The world is already adopting ripple , not bitcoin.
where are all these ripple users  |
|
|
|
I wish I would have started with bitcoins two years ago
you're at the moment still an early adopter When I discovered Bitcoin almost 2 years ago, I wished it had been 2 years earlier. As I helplessly watched the price rise from $15 to over $60 while I tried to acquire some, I envied those who'd paid pennies. Now my $68 coins look pretty good. In another 2 years today's $400 coins will seem dirt cheap. We are indeed still all early adopters. If the price would've been at 10k today would you still say we're early adopters? It is all relative, if everyone in the world ends up using Bitcoin then certainly those who got in at 10k could be considered early adopters |
|
|
|
this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.
then that's what they should do; use the federated model. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT
 I mean... you can't even make this stuff up Remember when I said you should make more use of rationality and honesty in your arguments cypher? Well it is exactly because of that. |
|
|
|
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.
So you basically admit you were wrong the whole time? How can you say you have no problem with that when sidechains running on a federated server model enable this detachment of the BTC asset from the mainchain you so clearly oppose? Fact: Sidechains are enabled natively and can be created right now. Can you get through your head that the proposition to change the source code is merely a proposal to improve the current sidechains technology? Do you recognize that Blockstream do not have monopoly over the creation of sidechains and therefore the change to the source code benefits not only them but ANYONE willing to build on top of sidechains? Do you understand that it is likely competitors to Blockstream will arise built on the same exact business model that will also benefit from more efficient SPVproof sidechains? all your questions and points have been answered by me, multiple times, yet you persist in screaming in desperation that i have not answered them. your employer is going to be sorely disappointed in your performance. No, in fact you are unable to answer them because they clearly demonstrate that all of your delusions are false. But please, for the sake of entertainment. Please make an attempt at this one : How can you say you have no problem with that when sidechains running on a federated server model enable this detachment of the BTC asset from the mainchain you so clearly oppose? or this one Do you understand that it is likely competitors to Blockstream will arise built on the same exact business model that will also benefit from more efficient SPVproof sidechains?
|
|
|
|
very simple. the SPVproof institutionalizes or systematizes the SC concept and the risks it brings and is a stamp of approval type change at the level of the source code which forces "everyone" to scramble to adjust to its implications. clearly, the federated server model is a choice made by a highly concentrated, small group of ppl that the community won't even know about, as you and Odalv have been so quick to point out. this doesn't hurt the entire community as would the conflicted interest model that for-profit Blockstream brings to the table.
Not true. The SC concept is native to Bitcoin. Try again. The SPVproof is merely an upgrade. The federated server model will infact be the go-to model for most sidechains for the simple fact that, as we've agreed, most sidechains creators will not be able to guarantee the MM of their chains and the federated server model removes this uncertainty. There is no argument you can come up with that will demonstrate the SPVproof is a conflict of interest. The SPVproof is opensource code. It is neutral to anyone willing to use it. In fact, let me demonstrate to you why you are so clearly wrong. You have said that without the SPVproof the Blockstream business model is not viable. Well quite to the contrary, I would venture to say that MOST of the sidechains created by Blockstream for corporate entities will be supported by the federated server model. This is a very intuitive proposition considering that as we have discussed, it is farfetched and even impossible for ALL sidechains to gain the level of security necessary through MM. Because of this uncertainty, corporations, or government will prefer the use of more centralized federated server which they control. This actually supports my original point that only a number of utility sidechains will be MM 100% by miners. It is likely these sidechains will be the one used for the common good and supporting the money function of BTC. For that reason, the majority of sidechains that will be created will be supported by the federated server model and so will be the majority of sidechains created by Blockstream for private clients. So in effect, the SPVproof proposition is merely a proposal to enable those chains that require the same decentralization that BTC does. Blockstream's business model can very well succeed within the confines of the federated server model. it matters not who they deal with. the point, which you love to ignore, is that their biz model depends on siphoning off BTC into the SC ledger of whatever entity decides to implement SC's. this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.
I repeat, sell your Bitcoins right now because Blockstream will do that whether or not there is implementation of the SPVproof. i highly doubt that. 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.
then that's what they should do; use the federated model. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
it's so obvious to any lame brain around here that the SPVproof would be a force multiplier to their for profit model via systematizing the entire SC concept.
Yes you have a problem with that, don't you remember that detaching BTC from the mainchain will destroy Bitcoin? |
|
|
|
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.
So you basically admit you were wrong the whole time? How can you say you have no problem with that when sidechains running on a federated server model enable this detachment of the BTC asset from the mainchain you so clearly oppose? Fact: Sidechains are enabled natively and can be created right now. Can you get through your head that the proposition to change the source code is merely a proposal to improve the current sidechains technology? Do you recognize that Blockstream do not have monopoly over the creation of sidechains and therefore the change to the source code benefits not only them but ANYONE willing to build on top of sidechains? Do you understand that it is likely competitors to Blockstream will arise built on the same exact business model that will also benefit from more efficient SPVproof sidechains? |
|
|
|
if we can see ahead of time a conflict or a flawed assumption, which i certainly do in this case, we as a community should avoid adopting it. it's stupid to say, "lets just let them go ahead and make changes to the source and we'll let everyone scramble to adjust". lot of ppl will get hurt in that scenario.
You clearly don't understand or conveniently ignore my point. the reason Blockstream went out and employed 40% of core devs and 3 of the top committers to Bitcoin was to eliminate this type of competition from the likes of Vitalik.
You are so dense. Again, please answer this : what's to stop Vitalik and the gang to create Blockstream2. Are you suggesting they are not competent enough to build sidechains? |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Blockstream is way more than this. they include 40% of core devs in addition to 3 of the top committers. they are in a position to influence all future decisions regarding upgrades to Bitcoin, and that includes blocking competition that could make SC's obsolete.
their incentive being to sell as many SC's to any willing buyer. that is what a for-profit does.
Sidechain is better tech than what competition as to offer at the moment. To be quite honest, I can hardly see how something could compete with the sidechain model the way it could be implemented right now. Sidechains are a very natural extension to the Bitcoin blockchain. They are the most fitting application layer on top of Bitcoin's TCP/IP. |
|
|
|
you have to be a Blockstream plant. absolutely no other way to explain your behavior. whatever...
we as a community should not even let the situation get that far by letting them alter the rules of Bitcoin by changing the protocol in such a disingenuous, conflicted way. let Blockstream compete head to head with all the other for profit companies trying to make money off Bitcoin who don't rely on a source code change.
You are the only evidently dinsingenuous person in this whole debate. What you fail to realise is that if somehow you stop Blockstream from implementing the SPVproof in the source code than they are simply going to adapt their model to the federated model. You blind grudge against Blockstream disables you from understanding that their proposition is for the greater good of the community. Their conclusion is that sidechains are possible NOW but are potentially much more secure and efficient through the implementation of the SPV proof. |
|
|
|
oh brother. never mind the fact that by Blockstream changing the source code, all other competing entities like CP, Bitshares, Ethereum, and all altcoins get put at a competitive disadvantage. which is one of the stated objectives to begin with if you are paying attention.
you and several others have already stated in the course of arguments that Blockstream is a way for devs to get paid. and you said they would deserve to make millions off Blockstream as it would somehow bring along value to Bitcoin itself. i don't see it. it's a conflicted model with a false core assumption: that being that BTC units can be separated from its blockchain (MC) and still preserve the Sound Money function.
All the competing entities previously using a different scheme can turn to sidechains and offer the same services that Blockstream do. What's to stop Vitalik and the gang from creating Blockstream2? If it shows to be the more promising technology/implementation, why would they not use their employable skills to build on top of it? As for your last comment : Considering this, I suggest you sell all of your bitcoins as soon as possible because from you logic we can deduct that Bitcoin is broken because it natively enables sidechains which, by you own statement, "destroys" Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.
|
|
|
|
that would be true.
i don't have any problem with SC's being implemented thru federated servers as they don't involve changing source code. but as soon as you do change source, as with SPVproofs, all sorts of unpredictable things start happening as i've outlined.
currently, when BTC gets "exchanged" for assets, those BTC just change hands and still exist on the MC and remain secure and can continue to circulate. SC's introduce another dynamic completely. BTC's get siphoned off MC to speculative SC's created by Blockstream for insecure, potentially dishonest entities. it's conceivable these entities will be gvts as Austin has said. in this case, BTC's essentially get converted into whatever asset the SC is offering. this destroys Bitoin's Sound Money principles. the key to this dynamic is the SPV proof.
 the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.
So which is it? Sidechains are bad or not? Because in reality, changing the source code has no impact on their existence. Implementing SPV proof through a change in the source code is merely an improved feature that allows for more decentralization of the sidechains. SPVproof does not enable "unpredictable things" to happen. All of these things are possible through the federated model. scBTC that represent assets are also merely changing hands and can still return to the MC. I expect that a sidechain for decentralized asset exchange (stock market for example) to be effectively as secure as the BTC mainchain because they are in effect, a utility chain that will generate a considerable amount of transaction from which miners can pull revenue. I'm truly sick of your malicious portrayal of the Blockstream developers. in this case, BTC's essentially get converted into whatever asset the SC is offering. this destroys Bitoin's Sound Money principles. the key to this dynamic is the SPV proof. That's simply not true. Again, The SPV proof is a feature of sidechains. Sidechains can exist without it. And so Gvts can create sidechains using the federated model RIGHT NOW. Considering this, I suggest you sell all of your bitcoins as soon as possible because from you logic we can deduct that Bitcoin is broken because it natively enables sidechains which, by you own statement, "destroys" Bitcoin's Sound Money principles. |
|
|
|
btw, since everyone around here seems to not mind for-profits changing the source code to their own advantage, why don't we increase OP_return back up to 80 bytes, from 40 bytes, so that Counterparty can fit back in their tx proofs for their share issuance that they were so badly depending on, so as to further their profit model? Stop saying this. This is pure FUD. Sidechains is a creation for the greater good of the ecosystem. Blockstream do not own sidechains. They are simply a group of competent enough developers that have the skills to build on top of it. Did you ever think that Blockstream could have competitors? Who's to say another group of developers might not want to replicate their business model? What's to stop them? Again, it is likely that SPVproof or not we are going to see sidechains pop up in the future that use the federated model. What are you going to do to stop them? It seems to me they would also "break BTC sound money principle" as you say. Why are you not objecting over them? |
|
|
|
we don't know. but we do know that it will have to be Blockstreams mandate to make it so. otherwise, they don't make money constructing SC's.
This is not true at all. As if Blockstream is guaranteeing to clients the success and adoption of their chains.... This is nonsense. Their service is to create decentralized infrastructure for whoever is willing to pay them. It is up to that client to generate enough interest and utility in their sidechain that users will be attracted to it. |
|
|
|
the question is, create value for who? and at what cost?
if the "stated" intentions of Blockstream is to create value for Bitcoin and not Blockstream, then they should restructure as a non-profit. or create SC's as a public service. b/c that's the other important point here: imo, Bitcoin has evolved to a point where it has become a public good. it is a form of Sound Money that cannot, in the slightest, be perceived to have any improprieties or self interested groups in control. that is, if we want nations and ppl of all strata to buy in. Blockstream for profit violates this.
Well you see this shows your clear lack of understanding about the proposition. SC's are absolutely a public service. Blockstream do not have the monopoly of creating sidechains. Sidechains are lines of codes which, if implemented, creates an additional open source layer on top of which anyone can build anything. |
|
|
|
who will mine these decentralized SC's? seriously. Bitcoin miners are only incentivized to mine for BTC as money. we've already agreed they will only mine those utility chains that enhance that function of money, not speculative SC's who take advantage of the SPV proof to advertise themselves as "decentralized or more secure".
Exactly right, which is why most "speculative" SC's will be irrelevant unless they can demonstrate a sound business model that is not speculative just for the sake of it. |
|
|
|
SC's only work in theory if they can be confined to "utility" chains as brg444 has defined them, ie, SC's w/o an altcoin that just processes tx's with enhanced features like fast tx or anon. but since these utility chains won't make money for their devs, and IF no other speculative SC's will be formed, then you don't need a Blockstream for profit would you?
Absolutely not true. Plenty of corporate sidechains can be created that are not speculative and create a semi-controlled environment defined by the clients' use that uses the BTC currency as its fuel. i'm perfectly aware of that. but centralized entities encourage usage of the SPVproof, as brg444 and the whitepaper have already suggested, as they are more secure (MM) and they are decentralized. we've already seen this incentive live with the Truthcoin example.
What is this obsession you have with Truthcoin? They are an obvious scam that will never get any traction. think about it. it's only realistic that utility chains can be MM'd. that's b/c the data requirement and work involved would be too much to MM ALL SC's in existence which will be in the thousand/billions. therefore, MM will be confined to perhaps 2 utility chains that make Bitcoin better as money, fast tx and anon debatedly.
all other speculative SC ledgers will be maintained by their owners. owners who have paid Blockstream good money (USD's) to construct their SC. they will be less secure as they won't be mined by third party independent mining auditors ala Bitcoin miners. the only way for these types of SC entities survive is by attracting BTC to their scBTC. the more the better. the more retention the better. this take tx fees away from Bitcoin miners which is bad. the Blockstream biz model depends on this siphoning of BTC -->scBTC for the survival of their clients. otherwise they don't make money.
thousand/billions of sidechains, yea right. this makes no sense and is an obvious stretch of reality. as much as you'd like it to be different. speculation is a niche. preservation of value is in the majority's interest. for this reason, it is straight up disingenuous to suggest that speculative schemes will siphon most of the value out of BTC. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
if manipulator ddosing what would they gain?
Limit traders access to information |
|
|
|
brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?
They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized. but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest. Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown. As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers. How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough. So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?
The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."
That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).
It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts). Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions? Again, how is the federated model centralized? To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model. Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security. . But we have the opportunity to make every platform as decentralized (or close to) as Bitcoin is, why not look into it? i'm confused yet again. there's that path diversion... You know exactly what I mean |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
