|
Oh the other thing about a luke jr attack is that he'd be destroying fellow Bitcoiners like yourself so politically it would be harder to do. At the same time though much more profitable as he could steal scBTC.
|
|
|
|
That's funny, I was reading that page before but only for technical details and didn't read the end of that post. In that case, wouldn't miners just decide not to merge mine those coins? No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed. But not long term greed if it would destroy btc. Also mm leave a coin open to attack like when Luke Jr. killed Coiledcoin. So the coin could be killed in the early days due to a 51%. First off you can expect all the current unprofitable miners to defect to Truthcoin to speculate on success and as early adopters. Add to that those willing to MM. So there's that danger. But I agree it is susceptible to attack. But then so are these utility SC's without an altcoin being touted for the use of faster tx or anonymity. In that case, why sidechain at all? |
|
|
|
That's funny, I was reading that page before but only for technical details and didn't read the end of that post. In that case, wouldn't miners just decide not to merge mine those coins? No, they can be expected to mm Truthcoin for block rewards and tx fees related to scBTC and Truthcoin out of greed. |
|
|
|
not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?
Why do you think Truthcoin is a scam? I would love to see a decentralized prediction market. Thank you for making my point! You are exactly what I was looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin! And they said it won't happen  Answer: it might not be a scam! But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining. I'm glad I could help!  But I don't think Truthcoin has to operate as a sidechain. I missed the link but will look through your post history to find it. We certainly don't want any inflation in BTC. But I don't think any other digital currency really has a chance (perhaps an anonymous one). It doesn't matter what you think. What matters is that guy thinks Truthcoin needs to be marketed as a SC. And why not? He can logarithmically increase the level of his advertising claims. All altcoin devs are jumping for joy right now as they can't believe their good fortune that there main competition is going to let them directly into the house next to its core engine business model. |
|
|
|
not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?
Why do you think Truthcoin is a scam? I would love to see a decentralized prediction market. Thank you for making my point! You are exactly what I was looking for. A living example of someone who would be willing to trade scBTC for Truthcoin! And they said it won't happen Answer: it might not be a scam! But if successful it will be inflationary to the Bitcoin system. And if inflationary to the system it will eventually destroy Bitcoin according to the great link I put up earlier about merge mining about currency competition . |
|
|
|
|
not only are all sorts of altcoin Sidescams going to bolt themselves onto the Bitcoin MC as shown by Truthcoin but as odalv has shown even Silk Road 4.0. How do you explain that to the Feds?
|
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
it's a new risk.
 lol |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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? 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? |
|
|
|
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.
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. |
|
|
|
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. Ooh, now we're talking about witch hunts. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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". |
|
|
|
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 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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Did you answer my question about ledgers?
|
|
|
|
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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
