hey, looky here. thanks to brg444, i've catapulted past D&T to #2 poster here on the forum. thanks brg444! take me to #1!  |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.
Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.
if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp. But absolutely, it is already being done but off-chain which creates all kind of trust issues. These schemes represent the very danger to Bitcoin Sound Money you so very much fear. There is no easier way to corrupt the Bitcoin ledger than to assign value outside of its trust environment. SPVP proposes to narrow that trust gap significantly but you can't stop all stupid ppl like Odalv from doing stupid things. better to let them lose money on those federated servers. don't want to pollute the protocol with spvp and institutionalize stupidity. |
|
|
|
You argument is very different from cypher's. You argue that the mining incentive is changed and could be problematic to the safety of the network.
Cypher's fallacious and perpetually proven wrong argument is that somehow SC's break the Sound Money property by separating BTC from the blockchain. A laughable proposition considering the dozens of ways this is already done.
if it's already being done, then we don't need the spvp. |
|
|
|
it seems you don't understand yet again. I would really encourage that you read the actual blog post
a universal exchange supercedes money. this is not a matter of wanting to accomodate stocks,bonds or contracts.
no, it's you who don't understand. just a superficial scan of the blog makes it clear that the author is talking about the Bitcoin blockchain as his Universal Exchange. somehow, he seems to relegate the BTC units to a minor category, if i'm not mistaken, which would be wrong. it's the BTC unit plus the blockchain, or the inextricable link btwn the 2 that i'm trying to ram into your peabrain, that is important. the 2 combined are what constitute Bitcoin as Sound Money. splitting these 2 via your spvp gimmick will destroy Bitcoin as Money. that is the functionality we need to be promoting, not all this SC bullshit which will relegate us to the "Bitcoin Trading Platform Game". we want all outsiders to have to buy in to BTC with cold hard cash which will drive us to the Moon. |
|
|
|
A Universal Exchange is a more powerful proposition than Universal Sound Money
i strongly disagree with this. there is no greater network effect than money. nor one greater to disrupt. THAT is where today's problem with our financial system lies. it is all about fiat money corruption. in that sense, all the exchange assets you want to build into SC's are a waste of time and relegate Bitcoin to a mere trading platform. much like WoW. i don't play that game but i'd think it involves buying the game currency for fiat cash then running around inside the game trying to accumulate all sorts of swords, shields, magic wings, flying shoes, whatever. these would be the equivalent of IRL stocks, bonds, contracts, insurance, etc which are pitiful in extent compared to the Forex and gold/silver markets. this pitiful game weakens Bitcoin core function. all of a sudden, outsiders have all sorts of choices from which to buy, if they buy in at all in this miserable scenario. with Bitcoin, as it is, there is only the money function. all of a sudden, we've gone from a WoW game platform which you want to create with SC's, to an entirely different type and magnitude of game: The Money Game on a world stage. there is nothing bigger nor more important than getting a seat at the table in this game. why do you wish to shoot so low?  |
|
|
|
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? You are right, I can't wait to read you, you are the most entertaining clown. well it is true that i want to stop you from bastardizing Bitcoin into some trading platform as opposed to Sound Money. |
|
|
|
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.
who's going to pay you to clone it and make a SC for it when no one from the Bitcoin community will use your SC since FantastiCOIN may be attractive to speculators precisely b/c it provides inflation? |
|
|
|
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.  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. [/quote] i meant a SC running it's own security scheme but connected to MC via spvp. |
|
|
|
I'm just trying to make incremental progress in my understanding by answering the question "on which ledger is the value stored?" The probability that the 2-way peg is severed is a different discussion. I think the probability of the 2-way peg being severed is actually central to the definition of "sidechain" vs. "altcoin," and for practical purposes determines investment behavior in the chain. On one end of the spectrum, if a sidechain's 2-way peg can be severed at the whim of the sidechain devs, it would essentially be an altcoin and would presumably attract about as much investment as altcoins do (not a threat to Bitcoin). At the other end of the spectrum, if it's mathematically impossible to sever the 2wp, then it is a true sidechain and the value seems to always remain with the Bitcoin ledger (not a threat to Bitcoin, at least not for this reason). For cases in between, we cannot really call it a true sidechain, and by the same token we cannot really expect substantial portions of the bitcoin holders to just jump over to the sidechain. In other words, there's a reasoning error to watch out for here: insofar as the value that could be funneled over to the sidechain relies on the certainty that the 2wp will remain, the concern is self-defeating. If there is any shadow of possibility that the 2wp could be broken, it won't attract that many bitcoins - not much more than any altcoin; and if any sidechain does attract a large portion of the bitcoins, it will only be because the 2wp is as certain of a thing in investors' minds as Bitcoin itself is, which is an extremely high bar. (This does still leave the possibility that the devs could hamstring Bitcoin deliberately to reduce confidence in Bitcoin to bring it in line with confidence in a not completely solid 2wp so that many people would switch despite some uncertainty. However, this is a much smaller argument to be making.) Great post as usual, ZB. I mostly 1 agree: the amount of bitcoins that move to a sidechain will depend, in part, on the credibility of the 2-way peg. And, realistically, it will probably take years for any sidechain to establish enough credibility to attract a significant amount of bitcoins (assuming OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is implemented, and even this could take a few years if it happens at all). So I suspect any migration of economic activity away from the Blockchain to be slow and anti-climactic. Hypothetical Question: If we assume (perhaps unrealistically) that the 2-way peg is unbreakable and if we also assume (again, perhaps unrealistically) that the security of Bitcoin's blockchain remains unchanged with sidechains, what additional risks do sidechains impose? The risks I can see are (a) that sidechains could be used as an "excuse" to avoid addressing Bitcoin's scalability, thereby making the likelihood of an uber sidechain absorbing all the bitcoin more likely (along with the possible shenanigans that such an event might entail), and (b) that it sets a precedent that soft-forking changes to add new "features" are OK. 1I think even if one assumes the 2-way peg is unbreakable, that value is still stored on the sidechain ledger (at least) in the extreme case where the majority of coins and economic activity take place on that sidechain. If everyone moves out of bitcoin and onto the sidechain, then the Blockchain no longer serves its memory function--it becomes superseded by the sidechain's ledger. 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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 well, i recognized Bitcoin for what is was in Jan 2011 and acted on it. there is no debate. |
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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? i guess, if it's possible. but are we asking too much? can it really be achieved by the spvp? that's the $5B question, b/c that's what we'll be putting at risk if SC's are wrong. |
|
|
|
-
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. the other reason i don't like it and which i tried to avoid in my earlier post is the Blockstream for profit motive. they have every incentive to encourage usage of SC's. they say they won't construct a SC for a SC scam. well, that's for anyone's definition. and when there's money involved, i can't see how they won't take it when they have investors to please. they can always use the same excuse after a SC failure "well, we didn't force anyone to use it". yes, it bothers me that 40% of core devs + 3 of the top committers are under one paid roof. that they could get something like this through into the source code is a clear conflict of interest and sends a bad message to the marketplace. |
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
