Quote from Jeff Garzik about the Blockstream satellite:
> It’s cheap to write a check to another satellite provider to do a broadcast for you. It’s a centralized data service, with a centralized [satellite] provider, and carries plenty of shutdown and censorship risk.
> It’s also a great way to centralize everybody on Blockstream’s version of the blockchain, as it appears that Blockstream are the only ones transmitting (uplinking) to the satellite.
Why is Blockstream being disingenuous about their satellite service promoting it as a path to decentralization when in reality it’s a centralized chokepoint?
Also, why is Blockstream actively destroying BTC’s value proposition by turning BTC into a settlement layer for the Lightning Network?
1) Anyone is free to launch a satellite service to compete with Blockstream. This is called permissionless innovation. If you don't trust their data you don't have to use it.
2) Blockstream is not the only developer working on LN, in fact, the main development team is called Lightning Labs, plus there are many open source developers working on LN. The bitcoin community has decided that it wants BTC mainchain to be settlement layer and the momentum behind LN proves this.
Without the satellite a typical node operator has a single ISP that has complete control over their view of the network. If they add a second ISP that will cost them an additional (say) $50 per month, and the second ISP is likely highly correlated with the first (common upstreams, similar response to extralegal pressure by local authorities, etc.). In what way is the satellite, which has a one time ~$100-ish setup cost (assuming you can't get most of the parts for free), not a strict improvement over not having it available?
Garzik has something of a conflict of interest encouraging fudding this effort. After I originally proposed back in 2011/2012 doing a broadcast like the eventual blockstream effort, Garzik ran with it and raised money from the public ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=334701.0 ) to do Bitcoin satellite broadcast. He creeped the scope to the point of proposing to launch a "cubesat" (why? Unclear, it would be a lot less useful due to their short life and the inability to use fixed antennas) and as a result ultimately failed to deliver anything at all.
Blockstream built something more practical and useful than a swarm of cubesats, and instead of just raising money and putting out hype then failing they put out a running system. In fact, Blockstream's system was up and running on the day the very first public announcement was made. I urged Garzik to do something like Blockstream's system as a MVP before sinking a fortune into trying to actually launch satellites...
And yes, absolutely anyone else can setup a similar system (though it isn't anywhere as simple as 'cut a check' unless you want to pay through the nose and don't want to support reception with $100 of deniable commodity hardware)... that isn't a minus, it's a plus and a direct counterpoint to your 'centralized chokepoint' claim if the fact that the next alternative to using the sat is the centralized chokepoint of your ISP wasn't enough.
This blockchain broadcast specific talk ignores the really cool "API" which they announced today: receiving a sat broadcast with commodity hardware is likely the most strongly anonymous communication method available... and this is something they've made available to everyone, paid for with Bitcoin micropayments.
Wasn't it Garzik who came up with the first proposal to broadcast the Bitcoin blockchain over satellite?
As I remember it he went to far as to solicit donations for the project. There was a lot of articles written about it at the time (Bitcoin! In space!) but nothing ever came of it.
The reason being is that the owners of Bitcoin.org are actively trying to rewrite the white paper even against the larger community’s wishes. I believe sometime in the near future the owners will go ahead with their plans anyways as they seem to do that when it comes to other issues too.
> It’s cheap to write a check to another satellite provider to do a broadcast for you. It’s a centralized data service, with a centralized [satellite] provider, and carries plenty of shutdown and censorship risk.
> It’s also a great way to centralize everybody on Blockstream’s version of the blockchain, as it appears that Blockstream are the only ones transmitting (uplinking) to the satellite.
Why is Blockstream being disingenuous about their satellite service promoting it as a path to decentralization when in reality it’s a centralized chokepoint?
Also, why is Blockstream actively destroying BTC’s value proposition by turning BTC into a settlement layer for the Lightning Network?