We have to assume that the 2-way peg is unbreakable. Same as bitcoin blockchain is unbreakable. Bitcoin’s blockheaders can be regarded as an example of a dynamic-membership multi-party signature
(or DMMS), which we consider to be of independent interest as a new type of group signature.
spvp is new type of group signature (it can replace ECDSA M-of-N multi-signature) spvp is vaporware and will likely be much less secure than MM. [/quote]  They're two totally different things and both work in tandem. What you just said makes no sense SPVP is absolutely not vaporware. It might not be ready to implement as we are speaking but there are real maths behind it. |
|
|
|
...
With altcoins we have that fear. But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.
...
Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here? Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin. It's possible, but there is no point to it because the majority of people are looking to preserve the value of their investment. I hope that's right.
For this reason, I will create fantastic sidechain 2.0 but without a cap and a 1:1 exchange rate and yours will be made irrelevant. No one is looking to inflate the value of their wealth.
You'd have to do your u1:1* clone before my FantastiCoin is widely accepted to be fantastic, otherwise it will have insurmountable network-effect. * "u" for "Unlimited", since it's possible to put either a time or total supply-cap limit on a 1:1 exchange, which results in the same problem.
There is no plausable reason to install such a cap. Because your FantastiCOIN is likely open source I will clone it before it is even released. If you tell me it is not open source AND inflationary then this is a sure bet that it will NOT be adopted. |
|
|
|
i would rather see gvts and orgs like the IMF have to buy BTC to use as reserves. that would take us to the Moon: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2248419i still see SC's as a way to break Bitcoin's money function by allowing a gvt sponsored currency to siphon BTC to SC w/o having to pay for them. we need that the price ramps to sustain mining fees and establish Bitcoin as its own global independent currency. forget asset toys. as it is, Wall St is the only one who needs or wants those types of toys in the first place with a minority of Americans invested in these things. even less by foreigners. what ppl should want and need is Sound Money. that is what this project is all about, imo. and the nice thing is anyone who's currently in the Bitcoin system can just sit back, relax, and wait for it to happen. the price charts still tell me we are destined for greatness. sorry cypher I'm slow, could you please explain to me how the bolded part is possible? (serious question) as i said, imo, the mere insertion of the spvp into the source code throws the whole notion of Bitcoin as Sound Money out the window b/c it allows the separation of the BTC currency unit from its ultra-secure blockchain ledger. once that's done, all the SC's that have bolted onto Bitcoin can sit back and absorb all the BTC that might be tempted to leave the mainchain. we also would know that there is a for-profit entity out there (Blockstream) who is in position to influence the continued development of these very SC threats to encourage this dynamic for profit generation. is there an additional independent way for a gvt sponsored currency to encourage flight to itself? maybe, use your imagination. i can think of a few. thanks for the answer. so the thing that worry you the most is that once a btc is transferred (locked) something bad could happen (a flaw in the math behind the spvp, an 51% attack on the SC) hence the btc will be stuck in a limbo, am I right? or do you think that the degree of separation introduced by the sidechain is enough to broke the link (peg) between the btc tokens (currency) and the hashing power ("commodity"/"gold")? i think the spvp breaks the sound money function by allowing the delinking of BTC units from the blockchain. it also encourages the transformation of BTC to speculative SC's that offer assets of all manner (stocks, bonds, etc). these assets do not represent money and are not liquid. Bitcoin will no longer be simply money. it will be a mix of money and assets. much like a Fidelity or eTrade trading platform. as a result, i doubt it ever gets treated as its own currency on Forex. and i doubt it ever gains Sound Money status like gold once had. THAT is a shame b/c that is what i thought this project was all about. replacing fiat money with a digital gold standard. Off-ramps are a reality of Bitcoin and exist already in numerous forms. We absolutely need off-ramps to scale the system and make it possible to reach mainstream adoption. For those of us who understand the implications, it is quite clear that sidechains are potentially the most secure and natural off-ramp possible. It offers the unique chance to preserve the integrity of the ledger and protect the Sound Money aspect of Bitcoin on the protocol level. so what is wrong with using SC's to incorporate all those assets? it breaks the Sound Money function. This comment in itself is so naive and ignorant of our present reality I'm not even sure where to begin... The desire to represent these assets in BTC and the demand for such applications has been crystal clear for everyone who has been paying attention. It is the sole reason why Bitcoin 2.0 projects exist. The problem with most Bitcoin 2.0 projects is that they introduce in the majority of cases an additional third-party that demands an increased level of trust. These third-parties are by all chances, the most dangerous risk to the Sound Money function. they would have to stay as SC's and i dare say there mere existence destroys Bitcoins liquidity and money function. What you constantly fail to realize is that if this demand is not fulfilled by SC's it will be through other schemes that are necessarily more dangerous to Bitcoins liquidity and money function. |
|
|
|
...
With altcoins we have that fear. But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.
...
Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here? Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin. It's possible, but there is no point to it because the majority of people are looking to preserve the value of their investment. For this reason, I will create fantastic sidechain 2.0 but without a cap and a 1:1 exchange rate and yours will be made irrelevant. No one is looking to inflate the value of their wealth. |
|
|
|
Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves. You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day. Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream? well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013. how visionary is that? That's a very good point, and they still haven't jumped into the fray. Perhaps some old cypherpunks just get tired of fighting the system. Bitcoin needs new blood and sharp minds to build useful tools. I would prefer to see some unity amongst the old vanguard to lead them. Hal Finney commented on this: ...I've noticed that cryptographic graybeards (I was in my mid 50's) tend to get cynical. I was more idealistic; I have always loved crypto, the mystery and the paradox of it.
When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list, he got a skeptical reception at best. Cryptographers have seen too many grand schemes by clueless noobs. They tend to have a knee jerk reaction.
I was more positive....
Adam Back, Szabo, and Ray Dillinger (and some others) have all joined the bitcoin community in one way or another in the past year or so. I think Hal was probably spot-on when he noted that "cryptographic graybeards tend to get cynical", and it therefore took the crazy growth that bitcoin had last year to crack that cynicism and cause these guys to get serious about Bitcoin. Ray and Wei Dai have both said that they've been very surprised that Bitcoin took off. Or maybe most of them had just "moved on to other things". Regardless, I would indeed prefer if the Blockstream guys personally held a non-trivial quantity of bitcoin. Maybe they do? Nick Szabo has been into Bitcoin since way back I believe |
|
|
|
It was the same in 2011 people were board with Bitcoin. The SoV idea wasn't clear then people wanted the do something with there BTC it was amazing after all. People came up with lots of innovative ideas and many tested them out and built new tools. They failed not because of the reasons you think. They succeeded in igniting imagination, they failed for many reasons.
All I see is people starting to get a little board, and some amazing imagination ignition, this time it's way more fantastic it solves previous points of failure. Only it doesn't, it requires we give up the previous protocol and adopt new incentives. And I I may not be able to sit it out.
Did you read this blog post : http://wefivekingsblog.blogspot.ca/2014/01/the-universe-wants-one-exchange.htmlDo you not agree that maybe money/SOV is all we should aspire Bitcoin to be? I agree with you that it changes the incentives. I think I have formulated a reasonable argument for why it actually may improve them and actually secure them in the future. You have expressed your opinion in that you believe, if I understand it right, that this change opens the door for possible attack scenarios on the network that were not possible before. I think these are two ideas that will be debated by others and hopefully by the few who will make the decision to implement the code and ultimately, the miners. My opinion is the prospect of losing incentives is worse for the security of the network than changing their implementation |
|
|
|
Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves. You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day. Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream? well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013. how visionary is that?  A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed. You really want to debate who is the visionary here? I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages you're a legend in your own mind. and you're a fraud in your own thread i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right? Me, zerg, Erdogan, molecular, Peter, ZB, NL, notme, even Adrian. Anyone who hasn't parrotted the same blatantly false assumptions for the last 200 pages despite being proven wrong with multiple people. Calling someone stupid and telling them they don't get it without a rebuttal doesn't make you correct. Repeating you position and changing topic doesn't make you smart, sure helps people understand your view but is not perfect far from it it requires more reflection and you could challenge it by assuming most of it isn't fact. All I here is noise and a lot of it. All I see in the last few pages are rebuttal to cypher's claims with facts and well opinionated arguments. |
|
|
|
Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves. You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day. Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream? well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013. how visionary is that? A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed. You really want to debate who is the visionary here? I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages you're a legend in your own mind. and you're a fraud in your own thread i'm sure everyone's here to read you then, right? Me, zerg, Erdogan, molecular, Peter, ZB, NL, notme, even Adrian. Anyone who hasn't parrotted the same blatantly false assumptions for the last 200 pages despite being proven wrong multiple time by multiple people. |
|
|
|
Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves. You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day. Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream? well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013. how visionary is that? A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed. You really want to debate who is the visionary here? I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages you're a legend in your own mind. and you're a fraud in your own thread |
|
|
|
Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves. You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day. Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream? well, another way to look at them is that they both admittedly missed the Bitcoin train in the beginning and only came around in 2013. how visionary is that? A technology that Adam Back developed is being leveraged in Bitcoin. Austin Hill has been working on zero-knowledge system since before you probably know they existed. You really want to debate who is the visionary here? I'd also like to know if you plan to respond to everyone who has thoroughly debunked your claims in the past 3-5 pages |
|
|
|
Unlike most detractors in here, Adam Back and Austin Hill's track record speak for themselves. You're definitely new here, or else you'd recognize that exact same argument has been run by each and every single long-con scammer and ponzi operator going back to Pirate@40 until the present day. Are you getting paid to discredit Blockstream? The same argument were made in reference to whom? Pirate@40? What is Pirate@40's name? How does his track record compare to two very public cypherpunks who have been in the scene for longer than most everybody here |
|
|
|
What exactly do you mean by "if it was made the law".
Legal tender like in 1934 Well fortunately Bitcoin is not physical and is valuable in part exactly because it allows one to avoid such criminal legislations. |
|
|
|
why do ppl, including myself, always say that Bitcoin is going to have a binary outcome?
it's b/c they understand that Bitcoin is about Money. Sound fixed supply Money. you know, the Money that has the chance to consume the Forex and gold markets. in that sense, it has the chance to consume the entire fiat world; yes including stocks, bonds, insurance, just by being used as money alone. it doesn't have to incorporate all those speculative assets directly within its protocol using SC's.
As much as a despise of what Gates said (in my words: "the blockchain tech is great, but as a money it's not so good"), you have to admit that the features 'decentralized', 'trustless', 'possibly anonymous' and 'uncensorable' are ones that would also be damn good features for stock exchange / dividend payments / all kinds of derivative gambling, ownership management, etc. If you want Bitcoin (the money) to conquer these areas and serve them as a liquid interchange money, wouldn't it be brilliant to have a technical solution that would allow some asset ledger (say the land ownership ledger) to interchange value with the money ledger (Bitcoin) and make atomic swaps across the chains possible? Doesn't colored coins already let you do this? I feel like like people are overcomplicating the problem of using the Bitcoin blockchain for asset transfer. They do, but they introduce another layer of trust that is considerably less decentralized. What are you talking about? What's centralized about the colored coin protocol? the colored coin protocol is too centralized with Sidechaines it can be less centralized. see that white gap in the image below, (thats where Colourd coins would fit)  this proves Sidechanes are better as they are less centralized.  its all good if you dont know where the economic incentives for the added decentralization comes from. all you need to understand it it can be done with the same or very similar security to that of bitcoin, and miners will do it because they earn more.  its not all good Mr brg444 cant see the large picture. Colored Coins could be good enough for certain applications, just like Open Transactions could be. Others certainly command a more important level of decentralization. |
|
|
|
but would you buy in if you had Bitcoin? just to make it more interesting, it will be like a war bond, you buy in an instantly get a 5% above market teh government will deflate after the war, you will get back more BTC at a higher rate, but you will lose if you withdraw while its inflating, so just hold.
lol BTW you cannot withdraw to the mainchain more BTC than you had invested so you are essentially stuck in that inflated chain if ever you decide to preserve this illusional inflated value. You also fail to ignore the fact that this scheme is very much possible today using existing technology : altcoins and/or federated sidechains in you lack of understanding you overlooked interest being paid on the bond in inflation coin, as the source for withdrawing more than you put in, there is also the irony you missed and that is the fact that throughout history the war time inflation is never paid back, only this time its different, it is guaranteed by the SideChain not governments . I didn't ignore it, I asked you if you would consider it if you had Bitcoin? (you just make it more complicated by saying alts aren't the only option, you could do it with Bitcoin and federated sidechains.) the question is now more complicated thanks to your input, would you consider inflation coin in war time if it was made the law, using either alts or federated sidechains, or would you prefer to hold your Bitcoin? What exactly do you mean by "if it was made the law". Also, are we not assuming this sidechain is controlled by the government or else who exactly do this war time money go to? If so why should I trust government sidechain more than traditional government. They could just as easily change the rules after the fact. And of course I would prefer to hold Bitcoin. I'm not the type of person who willingly fund war and consciously inflate the value of my holdings |
|
|
|
why do ppl, including myself, always say that Bitcoin is going to have a binary outcome?
it's b/c they understand that Bitcoin is about Money. Sound fixed supply Money. you know, the Money that has the chance to consume the Forex and gold markets. in that sense, it has the chance to consume the entire fiat world; yes including stocks, bonds, insurance, just by being used as money alone. it doesn't have to incorporate all those speculative assets directly within its protocol using SC's.
As much as a despise of what Gates said (in my words: "the blockchain tech is great, but as a money it's not so good"), you have to admit that the features 'decentralized', 'trustless', 'possibly anonymous' and 'uncensorable' are ones that would also be damn good features for stock exchange / dividend payments / all kinds of derivative gambling, ownership management, etc. If you want Bitcoin (the money) to conquer these areas and serve them as a liquid interchange money, wouldn't it be brilliant to have a technical solution that would allow some asset ledger (say the land ownership ledger) to interchange value with the money ledger (Bitcoin) and make atomic swaps across the chains possible? Doesn't colored coins already let you do this? I feel like like people are overcomplicating the problem of using the Bitcoin blockchain for asset transfer. They do, but they introduce another layer of trust that is considerably less decentralized. |
|
|
|
- they try to change Bitcoin. change it by changing the source code which breaks the Sound Money function. [...] that is what the spvp does, it creates an offramp into all manner of these assets.
So you're saying that a part of the real BTC is being chopped off and managed by a different source code base? The rules for the 1 million scBTC are different than for the original BTC? If so, I agree so far. What I don't understand: people will know this. scInflateBTCx2 has a public ledger and is run by miners using open source code. Why would anybody 'convert' 10 BTC to 10 scInflateBTCx2 knowing full well that scInflateBTCx2 runs a fractional reserve system and the guy with the other 10 scInflateBTCx2 will have his exchanged for 10 BTC half a microsecond later. There would be a continual run on the real BTC... it just wouldn't work, hence no BTC inflation.
Maybe someone can be so kind to help me understand by answering some of above questions or disputing my assertions?Thanks! I can't speak for Cypherdoc, (and also don't agree with all of his criticisms) but I'll take a crack at expounding a bit on this one. The different rules for the 1 million scBTC may be pretty much anything. They need not be in a public ledger or have open source code, but even if they do, you ask "Why would anybody 'convert' 10 BTC to 10 scInflateBTCx2 knowing full well that scInflateBTCx2 runs a fractional reserve system and the guy with the other 10 scInflateBTCx2 will have his exchanged for 10 BTC half a microsecond later?" Historically the reason has been war. This has been done many times over and over throughout history. If you look at the creation of almost any central bank scheme, it has almost always been done to finance a war, and to pay soldiers an inflating currency because sound money is scarce at such times. When there is conflict, folks are very willing to "go for broke". They have become convinced by TPTB that their life, and their way of life, and everything they care about will be lost of they don't accept the new scheme... and it is "illegal" not to do so, so they get put to death, imprisoned, called a traitor or whatever if they don't comply. If there is a geographical region that has a sound money system and a rule of law system, then the other geographical regimes that have only a rule of law system and have already pulled the con of paying their soldiers with inflation money have the military advantage. Their soldiers are willing to die for funny money and medals, and your soldiers aren't, so they can afford more of them. So... what has all this got to do with Side Chains? Not a lot, other than it is one mechanism that could be used to turn Bitcoin into "Military Government Inflation Coin" and require the use of that coin within a region by force of law, which of course the monetary authority could then inflate as needed and generate more as needed, diluting the bitcoin in the chain. The mechanism itself isn't the evil, it is just the tool. It can be used for good or "necessary" evils. Interesting insight but one that totally ignores the fact that sidechain do not introduce OR do they enable inflation. The process you describe could equally be exercised through any altcoin. [/list] but would you buy in if you had Bitcoin? just to make it more interesting, it will be like a war bond, you buy in an instantly get a 5% above market teh government will deflate after the war, you will get back more BTC at a higher rate, but you will lose if you withdraw while its inflating, so just hold. lol BTW you cannot withdraw to the mainchain more BTC than you had invested so you are essentially stuck in that inflated chain if ever you decide to preserve this illusional inflated value. You also fail to ignore the fact that this scheme is very much possible today using existing technology : altcoins and/or federated sidechains |
|
|
|
- they try to change Bitcoin. change it by changing the source code which breaks the Sound Money function. [...] that is what the spvp does, it creates an offramp into all manner of these assets.
So you're saying that a part of the real BTC is being chopped off and managed by a different source code base? The rules for the 1 million scBTC are different than for the original BTC? If so, I agree so far. What I don't understand: people will know this. scInflateBTCx2 has a public ledger and is run by miners using open source code. Why would anybody 'convert' 10 BTC to 10 scInflateBTCx2 knowing full well that scInflateBTCx2 runs a fractional reserve system and the guy with the other 10 scInflateBTCx2 will have his exchanged for 10 BTC half a microsecond later. There would be a continual run on the real BTC... it just wouldn't work, hence no BTC inflation.
Maybe someone can be so kind to help me understand by answering some of above questions or disputing my assertions?Thanks! I can't speak for Cypherdoc, (and also don't agree with all of his criticisms) but I'll take a crack at expounding a bit on this one. The different rules for the 1 million scBTC may be pretty much anything. They need not be in a public ledger or have open source code, but even if they do, you ask "Why would anybody 'convert' 10 BTC to 10 scInflateBTCx2 knowing full well that scInflateBTCx2 runs a fractional reserve system and the guy with the other 10 scInflateBTCx2 will have his exchanged for 10 BTC half a microsecond later?" Historically the reason has been war. This has been done many times over and over throughout history. If you look at the creation of almost any central bank scheme, it has almost always been done to finance a war, and to pay soldiers an inflating currency because sound money is scarce at such times. When there is conflict, folks are very willing to "go for broke". They have become convinced by TPTB that their life, and their way of life, and everything they care about will be lost of they don't accept the new scheme... and it is "illegal" not to do so, so they get put to death, imprisoned, called a traitor or whatever if they don't comply. If there is a geographical region that has a sound money system and a rule of law system, then the other geographical regimes that have only a rule of law system and have already pulled the con of paying their soldiers with inflation money have the military advantage. Their soldiers are willing to die for funny money and medals, and your soldiers aren't, so they can afford more of them. So... what has all this got to do with Side Chains? Not a lot, other than it is one mechanism that could be used to turn Bitcoin into "Military Government Inflation Coin" and require the use of that coin within a region by force of law, which of course the monetary authority could then inflate as needed and generate more as needed, diluting the bitcoin in the chain. The mechanism itself isn't the evil, it is just the tool. It can be used for good or "necessary" evils. Interesting insight but one that totally ignores the fact that sidechain do not introduce OR do they enable inflation. The process you describe could equally be exercised through any altcoin. [/list] |
|
|
|
-
imo, introducing the spvp into the source code, by itself, is a statement to the market that the BTC unit can be separated from its ultra-secure blockchain. i might be wrong, but that breaks Bitcoin's sound money principles. yes, ppl can inspect what hopefully will be open source code and don't have to move to a SC they don't like. but to me, the potential will be there and as a forward looking person, i don't like that. i might have to front run using my expectations and assumptions of what will be the consequences. You are, persistingly wrong. There exist dozens of ways already for the value of a BTC unit to be separated from the blockchain. Sidechains introduce an ideal way to leverage this ultra-secure blockchain so as to preserve the money principles by reducing as much as technically possible the need for trust. |
|
|
|
why do ppl, including myself, always say that Bitcoin is going to have a binary outcome?
it's b/c they understand that Bitcoin is about Money. Sound fixed supply Money. you know, the Money that has the chance to consume the Forex and gold markets. in that sense, it has the chance to consume the entire fiat world; yes including stocks, bonds, insurance, just by being used as money alone. it doesn't have to incorporate all those speculative assets directly within its protocol using SC's.
It is not a question of whether or not these assets are denominated in BTC. The issue is how do you TRADE these assets. What ledger do you trust to register these assets in BTC? At the moment there are only one option : use an off-chain solutions that either operate through a completely centralized ledger or a network of trusted federation/oracles. The value proposition of sidechains is to reappropriate this trust as close as possible to the blockchain environment where ultimate trust reside. It is not a perfect solution but the closest one we have right now. |
|
|
|
-
the only thing i would say to your response it that the centralized trust problems we've had in the last 5 yrs are going away. exchanges are being more regulated and investment funds are holding them more accountable. Merkle tree audits are becoming commonplace to verify reserves. my long term vision is that more and more trade is conducted directly in Bitcoin with merchants holding BTC, like Overstock, and paying suppliers in BTC. that is happening. you can see the progress with time if you've been paying attention. the ultimate goal is to bring everything into the Bitcoin system. it will take time but it is clearly moving in the right direction.Centralized trust problems do not go away with regulations and more oversight. They can only be reduced by removing the necessary trust. Centralized solutions are in fact becoming more common place and will only expand their place in the ecosystem precisely because of the demand for them. Your ultimate goal is quite simply unachievable with the Bitcoin ecosystem staying as it is. Sidechains are effectively the more promising tool to enable this very thing you so desire. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
