully opposed to the aim of keeping bitcoin open to all and more interested in turning it into a sort of LN walled garden by bringing in middle men who have gateways and checking powers etc. and sell bitranets.
