Devs are holding Bitcoin hostage. How is that for decentralized.
Get your facts straight. No devs are holding Bitcoin hostage. The free market will always win out.  |
|
|
|
|
Waiting for the master's input on this recent drop........
|
|
|
|
A move like this is most likely due to insider trading. I'm assuming someone inside bitfinex saw an opportunity to crash the market and trigger a majority of margin calls. A lot of little guys just lost everything so a whale could have a snack. I hope some lessons in margin trading were learned.
I was thinking the same thing. Margin trading is poison to me. |
|
|
|
The opening page was really worth a read: whatever one might think it is important to be well informed before saying anything regarding the matter.
I'm not an expert but seeing the enormous division this thing is crate amongst everybody in here I think we should be more intelligent and more humble to take the time to think before saying anything.
thanks smoothie by the way..
no problem. It is good to be informed. |
|
|
|
Simply put:
Sidechains will have security issues.
Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.
Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.
 You went from implying conflict of interest and nefarious actions to simply bashing sidechains because according to your reputable technical expertise "they're not secure". Answer me this: Where does the additional hashing power come from to secure any side chain to make it equally secure to bitcoin's current security?And I was merely pointing out how SC's will not be as secure as bitcoin. BTW please answer my question on how Blockstream makes its money if it is a for-profit company. Thanks No one claimed it can be as equally secure as Bitcoin but it can get pretty darn close. The beautiful thing about sidechains is they offer a wide range of security models that can be leveraged for various degrees of decentralization and trustlessness. About the hashing power, if merged mining is implemented then miners will have financial incentive to process and secure transactions occurring on a sidechain. It isn't a stretch to believe that a particularly popular and useful sidechain (improve privacy for example) could see close to 100% of the miners merge-mine the chain. So then you concede that the goal of using side chains is to effectively divert users to a less secure block chain to increase capacity? I highly doubt 100% of miners would merge-mine the side chain. From your knowledge how are they proposing to improve privacy for example? |
|
|
|
Thank you for answering my question.
Now that you said "No!", how do you think their business model will work if they do not have a financial incentive to keep certain users off the block chain?
How do they make their money if they are in fact a for-profit company?
It's been repeated ad nauseum that their business model is similar to RedHat or any other companies that built entreprise class software on top of open source platforms and offer a variety of consulting services. but does that profit depend upon side chains becoming a reality and/or the max block size staying relatively small or at 1MB? ad nauseum where? lol I haven;t seen any recent discussion of their business model in depth. |
|
|
|
Simply put:
Sidechains will have security issues.
Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.
Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.
You went from implying conflict of interest and nefarious actions to simply bashing sidechains because according to your reputable technical expertise "they're not secure". Answer me this: Where does the additional hashing power come from to secure any side chain to make it equally secure to bitcoin's current security?And I was merely pointing out how SC's will not be as secure as bitcoin. BTW please answer my question on how Blockstream makes its money if it is a for-profit company. Thanks |
|
|
|
I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.
I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).
Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.
But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.
I may be completely wrong, but probably not.
Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true. If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth. The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth. Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50. By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature? Yes, in part. From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate. But doesn't blockstream have a financial incentive to keep blocks small enough so that users want to use them as a 3rd party intermediary for smaller transactions that would cost more to do on chain rather than with blockstream? Yes? No? No! If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.
Read my posts above. Blockstream is first and foremost about extending the features of Bitcoin (asset issuance, improved privacy, segregated witness, safer zero-conf transactions), not scaling. Thank you for answering my question. Now that you said "No!", how do you think their business model will work if they do not have a financial incentive to keep certain users off the block chain? How do they make their money if they are in fact a for-profit company? |
|
|
|
From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.
Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin, just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system. I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper? Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper: We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered. That sounds like scaling features to me. Simply put: Sidechains will have security issues. Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash. Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain. |
|
|
|
I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.
I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).
Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.
But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.
I may be completely wrong, but probably not.
Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true. If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth. The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth. Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50. By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature? Yes, in part. From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate. But doesn't blockstream have a financial incentive to keep blocks small enough so that users want to use them as a 3rd party intermediary for smaller transactions that would cost more to do on chain rather than with blockstream? Yes? No? |
|
|
|
Oh the butthurt of some users in this thread is strong.  |
|
|
|
bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "
no, its not. this was worth a bump. People need to realize what the purpose of bitcoin was and how Satoshi envisioned it to grow. Keeping 1 MB cap =/= growth. stop extrapolating the vision of somebody you know nothing about. + i have never said 1MBcap for-freakin-ever. Mr extrapolator. lol oh let's be presumptuous. Stop assuming I know nothing about Satoshi. Let's stop with the personal attacks and stick to the topic at hand buddy. First off you indicated that it would be not worth reading this main post of D&T for "noobs". I think reading it does bring lots of things into clear perspective. |
|
|
|
It seems that increasing the block size may negatively affect the current ASIC mining pools and they may potentially abandon Bitcoin if it becomes unprofitable for them. Consequently, this should allow an opportunity for a massive influx of GPU and CPU miners to return to the system. This is actually a good thing because since the arrival of ASICS, there are now hundreds of thousands of new bitcoin enthusiasts. This means that with more potential individual miners, the more decentralized Bitcoin will become!
How did you come to the conclusion? The changing of the 1 MB cap would instnatly make ASIC mining pools irrelevant? How so? |
|
|
|
bump because this is worth a read to the " noobs "
no, its not. this was worth a bump. People need to realize what the purpose of bitcoin was and how Satoshi envisioned it to grow. Keeping 1 MB cap =/= growth. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin WhitepaperLimiting bitcoin to 1 MB forces users of bitcoin to use a 3rd party financial institution (Blockstream / Lightning Network). Which goes against the very reason bitcoin was created. |
|
|
|
let me debunk this imposter "satoshi" with the actual satoshi's own words: Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin WhitepaperLimiting the block size to 1 MB makes the above quote impossible at some point in Bitcoin's future. Bitcoin users relying on any 3rd party company (Blockstream or Lightning Network) goes against the very essence of why bitcoin was created. |
|
|
|
simply put: Bitcoin ... A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution.
Satoshi Nakamoto - Bitcoin Whitepaper |
|
|
|
The XT Manifesto states the following: The principles XT uses to guide decisions on patches are as follows:
* We try to follow the founding vision of the Bitcoin project, as defined by Satoshi's writings. That means:
* We support a Bitcoin network in which ordinary people settle with each directly on the block chain.
* We aim for mainstream adoption, by people who may not be ideologically motivated.
* We focus on the user experience, as ultimately, how users experience Bitcoin is fundamental to the project's success.
* Better is better. Changes can be useful even if more work remains to be done, or there are theoretically better proposals not backed by working code. Put another way, perfect is the enemy of the good.
* Truly mainstream adoption is not inevitable; it requires hard work by everyone. We must never make decisions based on the assumption of inevitable success.
* There is a clear decision making process, and product decisions are made in a timely manner.
* We maintain a professional working environment at all times. The developer discussion forum is moderated and troublemaking, nastyness, Machiavellianism etc will result in bans. Note that neither security nor decentralization feature *at all* in their list of principles. That's one way to read into it. Another is that with more users able to experience on-chain transactions, their security and decentralization is greater than it would be if they were forced to choose off-chain transactions as a result of higher fees/less throughput. Well said. Being forced off chain eventually to payment channels like block stream and lightning network is a form of centralization. They claim "trustless" payment channels. But I have yet to see a system they develop that is truly TRUSTLESS. |
|
|
|
The XT Manifesto states the following: The principles XT uses to guide decisions on patches are as follows:
* We try to follow the founding vision of the Bitcoin project, as defined by Satoshi's writings. That means:
* We support a Bitcoin network in which ordinary people settle with each directly on the block chain.
* We aim for mainstream adoption, by people who may not be ideologically motivated.
* We focus on the user experience, as ultimately, how users experience Bitcoin is fundamental to the project's success.
* Better is better. Changes can be useful even if more work remains to be done, or there are theoretically better proposals not backed by working code. Put another way, perfect is the enemy of the good.
* Truly mainstream adoption is not inevitable; it requires hard work by everyone. We must never make decisions based on the assumption of inevitable success.
* There is a clear decision making process, and product decisions are made in a timely manner.
* We maintain a professional working environment at all times. The developer discussion forum is moderated and troublemaking, nastyness, Machiavellianism etc will result in bans. Note that neither security nor decentralization feature *at all* in their list of principles. Read in bold. That encompasses security and decentralization. Please keep up. Thanks |
|
|
|
|
TYPO: Coins for this auction will ship out by August 20th 30th, 2015.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
