Is colored coins not introducing an additional layer of trust?
That depends on how you define "another layer of trust". Colored coins are inherently used for tracking things outside the blockchain - that by definition means representing obligations a.k.a counterparty risk. Any technique that tracks obligations outside the blockchain will be tracking counterparty risk. But none of that has nothing to do with the underlying technology used to create the token. Colored coins as tokens are no different from other bitcoins. A colored coin token doesn't all of a sudden become less trustworthy than a non-colored Bitcoin. I define "another layer of trust" as trusting anything else but the Bitcoin network. In that regard colored coins are less decentralized than sidechains. I don't get sidechains. Will they just be alt-coins then?
In the proposed concept, they use a SPV client to settle between chains. To secure the chain they would use merged-mining which potentially lets them access 100% of Bitcoin's mining power. They are not quite as secure though as they are not accepted by all nodes.
They can also use a less-decentralized model that rely on Oracles/Federations/Voting Pools.
*the unit is technically not the actual BTC but an image of it locked in a multi-sig type of way. the peg could also be a deterministic function but that defeats the purpose and effectively creates an altcoin.
Ah. Gracias Senior:) But what's the point? there is no point if you believe, as i do, that Bitcoin is destined to become a global reserve currency. |
|
|
|
not while i have my shadow assassin. |
|
|
|
if memory serves I read somewhere that the cap on the block size was introduced due to DDoS attacks against the network using very large blocks, is it correct? Due to the potential for such attacks. I like to think that, like myself, sidechains at least occurred to Satoshi early on in his ruminations about scaling modes. Likely we'll never know though. For my part I imagined the name 'child chains', but whatever. Same diff. They are just a logical sub-set of the Bitcoin solution one way or another. I actually had a similar thought experiment the other day. Imagine that Satoshi had built sidechains out the box with Bitcoin. Would we be worse off or significantly ahead? I think sidechains are the most natural extension possible to Bitcoin if they can execute what is in the white paper. Of course that remains to be seen but considering just about all of silicon valley invested in their 20 million seed round. My bet is they will. one of my other memes is that "most investors in cryptocurrency will lose money". and that includes Silicon Valley investors. that's b/c most investors/geeks, imo, don't understand what Bitcoin is and what its ultimate destiny will be. and that is the fulfillment of Sound Money as envisioned by the goldbugs and cypherpunks. there are too many common ppl in the world who are depending on us to provide a way to "exit" the fiat system. what resonates with most non US ppl round the world is the fixed supply nature of Bitcoin. they don't care about stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc which SC's wants to provide. all they care about is Sound Money that is liquid and acts like a SOV. even Americans hold few stocks and bonds these days as none of them are compelling at these inflated prices and dangerous levels. everyone knows it's a Ponzi Scheme enable by the #1 problem of the day: fiat money printing ala central banks. Bitcoin is a poison dart aimed directly at the heart of this problem and i don't think humanity is going to let this chance go by. this is why the Bitcoin community needs to maintain a focus on what got us to where we are: the SOV sound money function. we want to force the outsiders to "buy in" to BTC on MC. this is what will take us to The Moon. |
|
|
|
This is where economics in the economy come in to play risks and reward, at the moment federation/oracles/OT all are owned by the entities that want you to trust them with your Bitcoin, what happens there after is business. (And federation/oracles/OT are magnitudes more trusted than anything before) What entities do to build trust or create value, if it has any impact on miners it is catered for in the existing incentive structure. There's something important to be said here about OT (and other off-chain systems). OT is a contract processing system that operates on liabilities. You'll never be able to transact with Bitcoins anywhere except on the Bitcoin blockchain, in OT or in any other system. If we want Bitcoin to succeed as money, then we need as many Bitcoin transactions to happen as possible. yes, and they should happen on MC to maximize miner tx revenue. but they cant  Gavin will get his proposals thru. https://bitcoinfoundation.org/2014/11/everybody-pivots/ |
|
|
|
This is where economics in the economy come in to play risks and reward, at the moment federation/oracles/OT all are owned by the entities that want you to trust them with your Bitcoin, what happens there after is business. (And federation/oracles/OT are magnitudes more trusted than anything before) What entities do to build trust or create value, if it has any impact on miners it is catered for in the existing incentive structure. There's something important to be said here about OT (and other off-chain systems). OT is a contract processing system that operates on liabilities. You'll never be able to transact with Bitcoins anywhere except on the Bitcoin blockchain, in OT or in any other system. If we want Bitcoin to succeed as money, then we need as many Bitcoin transactions to happen as possible. yes, and they should happen on MC to maximize miner tx revenue. |
|
|
|
I can remember when cypherdoc was trying to convince ppl to send $ into crashing mtGox, only to keep his stomach full. (he was using words "many of us are buying $600 cheap btc @ fucked mtGox") ... but cypherdoc was buying at $1,60
you call me clown, i respond with idiot, and you get mad. sad.  let's make one thing clear, you, brg444, and Blockstream are the ones who want to change everything by changing the protocol ruleset causing the rest of us to scramble trying to figure out the economic consequences of the spvp while you sit back and take advantage of the massive volatility. you admitted it. and yes, i'm disappointed in you molecular and sickpig being unable to chastise others besides just me. |
|
|
|
Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit. keep you eyes on the far right column:  from Reddit comments. think nom, nom, nom: [–]Gayspy 1 point 14 minutes ago Yeah! You can exchange Bitcoin to euros and vice versa in Finland without paying 24% extra for the government in taxes each time you do! Who would have thought. |
|
|
|
Step 1: solidarity with Gavin once he formally presents a solution to the block size limit. keep you eyes on the far right column: |
|
|
|
I was looking into it to see if I could use it for solo mining, I believe it is on par as a node, and as you point out probably better and continued support seems inevitable, but if I recall correctly I was looking at just a development road map and it didn't seem like there was demand to support the mining functionality, going forward I felt it wasn't worth risking if a block didn't propagate so I am not sure it will be used for mining.
Ah. Thanks for your clarifications. Mining support has been implemented for quite some time now. I'd have to check the commit logs to be certain, but I want to say that mining support went in around the end of June, 4 to 5 months ago. There is nothing on the development road map for it because there isn't anything else to do for it currently since it's complete. It's a fairly simple matter to find out if a block will propagate by using BIP0032 block proposals since it checks if a block is valid (excepting the proof of work), before you ever start working on finding the nonce. In fact, if mining infrastructures started to migrate to checking consensus against multiple implementations in general (or even multiple versions of Bitcoin Core itself), it would be beneficial to the miners and the entire ecosystem in the long run since even accidental forks between Bitcoin Core versions (as has already happened in the past) could be detected and handled gracefully. this is really encouraging. we owe it to ourselves to further investigate the capabilities of btcd as an alternative to Core. |
|
|
|
Austin founded Zero Knowledge Systems in 1997. If you want to debate vision. This guy has loads of it.
again, if they were so smart, how come they didn't get Bitcoin until 2013? even with their noses buried within it? how come some cypherdoc dude did? facts are facts. all i'm saying is your character assassination attempts towards me are just propaganda. it's a good thing you're not associated with Blockstream, b/c if you are, that could turn out to be a big problem for them. |
|
|
|
You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.
hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt. also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also. but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book. I can recognize this. But the fact that you so conveniently dismiss the works of people who have been involved in crypto since before you even knew about Bitcoin says a lot about your character. These guys have been developing for years some of the very technology that underlies Bitcoin. I think that deserves some respect you're continuing to use selective memory loss. if you go back, i've acknowledged Adam's contributions many times in this thread. i'm not sure about Austin's. the only reason we're talking about these "contributions" is b/c you brought their names into the recent discussion as examples of the only ones we should be listening to in regards to SC's. you've also given preference to dev opinion as more important to Bitcoins success. this is wrong as this is a community you know and involves much more than just code. |
|
|
|
You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.
hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt. also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also. but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book. |
|
|
|
where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98? my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold. hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin. which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs. we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.
now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world. the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.
and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.
Oh please.  You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success. I don't see you name in the Bitcoin's whitepaper. I do see Adam Back's though. you make it sound as if Adam and Austin are crucial for Bitcoins future success. (they aren't) why would i want to put my name on a paper with a flawed assumption? |
|
|
|
|
Zerg once asserted that i was probably the first venture capitalist to invest in Bitcoin back in 2011. i believe he is right.
what i saw in Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV sound money system that had the potential to replace gold and silver and consume fiat currencies worldwide. everybody knows i went out and acted on that belief by selling all my silver startingat its peak of 49 (avg out 44) in May 2011 and then almost all my gold in Aug 2011 (avg out around 1750). i started buying BTC @ 1.60 the day before Easter Apr 2011 and for the rest of 2011 mostly into the bottom @1.98. this vision has been more than fulfilled.
now i see an existential threat to the whole concept of Bitcoin as Money with this spvp. it breaks the linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its ultrasecure blockchain. this will dilute the entire money function and potential for Bitcoin as Money. expect the price of BTC to drop if this is implemented. you will no longer be able to describe Bitcoin as digital cash or digital gold or even as "apolitcal" money. that's b/c of Blockstream control and the conversion of Bitcoin to a WoW trading platform. you will have to say that Bitcoin is a trading platform that now offers stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts, Truthcoin, and oh, btw, currency. this will cause confusion and dilution.
what a shame. we had a chance to change the world.
|
|
|
|
More good stuff from Back : "There’s a lot of education that needs to occur, there’s a lot of communication, and we look forward to the coming months where we’re going to be publishing more details, more technical details, sample code on GitHub, and allow people to start experimenting with various parts of the technology stack," Hill said.
The CEO said that Blockstream will strive to illustrate how sidechains can be used to empower entrepreneurial development, and that for now, this means educating developers through workshops and co-development. Hill "The entire project was born out of the open-source community, so the idea that we would do anything that isn’t open source or isn’t decentralized or open permission-less innovation is anti-bitcoin" bu bbbu bbbuttttt Blockstream are the only one that profit from sidechains, right? where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98? my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold. hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin. which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs. we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise. now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world. the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts. and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today. |
|
|
|
And what if they step down?
Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?
You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.
Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code. You've actually hit on a separate, but related issue. There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved. There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel. Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute. PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins. who you talking about? Jeff Garzik, gmaxwell and Lukejr turned this into an issue by moving to strike Jon Matonis and Roger Ver, two established Bitcoin community members who present themselves competently and articulately, based solely on their political ideas. Now, instead of discussing the topic of strategy and purpose for the Press Center, jgarzik wants to silence any debate. I think that determining the press strategy is very important. No, the problem (in this case) is not their political ideas. The problem is that they project their political ideas on Bitcoin, with things such as representing Bitcoin as being a tool used to bring about anarchy. Matonis, at least, seems to be encouraging people to break the law almost every time he talks about Bitcoin. While I did include Roger Ver in my original objection, it was pointed out that he has (at least lately) kept his politics separate in public - so I've limited my objection in this reason to just Matonis. The general objection against Roger Ver is that he has a criminal history. And not just some debatable crime (eg, drug-related or statutory), but selling explosives. For all I know, maybe he was just selling fireworks - or even wrongly accused and railroaded. However, the media doesn't care about the truth: this is a tool they can simply say "Bitcoin spokesman Roger Ver, who holds a conviction for selling explosives to terrorists, blah blah blah". Maybe they can say it regardless of who we put up as a press contact, but having him listed will serve to re-affirm such detraction when it happens. He didn't have the brass to post it publicly of course, he's a cowardly weasel through and through In the interest of being a tough guy like you, here is the rest of our PM discussion which you must have missed in your posting: Wait, so you lost the vote, cancelled the vote and are now telling me that you lost it but BY LESS THAN I CLAIMED?
Do you believe that everyone in the world who doesn't agree with you is just one person? I'm getting that impression. No. I'm saying that you either can't count or you were outright lying. And I'm letting you know in private because I'm kind enough to not point our your innumeracy-or-dishonesty in public even though you've been rather uncivil towards me. The you accuse me from gathering community input (Wow!), which is what y'all said was needed.
Have you no shame?
Gathering input is good— but what you posted wasn't a genuine effort to get opinions it was a heavily biased rabel-rousing rant which has had the effect of causing people to make threats of violence against me. And if I'm uncharitable I might conclude from the fact that you never mentioned it in the main discussion that you intended to keep it hidden so that your incorrect claims would go unchallenged... or perhaps you just didn't think to mention it, it happens... but still stinks. to which you replied: GO fuck yourself you little weasel. You have no shame, no integrity and no balls. You can't even handle a public discussion without getting some sycophant to shut it down when you're losing.
FUCK YOU and suck on a cactus.
I honestly believed that if it were actually a vote the position I was recommending would have eventually won out, the vote-stacking you were conducting only goes so far— as I said in the discussion, the only criteria I've seen I've seen suggested that would have kept Bruce Wagner, Nefario, or even Pirate40 off is the one of not including people where there was genuine concern— all hard large basis of public support. That this has been an enormous time and emotion suck, and it had reached the point where aantonop was name calling people who didn't agree with him, along with threats and other embarrassing responses... it probably was best to kill it mercifully. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.
And what if they step down? Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin? You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it. Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code. Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is. You sound like an insider. Tell us more.  Wat? Lol, I'm just a highly attuned and interested observer who can easily see and feel the tensions between devs and the future direction of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.
And what if they step down? Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin? You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it. Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code. Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is. |
|
|
|
I really don't see what the big stink is about Side Chains. So they change the Bitcoin protocol a little, big deal. As long as it doesn't break the current technology and only changes the human incentives, then there is no problem. If the new incentives don't work, then they will be rejected. If the new incentives do work, then Bitcoin grows stronger. The change to the protocol may also inspire new possibilities. Whether you call it money or a trading platform is meaningless because they are both sociological terms. Sociological variables change with the weather. You create tools that function and let the humans decide how to use them. Examples: 1. An anonymous side chain is developed. Suddenly millions of people are kidnapped. You stop using the Side Chain or your wife will leave you or you learn empathy.
2. A Side Chain creates and markets MeowMeowBeenz that uses merge mining and saps hashes from Bitcoin. The next day WoofWoofBeenz replaces it because marketing. Bitcoin stays golden because it needs no marketing.
3. A Side Chain becomes so popular that most bitcoins get locked into it in 140 years. A single satoshi is still enough to run the rest of the global economy after moving the decimal point. There will still never be one global money because we are not like the others.
4. Bitcoin breaks and the Side Chains can not be saved by the patch. That's the sociologists problem for approving the Side Chains.
What am I missing? you're missing the other half of this argument. that being, the ppl proposing the spvp happen to compose 40% of core dev + 3 of the top committers, all of whom have gotten together and raised $21M in cash to form a for-profit company called Blockstream. these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors. to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money. in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation. crucial to their success is inserting a spvp into the source code specifically to facilitate their business model. now, when you try to explain what Bitcoin is, you can no longer say that Bitcoin is a form of digital cash. you'll have to say it's a trading platform that offers stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts, and oh currency. kinda like WoW. but maybe not quite as good. Blockstream will want to see these SC's become successful as a happy customer is a happy payor and thus becomes a profit center which can refer more and more clients to build more SC's. this is their job. they will make $millions/billions. Sorry, I don't see a problem as long as the Bitcoin protocol still works. If they eventually abandon Bitcoin for their own altcoin, then competition may overtake them. Maybe they will succeed, but crying won't stop them. If they are smart enough to be innovative, then they will be smart enough to not shoot themselves in the foot by trying to reinvent the wheel. All the stuff about using Bitcoin for trading is a good thing. Rich people usually listen to smart people. Proof of Work will survive on its own merit. no one's crying. it's about having enough self awareness as a community to understand that letting a bunch of insiders who control a disproportionate amount of access to the source code shouldn't be proposing a source code change that specifically is designed to benefit themselves and their for profit company they have been found to set up last February. no wonder there hasn't been any progress on the Bitcoin code. how do you think all those other companies or altcoins feel that have spent millions in money and time designing processes to compete head to head with Bitcoin w/o the insider advantage of Blockstream? how do you think the outside financial world will look at this? the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing. i for one, think they have the possibility to abuse this retained position to block other promising innovations that come along in the future that might obsolete SC's. if they really believe in their product they should have no problem stepping down. or if they want to stick around, reorg as a non profit. i think it's the right thing to do. and then we as a community don't have to worry about this ethical conflict. Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good. if we want ppls of all nations and social strata to buy in we cannot afford to let Bitcoin appear to have any improprieties or be subject to any vested interests like Blockstream. we don't need or want a Redhat for Bitcoin as Money. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
