pedantic bullshit
I am disappointed how clueless you still are about sidechains value proposition. |
|
|
|
|
Sidechains are Bitcoin's fiat.
Like Bitcoin improved on gold, sidechains improve on fiat.
|
|
|
|
|
^ agreed. I think everyone has stated their positions and presented their arguments. let's go back to the regular program. I, for one, will do my best not to be lured into the discussion any more.
|
|
|
|
Or as Adrian has said, at least with gox MK is being held responsible, a result of him being identifiable. With a SC you might not know who to blame. In fact, Bitcoin itself may be blamed.
But this does not make anything better. People are quick to point fingers but most of the time the blame is on the user. Sure MK had his share of responsibility for what unfolded but it would've never happened if the users of Mt. Gox did not carelessly leave so many coins on a 3rd party exchange. In a Bitcoin economy the user is responsible for his wealth and any action resulting in the movement of his coins off the mainchain must be taken with proper understanding of the underlying risks. "with power comes great responsibility" |
|
|
|
If you want to prove me wrong then please explain how it would be more damageable to the user and/or Bitcoin if the coins are lost through an elaborated sidechain scheme than on a convential off-chain platform (MtGox style)
Perhaps because that risk is simply better understood, or at least, easier to understand. With a complex web of interconnected side chains it is conceivable you may have a system that no one understands. Fair point. But again, what exactly is the need for such "complex web of interconnected side chains"? Sure enough I can envision this happening in the future but if it does happen then it,s because they are needed to support certain services. If a need for these services exist then is the alternative that we should expect "complex web of interconnected off-chain platforms" not true as well? |
|
|
|
Hi guys, I was told there was gold talk in this thread?
wrong door, this is now Sidechain UP. Bitcoin down  |
|
|
|
|
I guess you guys' point is that sidechains could eventually create a propensity for coins to move off the mainchain and that this in itself is an increase in risk... While I believe the concern to be fair, my opinion is this is inevitable, sidechain or not.
The choice we are presented with is whether we'd like for this to happen on more centralized, 3rd party controlled platforms or through the use of more decentralized, well designed and properly implemented sidechains.
|
|
|
|
We can add a little more complexity. Maybe this will help...
MC
| \
SC1 SC3
| /
SC2
So now SC2 has coins from MC derived through both SC1 and SC3, but SC1 is a dead chain and will no longer support SPV back to MC (say for sake of discussion that devs can inflate at will and syphon off any that get SPV'd back from SC2 so no one will ever do it).
SC2 is still an active and tradable asset with MC
How many ledgers do we have?
Is this a new risk or is there another way to do this without Side Chains?
(There is a lot more complexity that can be added.) Some economists would suggest that complexity is itself a risk, so any new "feature" would potentially add this sort of risk in the amount that the new features are useful or powerful.
Of course I understand all of your proposed scenario. My argument is the risk resides in leaving MC. When that decision is taken then yes complexity can be added through the use of sidechains. The risk is not new, the scheme is. If you want to prove me wrong then please explain how it would be more damageable to the user and/or Bitcoin if the coins are lost through an elaborated sidechain scheme than on a convential off-chain platform (MtGox style) |
|
|
|
ok, let me ask you again. this time answer.
what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?
Playing with words is not helping your argument. "Cut off" or "lost" is the same thing really so the Mt Gox analogy still applies. Also, in Mt.Gox's case, the ledger does not know whether the coins are lost or owned by a malicious owner. "Part of itself" = the units. Whether the sub ledger containing these units is centralized or decentralized makes no difference. trying to obfuscate by using the term "subledger" is playing with words. SC's are different ledgers with different security and economic assumptions and offerings. we've already agreed on this. you just forgot. the gox analogy is not good b/c it involves a SC1 once removed from Bitcoin. in NL's example, he was talking about SC's/ledgers twice removed or more getting "decapitated" by SC1 malfeasance. we've never seen anything like that in Bitcoin; ever. it's a new risk. No subledger is IMO a very appropriate term. SC's ledger being supported by monetary units derived from the main chain, it is only right to call them subledgers and not primary ledgers on their own right. In NL's example, the risk is inherant to the corruption of SC1, so it does not matter if the coin is now on SC2-3-4-5. If these sit on top of SC1 then the root of the risk is on SC1, therefore, as I continue to try to explain to you, the risk is always reside in moving your coin off the mainchain to a malicious or corrupted subledger. Coins stuck on SC2 or SC1 affect the user and Bitcoin in the same way so it is not a "new" risk to either of them |
|
|
|
ok, let me ask you again. this time answer.
what honest, immutable ledger allows part of itself to be cut off permanently from its main database, not to mention the fact that it may not even know about it?
Playing with words is not helping your argument. "Cut off" or "lost" is the same thing really so the Mt Gox analogy still applies. Also, in Mt.Gox's case, the ledger does not know whether the coins are lost or owned by a malicious owner. "Part of itself" = the units. Whether the sub ledger containing these units is centralized or decentralized makes no difference. |
|
|
|
so by avoiding the question, i can only conclude you agree with me, they are in fact different ledgers.
and as a result, you move your goalposts once again and say a fool will be a fool, which in fact has been my argument all along.
yes they are different ledger deriving their monetary unit from one main ledger. their ledger are effectively sub ledgers within the main ledger. is there something you don't understand in there? what does this have to do with malicious schemes causing people to lose money anyway? |
|
|
|
Answer this, what ledger with integrity allows part of itself to be cut off from its main body as in NL's SC2 scenario?
What kind of question is this? "What ledger with integrity"? "What ledger with integrity allows 800,000 of its coin to be lost to Mt.Gox" The ledger is neutral. Its users decide on the integrity of its use. If they decide to confer some of the main ledger's unit to a corrupted subchain then they are responsible for the ensuing risks. At the end of the day the main ledger is not affected by the failure of one of its sub ledger. A ledger that allows those gox coins to simply change hands to those of the attacker, not one where the coins vaporize. The mechanism by which the sub-ledger is corrupted changes nothing to the argument. Sure it does. The derivative SC's will enable a new type of hack or attack we've never heard of or seen before in Bitcoin. Maybe we can call it the "decapitation attack". and to that I answer The risk is the same : to trust your money elsewhere than on the blockchain. The schemes to deceive people into doing so might increase in numbers with sidechain but the risk is the same.
As for your second comment, I'm sorry but they absolutely should understand it. It is the very principle of Bitcoin : creating a trustless environment. It took a long time for Bitcoin to establish this status and it should be obvious that any step outside of its circle exposes you to risk that should be accounted for.
Also, I have some difficulty with your proposition that "ordinary people" will be trusting their money to all kind of obscure sidechains. Ordinary people only trust mainstream and established platforms. It is very unlikely the majority of them will fall victim to overlycomplicated schemes.
|
|
|
|
Hey, I'm having fun here. I enjoy listening to all your ad hominems.
And the only thing I don't care about is my reputation as I don't have anyoneiI need to please except myself knowing that I have no conflict of interest and my motives are pure in simply trying to protect Bitcoin. I honestly doubt you can say the same thing.
 I sincerely believe that. I can't explain your actions any other way. Like i said, you're like my shadow defender trying to deny me the ball at every step. My actions are the result of the witch hunt crusade you have entertained the very moment sidechains were announced. I do not tolerate disinformation and fear mongering and you will see me call you out on it everytime. |
|
|
|
Hey, I'm having fun here. I enjoy listening to all your ad hominems.
And the only thing I don't care about is my reputation as I don't have anyoneiI need to please except myself knowing that I have no conflict of interest and my motives are pure in simply trying to protect Bitcoin. I honestly doubt you can say the same thing.
|
|
|
|
Answer this, what ledger with integrity allows part of itself to be cut off from its main body as in NL's SC2 scenario?
What kind of question is this? "What ledger with integrity"? "What ledger with integrity allows 800,000 of its coin to be lost to Mt.Gox" The ledger is neutral. Its users decide on the integrity of its use. If they decide to confer some of the main ledger's unit to a corrupted subchain then they are responsible for the ensuing risks. At the end of the day the main ledger is not affected by the failure of one of its sub ledger. A ledger that allows those gox coins to simply change hands to those of the attacker, not one where the coins vaporize. The mechanism by which the sub-ledger is corrupted changes nothing to the argument. |
|
|
|
There you go again. This was never about taking a set position and trying to defend that in a fixed goal post way. This discussion was meant to stimulate imaginative debate about a the possible cons of SC's. It's about going down one path and being cut off (oops that doesn't work) , going down another path and getting cut off again (wrong) all the while not giving up until everyone is satisfied. We are far from that point as i for one am far from satisfied.
Oh please, don't make me have to dig up your old posts. You were literally on a witch hunt for the Blockstream devs and their motives and at one point qualified sidechains unequivocally as "sidescams". This "higher than thou" attitude your are now parading is quite sickening I might say. This was no brainstorm and discussions "meant to stimulate imaginative debate". Your goal all along was to discredit sidechains and their creators Desperation devoid of argument. I love it. the only desperate person here is you cypher. your motives have been clear and disappointingly dishonest from the start. I am not the only one who has seen through your bullshit. don't think for a second you can claim this "whole excercise" as you say was for the greater good of everyone. we could've arrived at destination much faster if we all didn't have to "show you the light" and debunk your paranoiac hyperbole scenarios |
|
|
|
Answer this, what ledger with integrity allows part of itself to be cut off from its main body as in NL's SC2 scenario?
What kind of question is this? "What ledger with integrity"? "What ledger with integrity allows 800,000 of its coin to be lost to Mt.Gox" The ledger is neutral. Its users decide on the integrity of its use. If they decide to confer some of the main ledger's unit to a corrupted subchain then they are responsible for the ensuing risks. At the end of the day the main ledger is not affected by the failure of one of its sub ledger. |
|
|
|
There you go again. This was never about taking a set position and trying to defend that in a fixed goal post way. This discussion was meant to stimulate imaginative debate about a the possible cons of SC's. It's about going down one path and being cut off (oops that doesn't work) , going down another path and getting cut off again (wrong) all the while not giving up until everyone is satisfied. We are far from that point as i for one am far from satisfied.
Oh please, don't make me have to dig up your old posts. You were literally on a witch hunt for the Blockstream devs and their motives and at one point qualified sidechains unequivocally as "sidescams". This "higher than thou" attitude your are now parading is quite sickening I might say. This was no brainstorm and discussions "meant to stimulate imaginative debate". Your goal all along was to discredit sidechains and their creators |
|
|
|
|
Of course you don't care because you believe your reputation to be teflon but I might suggest your reconsider this position because I am certainly not the only one here who has been disappointed by your deceptive, dishonest attitude and attempt at spreading FUD without proper consideration or knowledge of the facts at hand.
I guess the fact that you recognize I have "generated" criticism of you and your clueless argumentative shows you realize your back is to the wall but please know we are all open to accept your concession and hope that your blind ego will not have us engage in anymore disingenuous arguments.
|
|
|
|
the whole point of this exercise I've initiated has flown over your head. The point being to explore every con possible due to what's at stake. By my willing to explore every plausible as well as non plausible scenario despite your shilling along with the criticism of me you've been able to generate I've successfully pigeon holed you into your narrow minded world view of the only way SC's I think, and apparently you too, can possibly work. And that is with only 2 utility chains for faster tx and anonymity with 100% MM and NO speculation via other SC's.
You severely lack imagination. I think I've labeled the wrong simpleton simpleton.
you're so basic cypherdoc. one only has to read the whole discussion to realize how far you've moved the goal posts since your original concerns. you may comfort yourself with your twists and turns to the argument that you have somehow the upper hand but it is tragically obvious to anyone following along you are just digging yourself a deeper hole. the problem is not that I lack imagination, it is that you suffer from a terrible case of selective reading and convenient ignorance of valid objections to your desperate fearmongering. the point of this exercise, as you say, was to identify risks that sidechains introduced that were never possible before. I would say you have spectacularly failed at this attempt. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
