The cynic in me would consider whether all the trolling you are doing here is for the benefit of the Blockstream investment pool to get some low-cost Due Diligence work out of us. The sort of analysis you are getting from some of the folks here is pure gold.  And my advice to Blockstream investors is to shut the company down now while you still have a chance and buy $21M worth of bitcoin right now while we're at a long term bottom. The reason? There's no way in hell any bitcoin company will ever be able to outperform the BTC currency.  You don't really believe these things you write do you? You should know some people have motives beyond financial gains. |
|
|
|
but it requires changing source by inserting potential malware into the system called spvp. the sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC should be maintained at all costs for security reasons as this is what leads to its sound money function. the assumptions behind spvp and MM are so theoretical at this pt, i fail to see how you can be so certain in your claims.
miners have invested large sums of fiat to generate BTC from block rewards and tx fees and suddenly you want to insert an offramp for those same BTC units that had a known and measurable amount of POW invested to generate and secure them? these offramps will definitely change the delicate mining equilibrium that currently exists today.
Malware  lol stop spewing nonsense please. SPVP, at the risk of repeating myself, is an alternative mechanism for proof verification between a sidechain and the mainchain. The only thing SPVP enables is a more decentralized sidechains models that does not have to rely on centralized entities for its security but derives its own security from the miners' work. The "sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC" is already challenged at present state by off-chain schemes. The issue is not with seperating the unit from the chain but the value from the ledger. Off-chains schemes are the most important risk to the integrity of the ledger and they are what you should be concerned about. Sidechain offers a potentially safer way to assign value from the ledger outside of the main blockchain. Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.
These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. The off ramp introduced by SPVP is the only one that can secure miners' incentives (transaction fees) in the future. Any other of the many different models of off-ramp that exist today are a danger to "hijack" these transactions fees. there are so many dangerous assertions in here that have no proof to back them up. as the one who's advocating doing nothing, the burden of proof is upon you. we keep going round and round. Let me see. SPVP, at the risk of repeating myself, is an alternative mechanism for proof verification between a sidechain and the mainchain. The only thing SPVP enables is a more decentralized sidechains models that does not have to rely on centralized entities for its security but derives its own security from the miners' work. Proof is in the pudding. Yes it implies a change to the miners incentives model but one can certainly argue it is for the better. SPVP is neutral, the subsequent sidechains resulting from its implementation can be used in every possible ways but none that is not already possible through federated models or off-chain services. So no, it is unlikely that SPVP has a unique ability to spawn some kind of monster-malware sidechain that causes any significant danger to Bitcoin. The "sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC" is already challenged at present state by off-chain schemes. The issue is not with seperating the unit from the chain but the value from the ledger. Off-chains schemes are the most important risk to the integrity of the ledger and they are what you should be concerned about. I think that's pretty self-explanatory. Your attempt at painting the picture in a way that supposedly makes the sidechain "off-ramp" worse than more conventional schemes because the unit is somehow "detached" from the mainchain (even though that is technically not true) is misguiding. The concern is with the value that is stored and whether or not it is stored securely and in a way that reconciles with the main ledger. Sidechain offers a potentially safer way to assign value from the ledger outside of the main blockchain. SPVP Sidechains present an opportunity to respect the Sound Money property of Bitcoin on the protocol level without any additional trust required from outside of the Bitcoin network. The off ramp introduced by SPVP is the only one that can secure miners' incentives (transaction fees) in the future. Any other of the many different models of off-ramp that exist today are a danger to "hijack" these transactions fees. Maybe another technology will appear that could rival SPVP (SNARKS?) but I should say it is in fact merged-mining that enables the protection of miners' economic incentives |
|
|
|
i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things. that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY. the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV. little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite. even Americans don't want these speculative assets:
This is beyond stupid. Stop obsessing with speculative assets. Contracts are not speculative assets. Autonomous agents are not speculative assets. Digital assurance contracts are not speculative assets. You are so shortsighted and shallow you really don't realize the potential of an Internet of Money as if all people care about is money as a store of value. Autonomous agents, machine trade networks, smart property, smart copyrights. WHO THE HELLS WANTS THAT RIGHT ! no, eventually we do want that. but first, Bitcoin has to succeed as money. it has to continue to grow using the features that we KNOW have brought us to where we are today: the SOV and money function. before any of those other things are possible, Bitcoin has to become a more widely accepted and used global digital currency that is seen to compete effectively with other fiat currency choices and w/o gvt support. we're not there yet. we are all still early adopters. Wall St and outsiders are making every argument they can about why BTC is too expensive and why it won't work or why it needs to be fixed. they're all excuses cuz they don't want to buy @ $357. well, that's too bad. all we need to do is hodl and stay the course. eventually, they will HAVE to buy in and take us to the Moon. and then miners will thrive and maintain the security of the MC. Well then sidechains are a way toward that and in no way do they disrupt the network effect of Bitcoin's money function more than any other alternatives potentially could. Your concern that sidechains distract us from the money function is asinine. If anything sidechains will create considerable value for the ecosystem which will translate into more demand for the BTC unit. |
|
|
|
but it requires changing source by inserting potential malware into the system called spvp. the sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC should be maintained at all costs for security reasons as this is what leads to its sound money function. the assumptions behind spvp and MM are so theoretical at this pt, i fail to see how you can be so certain in your claims.
miners have invested large sums of fiat to generate BTC from block rewards and tx fees and suddenly you want to insert an offramp for those same BTC units that had a known and measurable amount of POW invested to generate and secure them? these offramps will definitely change the delicate mining equilibrium that currently exists today.
Malware lol stop spewing nonsense please. SPVP, at the risk of repeating myself, is an alternative mechanism for proof verification between a sidechain and the mainchain. The only thing SPVP enables is a more decentralized sidechains models that does not have to rely on centralized entities for its security but derives its own security from the miners' work. The "sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC" is already challenged at present state by off-chain schemes. The issue is not with seperating the unit from the chain but the value from the ledger. Off-chains schemes are the most important risk to the integrity of the ledger and they are what you should be concerned about. Sidechain offers a potentially safer way to assign value from the ledger outside of the main blockchain. Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.
These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. The off ramp introduced by SPVP is the only one that can secure miners' incentives (transaction fees) in the future. Any other of the many different models of off-ramp that exist today are a danger to "hijack" these transactions fees. |
|
|
|
i've already argued that NO ONE wants these things. that's b/c the primary problem in finance today is fiat MONEY. the 6B that exist outside the US simply want a reliable, secure SOV. little do they know that if they invest in Bitcoin, as it is, they could eventually disrupt the whole fiat USD reserve system and become the world's new elite. even Americans don't want these speculative assets:
This is beyond stupid. Stop obsessing with speculative assets. Contracts are not speculative assets. Autonomous agents are not speculative assets. Digital assurance contracts are not speculative assets. You are so shortsighted and shallow you really don't realize the potential of an Internet of Money as if all people care about is money as a store of value. Autonomous agents, machine trade networks, smart property, smart copyrights. WHO THE HELLS WANTS THAT RIGHT ! |
|
|
|
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":
Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.The bold part is the only false part of that statement. This is a classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. "The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc Had to tweak it a bit... Argument: missing. Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues. I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently. Argument: missing. Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system? Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust. Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil no, he asked why we need these fully decentralized smart platforms in the first place? presumably for stocks, bonds, insur, contracts, etc. No. Decentralized smart platforms can be used for a plethora of utilities some we don't even know about or can imagine yet. His question was absolutely why we need these decentralized smart platforms to be within Bitcoin hence my answer. |
|
|
|
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":
Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.The bold part is the only false part of that statement. This is a classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. "The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc Had to tweak it a bit... Argument: missing. Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues. I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently. Argument: missing. Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system? Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust. Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil |
|
|
|
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":
Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.The bold part is the only false part of that statement. This is a classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time. "The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc Had to tweak it a bit... Argument: missing. Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues. I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently. |
|
|
|
I know they're (federated) possible technically. I'm arguing that they won't be necessarily economically viable. Even the SC's Whitepaper warns against their use.
They certainly won't enable the financial success for Blockstream that they seek through the spvp that even you've already admitted to.
Yes, federated models will probably be central to Blockstream business model. SPVP will facilitate the construction of open-source, public good, platforms/sidechains that will likely be built in cooperation with the community and will allow anyone to leverage their utility and build applications on top of them. Again, you fail to argue why you suggest they will not be economically viable. SC's whitepaper warning against their use seems to relate to a general concern about their inherent need to rely on more centralized entities. |
|
|
|
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":
Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.The bold part is the only false part of that statement. Arguments : missing |
|
|
|
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":
Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these. Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us. The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect. Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin. Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level. Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation. Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented. These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved. There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one. And you keep making the same twisted FUD argument that both NL and I have called you out for. Goes like this : You should allow us to institutionalize spvp into the source because federated SC's are coming whether you like it or not. But because they are insecure and centralized and likely to be hacked, you should let us insert the spvp into source so this doesnt happen. lol. That is precisely why I keep sayin, go right ahead and use your federated servers to your little hearts content. They will fail anyways. That's absolutely not my argument. I'm only pointing out that you concern is ultimately futile since the seperation is already enabled and possible natively and will most certainly be leveraged. You have no argument or logic to show for your "they will fail" statement. My best guess is they will actually become a mainstay of Bitcoin and its ecosystem. SPVP provides a balance and a more decentralized alternative to the mechanism of proof verification. |
|
|
|
The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself.
Cypher, this is a chicken and egg question. Without the functionality, there is a good chance that bitcoin will never prove itself as anything global because it will be trumped by some 2.0 coin. This is not a small % risk. I would wager it is in the range of 30-40%. On the other hand, the issue you have an issue with actually being a problem I would wager it is far lower. Probably in the range of 4-6%. What gives bitcoin its value is its functionality. Speculators did not run to bitcoin because there was a fixed supply. Fixed supply is a plus, They ran because they saw the future of commerce. Sidechains allow for the network effect to continue unhindered by potentially deadly competitors. I disagree. And I'm probably the first VC that ran to Bitcoin in a significant way so you need to understand what I saw at such an early stage. For me it was totally about SOV and a replacement for Gold. That is what this thread is all about and is why it is so popular precisely because people have been agreeing with me more and more as the years are going by. Sure, the payment network is icing on the cake but it remains to be seen just how good that part will be. But it's the SOV that has boot strapped Bitcoin to where it is and is what will take it to the moon. And we need the moon to sustain mining fees on MC. I agree with this. The gold-like SOV is absolutely what drove speculation and adoption of Bitcoin. Serious or facetious? 100% serious |
|
|
|
Those percentages are guesses right?
I see it differently with the altcoins. I see them continuously losing market share and value and eventually to be crushed by Bitcoins network effect. There is no reason to fear them. And Bitcoin can just build in the one or two innovations it "might" need directly into the MC if necessary through thorough code review and extensive testing on testnet.
No need to turn the system upside down with the hair brained SC spvp.
Yes, they are estimations, but I make a fairly successful living estimating risk. Most of the existing altcoins dont provide much reason to use (With the exception of the pure anonymous coins.) However the point is that we don't know what the future will hold with the turning complete chains and sidechains are an insurance policy agains that unknown. It could be 2 years, it could be 5 years, but eventually something will come along that will eat bitcoins lunch if sidechains are not integrated regardless of network effect. Myspace is a good example of network effect being trumped by functionality. I disagree. Bitcoin functions nearly perfectly as money and that is all the network effect that you need. Its only possible shortcomings in that function are privacy (lack of user-defined anonymity) and transfer time. Aside from these, Bitcoin works as advertised and it is extremely unlikely that another coin comes and significantly improves on Bitcoin's money function. As cypher mentioned, any other functionality is "icing on the cake" and none of these "turing complete" proposal is strong enough to distract Bitcoin's network effect. Also, you cannot compare the network effect of a social network to a money protocol. The combination of the money network effect and the protocol network effect creates arguably the strongest network effect observable in our human environment. There was no financial consequence to users switching from Myspace to Facebook, the same cannot be said from a potential "switch" in currency/SOV. |
|
|
|
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":
Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these. Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us. The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect. Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin. Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level. Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation. Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented. These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved. There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one. |
|
|
|
seems that the miner would have to basically do "extra work". and if there's no reward from the bitdns mining from the extra work (which of course, slows down the main bitcoin work), what would be a miner's incentive to include bitdns (and whatever other side chains) ?
The incentive is to get the rewards from the extra side chains also for the same work. While you are generating bitcoins, why not also get free domain names for the same work? If you currently generate 50 BTC per week, now you could get 50 BTC and some domain names too. You have one piece of work. If you solve it, it will solve a block from both Bitcoin and BitDNS. In concept, they're tied together by a Merkle Tree. To hand it in to Bitcoin, you break off the BitDNS branch, and to hand it in to BitDNS, you break off the Bitcoin branch. In practice, to retrofit it for Bitcoin, the BitDNS side would have to have maybe ~200 extra bytes, but that's not a big deal. You've been talking about 50 domains per block, which would dwarf that little 200 bytes per block for backward compatibility. We could potentially schedule a far in future block when Bitcoin would upgrade to a modernised arrangement with the Merkle Tree on top, if we care enough about saving a few bytes. Note that the chains are below this new Merkle Tree. That is, each of Bitcoin and BitDNS have their own chain links inside their blocks. This is inverted from the common timestamp server arrangement, where the chain is on top and then the Merkle Tree, because that creates one common master chain. This is two timestamp servers not sharing a chain. I think it would be possible for BitDNS to be a completely separate network and separate block chain, yet share CPU power with Bitcoin. The only overlap is to make it so miners can search for proof-of-work for both networks simultaneously.
The networks wouldn't need any coordination. Miners would subscribe to both networks in parallel. They would scan SHA such that if they get a hit, they potentially solve both at once. A solution may be for just one of the networks if one network has a lower difficulty.
I think an external miner could call getwork on both programs and combine the work. Maybe call Bitcoin, get work from it, hand it to BitDNS getwork to combine into a combined work.
Instead of fragmentation, networks share and augment each other's total CPU power. This would solve the problem that if there are multiple networks, they are a danger to each other if the available CPU power gangs up on one. Instead, all networks in the world would share combined CPU power, increasing the total strength. It would make it easier for small networks to get started by tapping into a ready base of miners.
And Odalv comes through with the backbreaker once again That is a fantastic insight from Satoshi on MM and quite interesting that he had coined the term "sidechains" already. Thank you for pulling this up |
|
|
|
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":
Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these. Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us. The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect. Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself.
Cypher, this is a chicken and egg question. Without the functionality, there is a good chance that bitcoin will never prove itself as anything global because it will be trumped by some 2.0 coin. This is not a small % risk. I would wager it is in the range of 30-40%. On the other hand, the issue you have an issue with actually being a problem I would wager it is far lower. Probably in the range of 4-6%. What gives bitcoin its value is its functionality. Speculators did not run to bitcoin because there was a fixed supply. Fixed supply is a plus, They ran because they saw the future of commerce. Sidechains allow for the network effect to continue unhindered by potentially deadly competitors. I disagree. And I'm probably the first VC that ran to Bitcoin in a significant way so you need to understand what I saw at such an early stage. For me it was totally about SOV and a replacement for Gold. That is what this thread is all about and is why it is so popular precisely because people have been agreeing with me more and more as the years are going by. Sure, the payment network is icing on the cake but it remains to be seen just how good that part will be. But it's the SOV that has boot strapped Bitcoin to where it is and is what will take it to the moon. And we need the moon to sustain mining fees on MC. I agree with this. The gold-like SOV is absolutely what drove speculation and adoption of Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
i'm not aware of any other chain that has been MM'd other than NMC. the fact it hasn't been hacked doesn't say anything really either since it is viewed as a public good, imo. who doesn't want another ICANN alternative to DNS? thus, all the MM concerns Peter Todd has made come to bear such as centralization, increasing incentives to 51% at no cost, etc.
Why change source code to enable spvp that has so many potential risk factors?
The likely scenario is sidechains secured through SPVP will be as much a public good as NMC is. Bullshit again. I have $21M in investor money that says I'm right. Here's you schizo-logic at work again. You have said yourself that only very few number of sidechains will be secured by MM. That is because only so many sidechains will gain enough traction to command this security model and generate enough incentive for all miners to adopt. It is therefore logical and plausible to assume that only public-good sidechains will achieve this status. As for the others, they will have to compensate with lesser decentralized models to provide adequate security. The likely outcome is private or corporate sidechains will be supported by federated models for obvious security and oversight reasons. |
|
|
|
We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.
From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":
Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these. |
|
|
|
i'm not aware of any other chain that has been MM'd other than NMC. the fact it hasn't been hacked doesn't say anything really either since it is viewed as a public good, imo. who doesn't want another ICANN alternative to DNS? thus, all the MM concerns Peter Todd has made come to bear such as centralization, increasing incentives to 51% at no cost, etc.
Why change source code to enable spvp that has so many potential risk factors?
The likely scenario is sidechains secured through SPVP will be as much a public good as NMC is. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
