1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains! How do you want replace all money with SC ? Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.
SCs are using Bitcoin as currency. Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
he's just fucking with you... (he was being sarcastic) |
|
|
|
|
Coinbase being valued at 400,000,000$ is pretty bullish.
How long until we get our first billion $ company.
|
|
|
|
the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks. where did all that FUD go? and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:  What are you talking about?  When have I ever tried to scare people? You've been doing a good job at it ever since we started discussing sidechains and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.
The reality is there is plenty of things wrong about Bitcoin if we want it to effectively change the world of money as we think it will. At its core it is unfortunately very limited. There may be good reasons for this but if we're gonna have the world's economy sitting on top of this thing, status quo does not cut it. It's like trying to invent the internet with only TCP/IP. It is very shortsighted to imagine Bitcoin is perfect as is and needs not to improve. This thing need to develop and be able to adapt to the new realities. The simple fact that schemes like Counterparty, Ethereum, Coloredcoins are getting traction is a clear representation of a demand and a need for such additional layer built on top of Bitcoin and that the Bitcoin blockchain alone does not suffice. The decision is whether or not we want these layers to be as equally decentralized as Bitcoin in the event that a majority of us gets to use them. Read this again, maybe you'll get a clue. It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.
This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it, then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network
who really needs absolute anonymity? sure, for illegal stuff. but most of us don't do that.
Please don't make me laugh... i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity. therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.
since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?
|
|
|
|
I think it reflects on your ego, and mental disposition. facts shouldn't require ego, but threatening to mess with the incentive structure that gives my bitcoins value is something worth debating.
well then will you be debating will anything else than ad hominem attacks? care to bring some arguments that support your position and poke some holes in mine? |
|
|
|
Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?
I'm into improving Bitcoin, but I think we need agreement on what is wrong with it and why it should be improved, there are lots of BIS in the pipe, I just what to know what's wrong with Bitcoin that the SC proposal is supposed to fix  "improve"? Ive been doing product development for over 20 years, and if there is one lesson I've learned the hard way it is if it isn't broken don't fix it. not that thats my position with SC's brg444 could squash my position in 2 words and make my case very tedious to prove, the thought of reading through more A.D.D. rhetoric is not comforting, and I'll probably crawl back into my shell, or he can carry on all A.D.D. like and I wont have to present my position again. You could at least adress my answers to your questions. |
|
|
|
Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?
Please bestow us with your wisdom of these indisputable facts or shut the hell up. That was Adrian-x's challenge to you, your response was your belief in a potential future. I was defending you. He did a switch up on you, and challenged you to change your argumentation style. and for that you attack me? You aren't even turning out to be a good rhetorician. You can't even tell who is on your side. he's so frantic to shill for Blockstream, you'd think he was being paid by them to do so. my job is to confront trolls who spread FUD and misinformation. I'd say I did a pretty good job with you |
|
|
|
Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?
Please bestow us with your wisdom of these indisputable facts or shut the hell up. That was Adrian-x's challenge to you, your response was your belief in a potential future. I was defending you. He did a switch up on you, and challenged you to change your argumentation style. and for that you attack me? You aren't even turning out to be a good rhetorician. You can't even tell who is on your side.  well sorry about that. but your obscure 1 liner with no reference had me confused. |
|
|
|
Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?
Please bestow us with your wisdom of these indisputable facts or shut the hell up. |
|
|
|
Yes. I believe it actually improves it and enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions even in a future where there will be a demand for features and applications that can NOT be implemented on the mainchain.
please define "improves" please define "what "enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions?" Improves: Enable miners to continue claiming BTC transactions fxs in a future where the Bitcoin blockchain will be unable to accomodate all types or needs of transactions. It incentivizes miners to continue securing the network in the best possible way by insuring their profitability. It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward. This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it, then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network effect. Of course, this feature can be changed at the whims of the sidechain creator but it is in the interest of the consensus majority of the network to preserve the value of their investment, no matter the speculative prospects. Bitcoin is a store of value first and foremost. Speculation, as much as it can be a danger to users, is a niche market, especially going forward. What enables : SPVProof sidechains, combined with merged-mining, enables miners to accomodate different chains with their security while reserving the rights to claim the transactions of any chain that gains significant traction. Their services are like a stamp of approval. Inclusion into the circle of chains who are MM by miners in some sort validates the legitimacy of a chain. It is reasonable to assume a majority of sidechains will be bootstrapped on top of a federated model as it enables more security in the probable scenario where you will not be "backed" by the majority of miners from the start. You'll have to "earn your stripes", especially if you are a private entity/corporation. The most established and community supported/used chains will end up being nearly as secure as BTC's mainchain simply because their value will command the ultimate security/decentralization |
|
|
|
But sidechains can potentially save Bitcoin. Unfortunately you're too dumb to see it.
save it from what? From the very exact thing you are afraid about. Threats to the safety and integrity of the network. |
|
|
|
that's BS. they even say in the WP that moving to SPVproof is the preferred outcome. but of course, that is obvious as it institutionalizes the scheme and it forces the entire community to scramble to figure out all the changed economic assumptions this malfeasance has produced. especially those due to the conflict of interest monetary incentives that are created by Blockstream
It is not. It is a very intuitive and quite logical assumption. The necessary level of MM required to provide secure infrastructure is not guaranteed and hardly attainable unless a chain gets the support of the whole network. What other option exist then to secure your chain? Federated servers. They are the option of choice for any actors willing to excercise more control and oversight over their sidechain. Until you argue against this I will consider this fact. And stop uttering meaningless words like "institutionalizes" and what not. This is open source software we are talking about. SPV proof is indeed the preferred outcome for the reasons I have stated : more decentralized & conservation of miners incentive. The BS is your pathetic attempt at moving goal posts and inability to properly address every one of your arguments. You are a sad, sad person. ftfy. don't be fooled by this guy.
Blockstream will be pretty good a creating sidechains, I agree. Fortunately, because of... you know... OPEN SOURCE, millions of developers will also have their hand at it. there is only one fact that you are trying to disprove, all the above is a distraction. the answer to the question must be fact and should be indisputable: Does the proposed protocol change to accommodate the SPV proof change the intensive scheme in Bitcoin in any way? once you have answered that honestly we can debate about how and how much and when and where. Yes. I believe it actually improves it and enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions even in a future where there will be a demand for features and applications that can NOT be implemented on the mainchain. |
|
|
|
the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.
Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.
Oh so you want to debate but you only try to poke holes in my position without adressing yours. So let us again turn your argument against you. By suggesting that the majority of the miners income will be provided by SC you propose that the sidechains utility, security & liquidity will be such that the market will have no use for the Bitcoin mainchain. This is the result of a demand for various features that are NOT implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain. This demand does not go away or does it exist because of SPVproof sidechain.
Consequently, the market will look to other options to fullfill this demand. All of the other options will be more centralized services using oracles, federated servers and the like. So what happens when the same exodus you propose will happen through SPVproof sidechains happen through these other services?
Well the mainchain is abandoned and miners are left with no incentive to mine. See how this goes both way?  Bitcoin has grown on average an order of magnitude every year since inception, I think you may be lacking in understanding on how the incentive structures have facilitated that growth. How does this adress my arguments? |
|
|
|
fine. LET THEM USE FEDERATED SERVERS. are you deaf? that won't hurt Bitcoin like the SPVproof.
this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.
Which one is it? You seem to be so confused in your BS. You do realize the federated servers break this "inextricable link", right? So if breaking this link "destroys Bitcoin" how does it not "hurt Bitcoin"?  well, there you go. devs gotta dev; and get paid for it.
never mind that Bitcoin as Sound Money is our first chance at monetary freedom ever and that it should be viewed as a public good not to be messed with by vested interest groups and devs seeking profit at any costs. i can see you don't care about any improprieties that exist.
But sidechains can potentially save Bitcoin. Unfortunately you're too dumb to see it. |
|
|
|
How does this adress my arguments?
stay on topic, what type of an answer is a diversion? is this a joke ? |
|
|
|
abusing their powerful 40% of core dev + 3 major committers to try and force this SPVproof thru, refusing to resign if implemented, setting up a for profit Blockstream company designed to profit off of said SPVproof is NOT open source development.
especially when it comes down to Bitcoin as Sound Money, which is a public good, that is NOT supposed to be subject to improprieties or a vested interest group.
First off, only in your delusional mind can you demonstrate that they are trying to FORCE the SPVproof thru. Second, SPVproof is a feature that improve the EXISTING sidechain technology that will benefit ANYONE willing to leverage this technology, not only Blockstream. YES this is open source. NO Blockstream does not have any kind of significant advantage over the use of this technology other than having a team of very competent developers. Third, SIDECHAINS ARE PUBLIC GOOD, they are not closed source development and will be free to use by everyone. Yes, yes, and yes. Sidechains development will be OPEN SOURCE without any proprietary advantage bestowed to Blockstream. |
|
|
|
that's BS. they even say in the WP that moving to SPVproof is the preferred outcome. but of course, that is obvious as it institutionalizes the scheme and it forces the entire community to scramble to figure out all the changed economic assumptions this malfeasance has produced. especially those due to the conflict of interest monetary incentives that are created by Blockstream
It is not. It is a very intuitive and quite logical assumption. The necessary level of MM required to provide secure infrastructure is not guaranteed and hardly attainable unless a chain gets the support of the whole network. What other option exist then to secure your chain? Federated servers. They are the option of choice for any actors willing to excercise more control and oversight over their sidechain. Until you argue against this I will consider this fact. And stop uttering meaningless words like "institutionalizes" and what not. This is open source software we are talking about. SPV proof is indeed the preferred outcome for the reasons I have stated : more decentralized & conservation of miners incentive. The BS is your pathetic attempt at moving goal posts and inability to properly address every one of your arguments. You are a sad, sad person. ftfy. don't be fooled by this guy.
Blockstream will be pretty good a creating sidechains, I agree. Fortunately, because of... you know... OPEN SOURCE, millions of developers will also have their hand at it. |
|
|
|
the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.
Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.
Oh so you want to debate but you only try to poke holes in my position without adressing yours. So let us again turn your argument against you. By suggesting that the majority of the miners income will be provided by SC you propose that the sidechains utility, security & liquidity will be such that the market will have no use for the Bitcoin mainchain. This is the result of a demand for various features that are NOT implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain. This demand does not go away or does it exist because of SPVproof sidechain. Consequently, the market will look to other options to fullfill this demand. All of the other options will be more centralized services using oracles, federated servers and the like. So what happens when the same exodus you propose will happen through SPVproof sidechains happen through these other services? Well the mainchain is abandoned and miners are left with no incentive to mine. See how this goes both way? Bitcoin has grown on average an order of magnitude every year since inception, I think you may be lacking in understanding on how the incentive structures have facilitated that growth. How does this adress my arguments? It feels like you and cypher are the same person. Same motus operandi : deflect, avoid adressing the actual argument and reply with convenient nonsense. |
|
|
|
in my Fedstream analogy, sure other companies can come in and try to compete, but it would be rather pitiful competing against insiders who get a head start and remain inside the Fed with all the insider info that comes with that. they also know when they're going to change the rules once again before everyone else.
Blockstream sets a bad precedent.
Headstart? Insider info? Do I have to remind you of the concept behind open source technology? You are so desperate it is pathetic Get a clue, seriously. |
|
|
|
my hypothetical Fedstream is a damn pretty good analogy. 40% of Fed governors along with several key top managers decide to establish a for profit company to take advantage of a brand new negative interest rate scheme for profit. this federal monetary policy change is exactly akin to changing the Bitcoin source code protocol. both are a set of rules upon which entire economies depend on, until they can't, due to some inside actors in control of the policy pull a fast one causing everyone to scramble to compensate their investment strategies. they refuse to resign b/c they can control the outcomes much easier if they stay. most ppl get killed financially when this shit is done. this won't be any different and look, brg444 is already telling me to sell my BTC b/c he does know full well this changes all our assumptions.
No, it is a very desperate and quite pathetic analogy. 1. The for-profit company is not dependent on the implementation of the new policy to offer their service. They can leverage technology that already exists and that will likely fit their clients' requirement. 2. The for-profit company does not have a monopoly over this service. Fedstream2 from Vitalik and friends will compete to leverage the same technology. I'm telling you to sell you BTC because BTC is dead to you. It should have been ever since you discovered that a federated peg is native to Bitcoin and can effectively dissociate BTC from the mainchain. Or maybe you still don't understand it? |
|
|
|
he doesn't care b/c he isn't signif invested in Bitcoin. that's clear. he doesn't care about disadvantaging all that came before him.
you are exactly right. Bitcoin miners desperately need all those BTC to stay put on MC and be used locally for tx fees to replace the known decrease in block rewards over the upcoming years, soon to be only 12.5 BTC starting 2016.
Blockstreams monetary incentive, otoh, is to push all these BTC into SC entities thru the SPVproof so that these SC entities begin generating value of their own in essence leeching off value from Bitcoin. these SC entities have to make money or they get mad. Blockstream investors get mad if thousands of SC entities are NOT formed, otherwise how does Blockstream generate return? they will get mad too.
95% of my wealth is in BTC. When are you ever going to address the fact that Blockstream does not need SPVproof to create such schemes? Do you have any valid argument for that? It is only your twisted mind that sees this construction of decentralized infrastructure on top of the BTC metalayer as "leeching off value from Bitcoin". Any SC entities will generate value for themselves if they offer a service that fullfills a certain demand in the market. It doesn't have to "take over" all of BTC's value. Blockstream generates value from creating and maintaining decentralized applications on top of Bitcoin. That's it, that's all. Whether these applications get any traction is up to the idea and the entity behind them. If it creates any legitimate value proposition then it will be adopted to the extent of the market/demand that it adresses. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
