you mean like this trick? i'm an asshole.
Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument. You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of. do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems? it just shows how young and immature you are. they just laugh at you like i do. |
|
|
|
in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source. even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step. i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons. the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.
stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above. i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"
So this: 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.
Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore? I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain. Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity. SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve. Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution. so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear! lol! go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all. let 'em do it. as long as they don't change source. Should we really run a list of your argument beginning at the start of this discussion? Do you even remember this one? 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.
What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore  How dare you !  you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit. plus, federated servers don't change the source code and force all of us to scramble to adjust our strategies based on a disruption of the mining equilibrium as well as user disincentives to further utilize Bitcoin as Sound Money as it will have been broken by an SPVproof. |
|
|
|
Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains. If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does. That didn't kill Bitcoin. I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.
huh? why would you think multi sig would be a threat? I didn't say 'threat'. I said 'funny' in the context of how money normally works. Contrast it to 'sound'. I had some concerns that the added complexity would produce attack modes that nobody anticipated. So far it has not seemed to...unless one has some absurd idea that sidechains are a threat and some of these mechanisms might be used to facilitate federations and such. you don't think SC's are vulnerable to attack? how does that help Bitcoin? but also how does forcing a choice btwn corpGovCoin and PaypalCoin help any of us? |
|
|
|
you mean like this trick? i'm an asshole.
Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument. You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of. i read them but i ignore answering them b/c they are usually a bunch of shill bullshit and not worth the time. you never listen to my answers anyway and certainly never answer any of my questions. |
|
|
|
in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source. even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step. i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons. the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.
stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above. i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"
So this: 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.
Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore? I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain. Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity. SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve. Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution. so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear! lol! go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all. let 'em do it. as long as they don't change source. |
|
|
|
Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains. If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does. That didn't kill Bitcoin. I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.
huh? why would you think multi sig would be a threat? |
|
|
|
you mean like this trick? i'm an asshole.
|
|
|
|
and you are one senile grampa
what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"
what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.
it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.
you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.
my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear
no, that's just been your misperception of my argument. it's ALWAYS been about changing source code. OH IS THAT RIGHT 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.
Well tough luck brothers, because the BTC unit CAN and WILL be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) by SIDECHAINS running on a federated server model. That very mechanism is possible without any change to the source code. So...it seems my good man that Bitcoin as Money is broken ALREADY which brings me to ask you...... .... sold your Bitcoins already? in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source. even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step. i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons. the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things. stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above. i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!" |
|
|
|
this is where you are very wrong.
the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC. this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.
FTFY, again. Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition i'm not sure what you think you're fixing. it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve. whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away. inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing. |
|
|
|
man, you are one insolent kid.
i keep emphasizing the SPVproof b/c that is indeed what i'm against b/c it changes source, not SC's in general. you're unable to ascertain that given all the posts i've made about this? sheesh.
federated servers aren't really even on my radar as ppl are free to do whatever they want in their private communities as long as they don't come begging to change source to profit from their business model.
and you are one senile grampa what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this. it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest. you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property. my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear no, that's just been your misperception of my argument. it's ALWAYS been about changing source code. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. let me have you answer that question. what is more likely to inflate Bitcoin? Bitcoin on off-chain schemes or Bitcoins on algorithmically pegged sidechains the SIDECHAINS will break Bitcoins core foundation which is the link btwn its currency unit and its blockchain. this by itself will be inflationary as we will no longer have a functioning system as value gets drained away to speculative SC's (speculative in the sense of not being BTC anymore). off chain systems don't inflate Bitcoin as those BTC deposited at a gox lumped address, for example, still exist on the Bitcoin blockchain. the orderbooks can do their stuff but it is not inflationary to Bitcoin. FTFY. Off chain systems can be equally speculative and drain away value in very much the same way as sidechains would. Additionally, bitcoins locked on sidechains exist in the same way those deposited at gox do. In fact, considering they can be algorithmically pegged and claimed on the mainchain they are even more real than the BTC at gox. In both cases, inflation off the mainchain can not affect the mainchain so I'm not sure what you are getting at. How were you able to somehow deceive all of the people in this thread into thinking you were somehow someway an intelligent person  This stuff you are saying right now is downright embarassing. this is where you are very wrong. the SPVproof allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC. this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. so did you sell your Bitcoins yet? because, you know, the federated peg sidechains are coming. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore, already. i already said i don't mind federated servers as it doesn't touch source and therefore doesn't change Bitcoin. i may even use a federated server if it has good features. you are beyond retarded when are you ever going to realize that federated peg create the same off-mainchain BTC scheme as SPVproof would? a sidechain, is a sidechain, is a sidechain. the method used to validate information and communicate between chains changes little. please don't give me that "institutionalized" or "systemized" bullshit. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. So in one post federated servers are bad because they create speculative assets that diminishes Bitcoin Sound Money properties but in the next post you "may even use a federated server" Lay off the drinks brother man, you are one insolent kid. i keep emphasizing the SPVproof b/c that is indeed what i'm against b/c it changes source, not SC's in general. you're unable to ascertain that given all the posts i've made about this? sheesh. federated servers aren't really even on my radar as ppl are free to do whatever they want in their private communities as long as they don't come begging to change source to profit from their business model. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. let me have you answer that question. what is more likely to inflate Bitcoin? Bitcoin on off-chain schemes or Bitcoins on algorithmically pegged sidechains the SPVproof will break Bitcoins core foundation which is the link btwn its currency unit and its blockchain. this by itself will be inflationary as we will no longer have a functioning system as value gets drained away to speculative SC's (speculative in the sense of not being BTC anymore). off chain systems don't inflate Bitcoin as those BTC deposited at a gox lumped address, for example, still exist on the Bitcoin blockchain. the orderbooks can do their stuff but it is not inflationary to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. so did you sell your Bitcoins yet? because, you know, the federated peg sidechains are coming. Bitcoin is not Bitcoin anymore, already. i already said i don't mind federated servers as it doesn't touch source and therefore doesn't change Bitcoin. i may even use a federated server if it has good features. |
|
|
|
the Blockstream bounty still applies btw nothing you've said has changed my mind. in fact, its all crystallized it for me. allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book. whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's. Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money. in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary. their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity. |
|
|
|
|
i'm offering a 2 BTC bounty for the IRL identity of brg444 OR a direct proof of a tie to Blockstream.
i'll increase it to 4 BTC if you can give me satisfactory evidence of both his IRL identity AND a direct tie to Blockstream.
both will be subject to my satisfaction of the evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
You know what the inflationists will promise you right?
Everything.
|
|
|
|
The federated servers sit on top of the bitcoin protocol, whereas the SPV-proof-based sidechains would be integrated within the protocol thanks for entering the discussion Peter. btw, i agree with all you've said, especially THIS. |
|
|
|
I'd love to see the look on your face as you find yourself sitting on a pile of useless CorpGovCoins (formerly Bitcoin) when it turns out that they are as interesting to people as PayPal-II and some other solution has taken the place that Bitcoin could have occupied as a trusted and autonomous value foundation.
this is exactly the dilemma all of us will be placed in by for-profit Blockstream creating all these SC's for whomever will pay the fee. don't expect them to be selective in their choice of clients. they are for profit, they have $15M worth of investors looking for returns based on SC construction fees, AND the SC clients who pay the fees expect them to work, as in siphoning off as many BTC from MC as possible to create liquidity and value. this is a problem. especially when 40% of core devs + 3 key committers are part of Blockstream. if any one of these speculative SC's get traction, you will fact a choice; move to SC or stay put on MC. will SC become the new Bitcoin or will it be possible to upgrade Bitcoin to CorpGovCoins? do you even want that? Bitcoin was always meant to be its own Self Contained Financial System. And by that i meant an inextricable link btwn its BTC and Blockchain (MC). Your repeating the same delusional paranoia is not going to make it any more real. Blockstream, I imagine, can be very selective in choosing their client as it as been mentioned they already have a gang of top level corporate clients lined up. well, there you go. we can see how SC's are going to be implemented, if you're correct. these corporate ledger systems can expected to be managed the same way as they are now, opaquely and possibly subject to manipulation. Furthermore, it is not Blockstream's job to generate adoption for their clients' SC. If their client are willing to pay what I imagine is a pretty hefty fee for their service, then I imagine that they expect their sidechain idea to serve some utility or application that fulfills a demand or a need in the market. For these sidechains to succeed, unlike your delusional self would believe, they do not have to "siphon" as many BTC as possible.
lol, your attempts at subterfuge are so obvious. or maybe you're just naive. the corpSC does not function or work w/o liquidity or value. the whole SC exercise is to be able to move BTC to SC. for corpSC to work well, it needs to attract as much value and liquidity as possible, and in this case, by definition that is as many BTC as possible. such logic failure.
The goal here is to create a service/an application that uses the BTC currency as its unit of account not to compete with the BTC currency. Blockstream, I'm sure, is not in the business of creating "speculative" sidechains, this job will be left to scammy developers like Truthcoin.
what's obvious here is that these gangs of top level corps dependent on the current fiat system can't compete in a Bitcoin self contained world. the best way to deal with this is to transform these problematic Sound Money BTC to corpCoin via SPVproof. |
|
|
|
We agree again!
The 2wp creates an offramp to any one of a #of speculative assets (by that I mean anything not BTC or scBTC). The 2wp allows this transformation to occur according to the rules of the SC dev. This breaks the Sound Money linkage of real BTC from its blockchain.
The more SC's created and used in this way, the more USD's Blockstream will make.
Blockstream does not distribute license for creation of sidechains. Blockstream will be responsible for a minority of the sidechains that will be created : open source if profits aren't important for them, re-organize as a non-profit.
Case in point : Truthcoin.
agree. Truthcoin is a great example of all the SC's that will be created that will cause confusion in the market place as to where to put your money: BTC or TC?
Offramp exist right now through the federated peg. Sound Money linkage of real BTC from its blockchain is therefore DOA.
Bullshit. no source code change has occurred therefore no systemic risk, unlike with SPVproof.
Sold your Bitcoins yet?
troll |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
