that is disingenuous and not in the public good.
great point. Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this. There should be no Redhat for Money. You really don't get it. Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true. Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer. I know how you feel, a central bank is also in the public good. That would be a great analogy except for the fact that it is a very poor one. A central bank has monopoly. Blockstream does not. |
|
|
|
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?  |
|
|
|
notice how brg444's argument has morphed from "SC's will only be implemented as utility chains which will be MM'd 100% and there will be no speculative SC's" to "ZOMG, all the BTC's will move to federated servers if we don't implement SPVproofs!"
you sicken me with you stupidity and dihonesty. I have NEVER said there won't be speculative SC's. You are free to dig up any of my old post to prove me wrong. My point was that your speculative SC's will not be supported by the miners. The argument that all BTC's will move to sidechain are yours, you & Adrian. Never did I propose this is likely to happen. This scenario has been a construct of your delusional minds all along. I am merely turning the table and using this argument against both of you to demonstrate how the situation would be worse if the SPVproof model of sidechain would not be implemented. Of course you are unable to argue this and so you proceed to your usual, disingenuous dodging & weaving and failure to address my arguments Did you sell your Bitcoins yet? Because sidechains are coming, SPVproof or not, and watchout cause they're gonna siphon all of BTC value and break the holy link. You best act now. |
|
|
|
that is disingenuous and not in the public good.
great point. Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this. There should be no Redhat for Money. You really don't get it. Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true. Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer. |
|
|
|
Like i said a billion times, I have no problem with the federated server model and if Blockstream can make money off that fine. Just don't change the source code asiI see that as a conflict of interest meant to drive their profits at the expense of bitcoin
So how do you explain this this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.
You have no problem with a federated model that "breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain" and will "destroy Bitcoin"?As long as Blockstream is not profiting from it, right ? Just FUD, Bitcoin is working as is, if you don't know it, the value is in the Blokchain the ledger, the fact we trade BTC as a way of interacting with the ledger is how we do it they need to be one and the same for it to grow as it has been doing. There is only one issue, you seem to understand it, and support breaking the link, the for profit company just makes it easier to see why they are doing it. if you don't want to risk real wealth by growing Bitcoin's success, sure hide behind the open source argument, and employ political pressure to make the change to allow companies with a head start to extract it. that is disingenuous and not in the public good.  It seems you do not understand my argument. Bitcoin, as is, enables the creation of federated peg models that can effectively disassociate BTC from the Blockchain. Cypherdoc argues this will kill Bitcoin. So should we understand that Bitcoin is dead, as is? I will repeat this again, the link, can be broken with Bitcoin staying as it is. And there is nothing you can do to stop that. SPVproof is merely an upgrade to the existing sidechain technology that improve the decentralization of such a scheme and also enables miners to participate in these sidechains without being replaced by federated servers. |
|
|
|
large mmt of BTC to federated servers won't happen b/c they are centralized, less secure for niche purposes-as you have argued  Not true, there are already large amount of BTC sitting on centralized exchange/wallet servers. If no decentralized option is create to suffice the utilities/features I have presented then the demand for them will allow more centralized services to succeed. the demand only exists in the minds of devs who gotta dev and get paid handsomely to do it. Blockstream offers the opportunity to cash in big time thru SPVproofs if they can pull it off. Blockstream will cash in big whether or not SPVproofs is implemented because most of their clients will be content using federated servers model. SPVproofs hardly incapacitate their business model as I have shown. miners don't care now about supposedly functional federated server SC's with 2wp. they do have to worry, otoh, about SPVproof enabled siphoning of the very BTC tx fees that they rely on to survive in the long run if SC's get added to the source code that systematizes/institutionalizes and endorses the entire concept.
Absolutely not true once again. Federated server models will compete with SPVproof chains. If SPVproof chains do not exist then the BTC tx fees will be siphoned to federated servers and will be out of the reach of miners. If SPVproof gets added to the source code then we can avoid this situation and allow miners to maintain their incentive by mining any chain that gets universally adopted and supported by the community. |
|
|
|
We already explain you
1. SC already exists. => proven
maybe. i'll take your word for it.
2. SC using SPVProof are possible on current MC => proven
not proven. we have not seen the math and it still is theoretical according to all i've read
3. SC with FedPeg can be same as SC with SPVProof => proven -> only you are not able to show us how siphon works
i don't have to. i just have to believe that Blockstream has a monetary incentive to ensure that it does in fact happen. otherwise, they don't make money from structuring these things for SC entities and they should give back the $15M that investors have handed over to them in the belief they can make this happen. 4. ... "MC thus destroying is Sound Money" -> you are not able to prove ...
i just showed you a viable path for these BTC to flow to SC enabled entities built specifically for this purpose by Blockstream for which they will be paid good money i'm sure to make it happen. or else. and the same path is available for BTC to flow to SC through federated peg built specifically for this purpose by anyone. you still haven't argued why Blockstream clients would prefer the uncertainty of MM to the security, control & oversight of federated server model |
|
|
|
by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors. these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges. their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess. but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it. they will be transformed.
this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.
mostly all of your arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof. bitcoins being converted to represent assets is not a new proposition and something that will exist sidechain or not. no. your still not getting it, all the arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof. There is no point in arguing those. It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains. This is the problem, creating SC with decentralized SPV proofs this changes the instructive that has given Bitcoin its value. this is the issue. Calling a federated 1:1 peg using m-of-n bitcoin addresses a SC, which can be done today the same thing as a SC that is decentralized and employes Merged Mining to proses SPV proofs with federated 1:1 peg is muddling the water, they are two separate technologies, one is available and fair, the other is a proposed protocol change that can upset the incentives that make Bitcoin money. Or improve them. It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains. What about the theoretical issue of one moving a largent percent of value into federated peg chains. Because if we end up with only federated server models then your concerns about miners incentives being removed are much more of a reality. Whereas if we want to improve on the money functions of Bitcoin (transaction speed, anonymity) without sacrificing decentralization then we absolutely need SPVproofs sidechains. So either we chose to enable these functions only through a federated server peg and cut miners incentive to process transactions or we give ourselves the option to use the best of both model. Sidechains are an answer to a demand that exist and that will eventually be solved through more centralized schemes if sidechains are not implemented. What is more dangerous for the miners and the ecosystem? To modify the incentive model to have them mine a group of chains where the value reside or bypass them through federated servers/oracles and remove their incentives to protect the network |
|
|
|
If SPV proofs make it into the core, and SPV proofs are wonderful additions to the Bitcoin economy, everyone starts using them, some very interesting Side Chains are created, and about 1/10th of all bitcoin is on various side chains.
Transactions on the MC have slowed, more transactions are now on side chains.
Bitcoin MC then gets 51% attacked, by miners not supporting OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY. The attacker pools swiftly verify those 1.3 million bitcoin that are on side chains, unlocking them, and dumping them on every exchange that has a bid of any size.
But there aren't enough bidders on any exchange, bitcoin price drops to $10 and they have only sold half of them so they mix the rest and disappear.
How does Bitcoin recover from this?
This is a bit worse than your typical 51% enabling a double spend or two.
If SPV proofs make it into the core, and SPV proofs are wonderful additions to the Bitcoin economy, everyone starts using them, some very interesting Side Chains are created, and about 1/10th of all bitcoin is on various side chains. then miners have every incentive to MM all of the interesting sidechains that support any significant value. my hunch is the ones that cannot get this support from miners will turn to the federated server model moreover, I don't see how the likelyhood of gathering 51% of the resources increase with sidechains. maybe I'm missing something? |
|
|
|
And that is exactly what Bitcoin is going to have to deal with add a result : thousands of not billions of entities using the federated peg to siphon bitcoin away from MC thus destroying is Sound Money function by providing an off ramp to new assets be they speculative, nom speculative, or even altcoins as in TC
FTFY Also, I'm sure people can't wait to gamble their wealth into these BILLIONS of SC  Store of value? What the hell, who needs this, right ! |
|
|
|
Federated server model will see limited use only as a testing tool because of centralization and insecurity.
I'm cool with being forced temporarily into a federated model because it will provoke developments and relationships needed to make it a credible defense mechanism. As such, it has the realistic potential to thwart various kinds of superior resources attacks (specifically 51% types and global network attack forms) as well as judicial ones.Which is exactly why it is likely that Blockstream clients will prefer this model over MM unless they believe they create such a valuable utility that it should and will be supported by the whole network. |
|
|
|
brg444 did tell you 1000 times that building CENTRALIZED (FEDERATED) 2wp for GOVERMENT and LARGE COMPANIES is much more PROFITABLE than create SPV proof for free.
Wtf does brg444 know? Its crystal clear that SPVProof is where the real money is. Explain? Or provide an argument against this : Government or corporations willing to exercise complete control over their sidechain and guarantee the security of it will avoid the uncertainty of MM and use the federated model. SVProof is a protocol change for improve decentralization and inclusion of the sidechains into the mainchain. It is neutral opensource code. It is not a profit scheme or "where the real money is" |
|
|
|
You did not answer the question.
How can open-source code be constructed to assure domination of one entity?
You're a troll who can't hear. I've explained a thousand times. By using their 40% core dev plus 3 top committers to jam through a source code rule set change that specifically favors their business model over that if others who already committed millions to alternative plans and so will lose as a result, then setting up a for profit to benefit from said rule chang, and then on top of all that refusing to step down from their conflicted position so that they can block any future competition. Competition can switch will adapt to the new, better technology. If their previous scheme loses you think they will abandon coding and go work at Walmart? Blockstream cannot block that and so Blockstream can not assure dominance over sidechains creation. Open source |
|
|
|
Federated server model will see limited use only as a testing tool because of centralization and insecurity.
Blockstream desperately needs SPVProof for their business model to thrive. If they are successful it "implies" the community at large and especially the mining community endorses or approves of the conflict of interest business model they are attempting to push through. Yes, I'd have to live with that if I don't sell all my coins first. And I'll continue to voice my objections to that conflicted model.
Not true, unless someone want to correct me, I have demonstrated why I'm under the impression that Blockstream's business model can very well thrive under the federated peg model. Others here have insisted that the federated server model is not necessarily highly centralized and it is my understanding that if you trust the oracles or whatever scheme is supporting the verification of the scheme then can be as secure or certainly more secure than only an uncertain majority of miners MM the sidechain. Sidechains is not their business model. They have built a business model on top of the sidechains technology. Anyone is free to do the same. Open source |
|
|
|
You are REALLY making me start to hate side chains and Blockstream with this. Almost every point you make here is flatly wrong. You should stop posting entirely if your goal is to support side chains and Blockstream. SC's are bad if implemented thru the SPVproof. how many times do i have to say this before you hear it?
You're some special kind of stupid aren't you? The basis for your argument is that sidechains enable the BTC asset to be seperated from the BTC blockchain. This, you suggest, breaks "BTC Sound Money principle". Now would you explain to me how federated server model is not doing exactly that? What difference does it make that they use federated model other than less decentralization? Sure, decentralization is important and that is why Blockstream propose to implement SPVproof to make the model more efficient. But what is stopping anyone, right now, to seperate the BTC asset from the BTC blockchain through the federated server model? What are you gonna do to stop it and how does this not result exactly in your biggest concern? they are not. you yourself have said that SC's "need" to move from federated server model to a source code change b/c that will enable security and decentralization. the differences are profound.
Of course they are. Every possible scheme implemented on a sidechain supported by SPV proof can be replicated on a federated server model. Decentralization is merely an adoption incentive. As you've been persistent in saying, some people will not care about lesser decentralization if they find considerable utility or speculative value in the sidechain. Furthermore, as some people were quick to show me, federated server can be considerably trustable and efficient. Security is relative then if you accept and trust the federated server because they can be considered more secure than MM sidechains. backpedaling again? you said several times earlier that MM would only apply to utility chains that enhance Bitcoins Sound Money principles. now, you're trying to imply that all these Blockstream enabled speculative SC's WILL be MM'd so as to give Blockstream an excuse to develop them for profit since they are somehow now secure. so which is it?
No, my point, which you are evidently too dense to understand, is that Blockstream will mostly not be building speculative SC's booted on top of malicious schemes. There are limitless possibilities of applications sidechains that can be built that are not speculative. This is what Blockstream will be doing. You're acting as if any scammer off the street will be able to hire Blockstream to develop their scammy sidechains. Hopefully you don't really believe that. Blockstream will deal will large corporations that have a desire to decentralized certain infrastructure of their business so as to make them more efficient or create additional value. What you fail to consider is that Blockstream will likely be responsible for only a minority of the sidechains that will be created wrong. the SPVproof is critical to SC's. if it doesn't get implemented, Blockstream as a for profit fails.
Prove it. Explain to me how they can not adapt their service to a federated model when in fact they have considered it and suggested the federated model could be good enough if properly implemented. Explain. My goal is not to support sidechains or Blockstream. I couldn't careless whether they suceed or not although I believe sidechains can add value to the ecosystem. Now what point is "flatly" wrong? Is it not true that the federated peg seperates the BTC asset from the BTC sidechain in the same way that SPVproof would? If not I will gladly accept your explanations? Is it wrong to say that any schemes created on a SPVproof sidechain can be replicated on a federated peg model? Should I not assume that because sidechains are opensource then Blockchain cannot assert any kind of dominance or majority in the creation and maintenance of them? |
|
|
|
I know that anyone can do what they want and that includes me. I'm free to voice my opinion which is what I'm doing. So what.
You are permanently attacking on bitcoin developers while You are still using software developed by those developers. ... with 40% of core devs and 3 of the top committers along with the fact that they refuse to step down, they have constructed a scheme which virtually assures they will dominate.
- how to step down ? => you have the rights to use it or do not use. - how open-source scheme can be constructed to assure Blockstream will dominate. That shows the attitude of the devs here. They think it's "their" cod, not something Satoshi created. Furthermore, I could make the argument that it's "my" code since I helped pay for it as an investor. See how ridiculous you are? You did not answer the question. How can open-source code be constructed to assure domination of one entity? |
|
|
|
Like i said a billion times, I have no problem with the federated server model and if Blockstream can make money off that fine. Just don't change the source code asiI see that as a conflict of interest meant to drive their profits at the expense of bitcoin
So how do you explain this this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.
You have no problem with a federated model that "breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain" and will "destroy Bitcoin"? As long as Blockstream is not profiting from it, right ? |
|
|
|
I know that anyone can do what they want and that includes me. I'm free to voice my opinion which is what I'm doing. So what.
And we are free to call you out on your disingenuous FUD. |
|
|
|
SPVProof are alsoa political" act" as it favors Blockstream for profit business model.
Wrong. It favors any entity willing to build on top of more decentralized sidechains. Blockstream does not have monopoly over that business model. Additionally, as I have mentioned in my previous post, it is very likely most of Blockstream's creations for private/corporate entities will use the federated peg for security reasons. |
|
|
|
then by all means, implement it as a federated server model. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.
Open source -> everybody can download and change this code. Everybody is free do not use any changes in code. They(anybody, you too) can create your own bitcoin (and there are plenty of alts, already). as a separate topic, i see this free for all mentality as inconsistent with the consensus model both of which are supposed to be principles of open source. by your argument above, you suggest that someone should just fork code w/o bothering to gain consensus. that's weird. how is that consistent with the consensus model that supposedly our core devs engage in with Bitcoin? shouldn't we all, as a community, strive to figure out ahead of time what our path should be so as to attempt to minimize mis-steps as long as force is not applied? If you do not like open source then do not use it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_softwareOpen-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software is very often developed in a public, collaborative manner. Open-source software is the most prominent example of open-source development and often compared to (technically defined) user-generated content or (legally defined) open-content movements.
+1 Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs. If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid. If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable. Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community. +1 So if SPV proof will kill bitcoin then bitcoin is already dead. (b/c it supports SPV proof by default as valid transaction) stop making so much sense guys, cypher is never going to come back to his thread  |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
