Some posts on the internet try to take advantage of readers lack of knowledge of technology to spin the facts of what’s really going on in the bitcoin / cryptocurrency space.
Let me address this statement in the article because it's important for non technical people to understand what's going on:
Blockstream is against increasing the Bitcoin block size because their entire business model is based on creating sidechains which profit from a slow or expensive Bitcoin network.
"creating side chains which profit" in the above quote indicates a lack of understanding of the technology. The side chains when completed will reduce profit. But keeping the block sizes small can increase profits. For the statement to be theoretically possible it should read like this instead:
Blockstream is against increasing the Bitcoin block size because their entire business model is based on keeping block sizes small for profit from a slow or expensive Bitcoin network.
As with any decision, there are often multiple reasons involved and if you ask a dozen different people why, you can probably come up with over a hundred reasons for something being done. However we made a mistake in the architecture of the internet back in the 1990's and now the NSA owns all 5 backbone providers in the world and we're paying the price with our freedom.
Andreas Antonopoulos explains why delivering liberty at scale means increased cost. The "death of democracy" discount applies to scaling solutions like Facebook. Once you watch this video through you will understand why it's so incredibly important for off chain solutions to proceed for both privacy reasons and scaling.
You might ask, doesn't increasing the size of the blocks reduce security too?
It's a matter of balance. Every two weeks the difficulty adjustment to the hash power should be able to rebalance this in SHA256. If you increase the block size, then the probability for a successful 51% attack increases because then it's slightly easier for a bad actor to try to overpower the blocks and fork a minority chain that then eventually becomes the longest chain.
We had one such fork in August which increased block size to 8 MB. Most things in technology involve trade offs. There is however a much bigger stealth trade off that is very difficult to trace and it exists in the realm of politics. It’s the trade off between the advances being made in technology and the benefits being realized by the average person.
If you tell the average person that the benefits from technology should have raised every single person in the world to have a net worth of at least $25,000 (for an average family of 4 this would be $100K) they would have a hard time believing you. This would be based upon a global GDP of 175 trillion.
Instead what we have is the average person heavily in debt typically in the 5-6 figure range. I don’t think I have to explain why this is. There are many reasons most of which are obvious to Steemit readers. Bit I will digress slightly to mention an interesting depopulation sub agenda exposed by Kevin Galalae. Now let me return to focus on how it happened.
Money actually started out in nature as a decentralized commodity. Seashells, feathers, beads, shiny stones, etc were among the first forms of money. Notice that nobody had monopoly control of the sources of these objects as they were found freely in nature.
Then metal workers and goldsmiths came along and centralized the production of money. At this time, the money as a gold or silver coin still had intrinsic value so you could erase Caesar’s image on the coin and it would still have value as money. We went from a situation where anyone could create or find money to one in which only authority was allowed this ability, though the control authority sought over money was not yet complete.
Then along came the printing press a few hundred years ago and paper money replaced precious metals as a common medium of exchange. While authority could not print up all the gold it wanted, it could do so with all the paper money it wanted. Authorities soon realized that their political power to force change was limited by the fact that they could not print up all the money they wanted, so they went off the gold standard in the last century. Now your money has no intrinsic value whatsoever than your belief in the system.
Limited money would have forced Bush 43 to go to the people and ask for $75,000 per American household for the Iraq war. But did he do that? No. Crank up the printing press instead. So what’s the harm? Enormous, but very stealthy. People don’t understand that the reason why they’re in debt in the 5-6 figure range is because authority printing up all the money it wants makes it worth only 4 cents on the dollar compared to when I was born. They can’t trace that easily. They don’t understand what would have been because things are the same as they’ve always have been.
With bitcoin, there will only ever be 21 million supply cap. If bitcoin becomes the world's reserve currency, then authority's power will be limited once again because it's impossible to print bitcoin. It will reduce world leaders to having to actually go to the people again to ask permission for their wars and petty agenda's.
Donations (public bitcoin address):