@rocks In addition to that juicy Mow quote you just provided above, here is another one worth considering. In fact we can have ourselves a little hypothetical exercise here and start putting everything together that we already know.
I thought I saw this quote posted before and in fact
@cypherdoc posted an article from IBTimes from back in Nov. 2015 containing parts of the quote. Perhaps it was elsewhere, too. I found a fuller version from BitCoinNews I believe:
“BlockPriority was developed to protect our customers from attacks on the network or confirmation delays because blocks are full,” Mow explained. “But the other reason was to emphasize the block-size issue. Although BlockPriority reduces the impact of the block-size debate on BTCC and our users, we still prefer a block-size increase. Ideally, there would be no need for BlockPriority.”
Samson Mow--From December 9, 2015 Online Article
Original quote from Mow provided by rocks via Reddit:
"BTCC is very excited to be working with Blockstream to roll-out this innovative application of sidechain technology. Liquid is both a practical application of sidechains that allows us to provide nearly instantaneous global interexchange transfers for our users, as well as a major technical milestone that showcases the adaptability of Bitcoin." (Samson Mow, COO of BTCC)
Then from the Blockstream Liquid Press Release (October 12, 2015):
"Blockstream, in collaboration with an initial set of launch partners, is excited to announce Liquid, our first production sidechain. Liquid will
improve capital efficiency and market liquidity by facilitating rapid and secure transfers between accounts held at any participating exchange or brokerage."
So here we have the following chain of events:
* Mow quoted in the Liquid press release about his love for Blockstream as a Liquid customer/evangelist. [Oct 2015]
* Mow's company releasing "BlockPriority" to deal with confirmation delays due to impending full blocks. [Nov. 2015]
* Mow becoming the Blockstream lapdog and cheerleader in the "Consensus" scaling delay/attempted miner protection racket--a process that ramped up beginning right after the Liquid dealings. [Dec 2015 to Present]
* Blockstream/Maxwell admitting that the fee market is actually good and helps Bitcoin and is the real reason they have resisted scaling this whole time [2016]
* Blockstream's further stalling on the scaling issue with more delays hinging on seg-wit, a complex system with "trickle-up" complexity that isn't even ready yet and REQUIRES consensus vote. [Feb 2016]
* Seg-wit is also a Blockstream, Inc. product according to press releases. [Feb 2016]
* The blocks getting further filled up to the point where users are complaining of TX delays and businesses are avoiding Bitcoin investment (Specific examples searchable/anecdotal/Twitter). [2016]
* Mow himself lead cheerleader of the Roundtable "endless delay" approach to scaling [Feb 2016]
* Quotes from Luke Dash-jr that they had not even done the basic calculations on a block size increase hard fork before going to the roundtable (Reddit). [Feb 2016]
So who wants to bet that "BlockPriority" is "Liquid"? Or if not Liquid, directly enabled by it? How do all of these dealings now appear? Is Blockstream just 100% interested in doing what is best for Bitcoin? Are they interested in making new Bitcoin inventions Blockstream Inventions first and then back porting? Is this what they mean by using side chains as the "test bed" for future hard forks/feature improvements? Who then owns the technology? Is the purpose of the fee market to actually enable products like "BlockPriority" which they sell and will benefit people like Mow? Is the goal to create this fee market with a tiered "fast lane" based on these side chains?
Seems to be an interesting chain of events here, of course stuff we already knew. Certainly more research and analysis can be done! It seems like the more info we get, the more it all fits together.
