I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.
 So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about. So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated. |
|
|
|
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts). Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.
Pragmatic? You mean foolish and totally absent of any economic understanding. https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hyb1l/it_seems_like_theres_a_nonetrivial_number_of/cuc4hj6Good article, but the first rebuttal is better : Excellent post with much needed enlightenment around the crucial aspect which tends to be forgotten within the blocksize debate, namely, how should the "base money" of the internet be structured?
In this discussion, I would like to raise a few clarifying points:
1) Distributed asset ledgers are the first protocol instance of where the stakeholder to a ledger, and not the ledger operator, has control over the ledger assets (the importance of this cannot be overstated - it is the most crucial aspect of Satoshis discovery). Up until now, technological developments within finance have been limited to digitizing the record of account held with financial institutions. Banks have so far been shielded from disruption as the basic premise, that they are the account operator, has never before been under question.
2) As such, it is the first time that access to "base money", without counterparty risks, is available to everyone - as you mentioned, central banks only allow commercial banks to hold accounts in "base money", everyone else is left holding bank issued credit. Any limitation of this availability will ensure that we are back to the model whereby we need to trust a third party with custody of our assets.
3) Nearly every clearing model is based upon a net deferred settlement cycle, i.e. settlement does not happen until certain time-periods every day when all obligations to deliver are conducted through Delivery vs Payment (DvP) or Payment vs Payment (PvP). This is normal, and will work the same way even with the internet's "base money". When settlement is conducted, it is crucial that the multiple accounts can have a simultaneous discharge of obligations, i.e. the blocksize needs to be large enough to allow for the net settlement between the multitude of accounts/addresses to be included in one block/transaction which may be significantly larger than 1mb, even if the blockchain purely functions as a large value payments system.
In closing, I would like to raise a few points:
I understand that there is a strong desire to maintain the blockchain as trustless and distributed, but is the 1mb blocksize, whereby everyone is forced onto "commercial bank ledgers" - a.k.a. federated chains with one, or several, trusted third party, the way to go?
If we maintain the 1mb limit, will the "commercial banks" or sidechains be able to conduct settlement on a net deferred basis?
It seems to me a low blocksize will guarantee that bitcoin not only has centralized mining, but will also force people onto centrally controlled sidechains that may or may not be operated by a central account operator who can decide when you have access to your assets, under what circumstance you have access to your assets and how you will be able to access them. |
|
|
|
Stop talking gobbledygook.
What's there to explain? A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg. The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain. There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'. There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc. This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.
"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"? But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions. If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it? Unfortunately a discussion about this would be, to you, unintelligible 'gobbledygook'. It is an interesting topic however, and one I'm happy to exchange ideas upon with anyone who is coherent in such topics. You see, this is an example - "coherent in such topics" You may adopt a belief that is coherent, or you may be proficient in a topic, but Ive never seen them combined. I find it makes more sense to more people to just used simple terms and language.
[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.
Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking. The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things. Confusing to whom? I'm just being realistic. In the world of finance, bitcoin is a minnow, its growing ( but of course you will say not enough to justify simply making blocks bigger) but it is still small. The quantum leap suggested by blockstream includes handling payments in other currencies such as the dolllar.
The *must* part is completely dependent on what the user demands. I will probably stick with 'simple' sidechains which adhere to a static peg initially. Later on I may branch out into sidechains who's management is more sophisticated, but only after they've appropriately demonstrated certain technical internals to my level of satisfaction.
You havent answered anything there - just what you will do. Also, don't forget that there is no reason why people who have a need to perform large value transactions are not perfectly able to use Bitcoin natively. I would expect them to do so indefinitely. Unless, of course, someone like Hearn comes along and manages to ruin Bitcoin for such a use. Of course if that happened Bitcoin would also be useless as a backing store (aka, 'reserve currency') for a system of subordinate chains such as what Blockstream is spearheading with their sidechains efforts. In that case they would just choose something else.
Again, nothing new here. If you are big player in bitcoin, then you continue as before. But that is not who blockstrem are targeting. They are targeting current players in the traditional financial market.
For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle.
You clearly have not done your homework on why Blockstream's motto is 'trust everyone.' The only sure-fire way to trust someone is to know that they don't have any opportunity to screw you. The mainstream financial sector relies on state sponsored judicial systems to achieve this trust, and the trust is starting to crack and peel as this sector takes a bigger and bigger role in formulating the government through lobbying. Crypto uses mathematics to establish this trust, and Blockstream uses crypto. (Apologize in advance for the 'gobbledegook' that you see here.) You quote my phrase "handover their private keys to them", but then you go off on a meandering narrative about " state sponsored judicial systems" and finance. Then you tell me "Crypto uses mathematics"? Blockstream because... trust. What about the bitcoins the sidechains are being pegged to? How is that achieved? How do you secure them without having access to the private keys?
But its a moot point: This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain. Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be.
The real value of the work Blockstream is undertaking is that it would allow Bitcoin to scale to serve every individual in the world (even if by proxy) while remaining lite and tight and thus being able to defend against dedicated attack by those who are currently monopolizing and exploiting our established mainstream set financial mechanisms. To me, there is a 100% chance that such an attack will happen and that it will be brutal if crypto gets even a little bit of a toe-hold to muscle in on their action. We may or may not be on the cusp of doing so now. Probably we are, and probably XT is an expression of these attacks. XT is not an attack on Bitcoin. It is simply a different, more pragmatic view of how bitcoin can evolve over time. It seems to me that the Blockstream narrative effectively writes off bitcoin as a payment system as unfit for purpose. Everything blockstream espouses is predicated on a fundamental change to what bitcoin is and how it will work in the future. The paradox in your statement above is that you believe bitcoin will be the largest payment system in the world, but you cant even allow it to expand to serve its small but growing current userbase. I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts). Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system. |
|
|
|
OH DEAR GOD, THE GUBMINT R GONNA GET US ALL
THEYRE GONNA GIVE US BLUE AIDS
ftfy With people like this defending the Core cause, there will always be hope for a moderate majority. |
|
|
|
he is really disgusting ...
Everybody only wants to discuss me
So this must mean I'm disgusting
|
|
|
|
With the ideas involved here the Bitcoin network could be gradually, and without coercion of the participants, be organically replaced by an improved 'pegged' system... if thats what people wanted. source hereThe key word here is "replaced". With all the kerfuffle about block size, people forget that to make blockstream viable, bitcoin has to change. |
|
|
|
...
So in my opinion ...
lol fork your opinion. noob. you mean nothing. even dogecoin woulndt want anything to do with you. hdbuck is the poster child for Core. |
|
|
|
Taking pride in being defined in one camp or another shows you are closed off to rational discussion.
Rational discussion??? He only started this thread out of spite - as me and meono called him out for being a hypocrite - one minute calling on devs to block malicious peers, and then coming on here to denounce them when they do.... The butthurt is strong. Spite. The comment is in reference to all the similar threads. I am in the core camp but doesnt mean I will smear people that are XT driven. Should have been more clear in my choice of words. Okay, got you now. I've no problem with people being pro-Core. There are several valid reasons for doing so. And a reasoned debate between to 2 can only be good for bitcoin. It only descends to this when some people ( on both sides) resort to misinformation and lies to discredit one side or the other. And this insistence on personalizing the issue is a real low point. |
|
|
|
satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.
you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.
you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.
ignored.
Goodbye. The quality of your character and intellect always shone clearly through your posts. |
|
|
|
I forget that not everyone is familiar with systems development. A 'primitive' is a generic and basic function though they are often fairly cutting edge. For a system which is more than trivial, a competent developer will start out by building 'primitives' (unless someone else has already done so which is common.) Upon these one can build a system to solve specific problems and also build other systems to solve other problems.
Stop talking gobbledygook.
What's there to explain? A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg. The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain. There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'. There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc. This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.
"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"? But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions. If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it? [in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system. For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle. But its a moot point: This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain. Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be. |
|
|
|
You were given a chance to explain where these new sidechain altcoins are going to derive their value.
(still waiting)
Ya, Ya. I'm getting to it. In the mean time, you should brush up on some of the work the Blockstream guys are doing and why their motto is 'trust everyone'. They are focused on crypto-based solutions which would allow one to balance risk. So, instead of giving the bank all of your money (or BTC) which technically and legally becomes their property to do with as they please, there are things like time-locks. If you take or fail to take certain actions on a certain schedule, the value of your deposit can revert back to your control. These crypto 'primitives' allow a much more robust cyrpto-currency ecosystem and cut the (unreliable and expensive) state sponsored legal system out of the loop leaning instead on pure mathematics which is much more reliable. Stop fudging the issue. I'm well aware of what blockstream does. And I also know what it needs before a bank would have any interest in using it. I just want that penny to drop with you, or at least hear your attempt to explain it. I've never run across an XT shill who is even dimly aware of 'what Blockstream does', or if I are, they have made no attempts to demonstrate this knowledge. In fact relatively few of said shills seem to have even a modest grasp on Bitcoin itself. You are no exception. Nobody I have any respect for wants banks in the common sense of the word to have anything to do with crypto-currencies. They are obsolete with a properly functioning crypto like Bitcoin. The primitives which Blockstream are working on would allow a lot more flexibility in distributing value to sidecoins and managing risk in doing so. Also, by providing robust reference implementations and being available to audit (for a fee I suspect) they provide a very valuable service to end-users (like me) who are trying to judge these risks. Sidestep. Skip. Dodge. You move better than Mohammed Ali. They are only primitives because they haven't got a working solution. They grabbed on to LN like a man in the bottom of a well grabs onto a ladder lowered down to him. I'd say they are under some pressure, no? Anyway, you still havent explained how valuable transactions will be catered for in terms of liquidity and credit risk. Lets say its not a bank, lets say instead its Daddy Warbucks from Annie! |
|
|
|
if Core implements the smallest block size increase, BOOM XT is history and the network will upgrade right away.
Bitcoin XT is not a thing that can go away because it's the idea that the free market is stronger than politics. The BIP Congress is gridlocked, but the market wants progress. Maybe it won't be the blocksize next time. The BIP Congress better get its shit together or some altcoin is gonna leave Bitcoin in the grease pit forever. Free Markets is not so free. It is subject to manipulations just as any other market. Core devs are way more qualified to weight any upgrade and especially those that so drastically changes bitcoin's fondamentales. They should not be subject to any propaganda. Their consensus was status quo. If you dont like it please feel free to move on to some other altcoin.  |
|
|
|
You were given a chance to explain where these new sidechain altcoins are going to derive their value.
(still waiting)
Ya, Ya. I'm getting to it. In the mean time, you should brush up on some of the work the Blockstream guys are doing and why their motto is 'trust everyone'. They are focused on crypto-based solutions which would allow one to balance risk. So, instead of giving the bank all of your money (or BTC) which technically and legally becomes their property to do with as they please, there are things like time-locks. If you take or fail to take certain actions on a certain schedule, the value of your deposit can revert back to your control. These crypto 'primitives' allow a much more robust cyrpto-currency ecosystem and cut the (unreliable and expensive) state sponsored legal system out of the loop leaning instead on pure mathematics which is much more reliable. Stop fudging the issue. I'm well aware of what blockstream does. And I also know what it needs before a bank would have any interest in using it. I just want that penny to drop with you, or at least hear your attempt to explain it. |
|
|
|
that means more centralization. Anyway, there is one now too....but it will be more visible with XT. well, that means BTC end. BTC is based on anonymity. Why shouldn't I use any other e-currency if BTC will be centralized more than now?  why you think bitcoin is centralization ? he meant that XT, if succeds, will mean more centralization. I think it is easy to know why, logged IPs, blacklisted IPs, proxies and TOR banned, how implement it without a central authority? logged IPs - where? blacklisted nodes. - nope. lowered priority if they act the bollix, but otherwise nothing. remember, thelist comes from tor, not bitcoin. tor and proxt banned: Can you show me where XT stops using proxys? |
|
|
|
meono - account was created just for the blocksize debate; spends a lot of energy perpetuating lies and deflecting from facts. Knows more about those leters and number things in bitcoin ( is it called cody?) so i dont like arguing with him. So I call him "big nose" instead. qed.
sAt0sHiFanClub - shorts Bitcoin; profits from Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Made me look a complete tit.
LiteCoinGuy - is invested in Litecoin; profits from FUD and Bitcoin's schism. He isa lot cleverer than me. I really hate him.
JorgeStolfi - Buttcoin veteran; multi-year FUD expert; measures his profit in comedy gold derived from misery in the Bitcoin sphere. Acting all smart on here, with nbig words and well thught out arguments. Clever Clogs
Coinwallet.eu - 'stress test' Bitcoin through dust spam to create an artifical urgency for increased blocksize; have been quoted supporting XT.
Cryddit - altcoin developer; profits from alienating Bitcoin's userbase towards alternative crypto currencies
BitProdigy - is invested in Bitcoin; believes that the block size must be increased for the good of bitcoin; wants bitcoin to succeed and be mass adopted; thinks XT is the best current solution and so supports it until a practical alternative arrises such as increasing the block size on Core; in which case he would support Core and no longer support XT; but for now he's a XT shill which is his evil plan to support bitcoin by destroying it somehow; all I know is whoever supports XT is evil and wants to destroy Bitcoin so even though his reasoning for supporting XT is because he wants Bitcoin to succeed and feels that XT is the best way currently proposed for that to happen, still he must want to destroy bitcoin because by default supporting XT means you want to destroy bitcoin as a direct result of the laws of physics; therefore he is evil and is on the wall of shame
|
|
|
|
Taking pride in being defined in one camp or another shows you are closed off to rational discussion.
Rational discussion??? He only started this thread out of spite - as me and meono called him out for being a hypocrite - one minute calling on devs to block malicious peers, and then coming on here to denounce them when they do.... The butthurt is strong. Spite. |
|
|
|
Thank you for doing that work. These people are really disgusting. It is interesting to observe just how many people seem to have a vested interest in disrupting Bitcoin. This forum has become infiltrated by people who without shame take any measure they can to attack Bitcoin.
This forum used to be a place abundant with people who acknowledged the greatness of Bitcoin. I just hope there are enough of us left.
I think you really need to have a look at /r/buttcoin on reddit. When you've finished having a chuftie of that, come back and we can talk. |
|
|
|
It is unbelievable but true. Idiocy prevails. This stalker thread is still unlocked.
Ah, there you are. I was going to ask you if there is any truth to this thing which covered Switzerland a little bit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQIBpGu5I6EIf there is, I am extra glad that my ancestors got the fuck out of there. Switzerland is the one and only Direct Democracy. The country can be glad seeing people with your mentality (stalking/hating direct voting/applauding censorship) leaving. Your leaderships are clearly seeking to hybridize the herd with gene-stock from various far flung regions in addition to converting the native stock into people who are to sexually confused to reproduce on their own. I can guess the types of policies the populous is going to prefer for the betterment of society through the 'direct democracy' that you are so proud of in the next generation. You were given a chance to explain where these new sidechain altcoins are going to derive their value. (still waiting) |
|
|
|
I miss the doc's mega thread. it was a convenient catch-all without most of the wall observer micro-minds. So where to lurk now  just be thankful you have been unplugged from a matrix of FUD and disinformation ... replaced with your own brand? Can't you see the replacement has already surpassed that silly formerly existing thread in terms of intellectual engagement? So much more comprehensive and enlightening without all the FUD. It's like "Gold collapsing, Bitcoin UP." with forged pistons, an iron block, aggressive cams, fully computer controlled direct fuel injection, AND nitrous oxide injection! Take off your beer hat and look at it, would you just look at it? I wouldn't look at anything that still has breaks...  |
|
|
|
One to use a Satoshi Bitcoin to identify an XT shill by pressing to his or her forehead. It will sizzle the flesh and they will exclaim: "Unclean! Unclean! Even the Almighty shuns my polluted flesh! I must bear this mark of shame upon my forehead until the Judgement Day."
you're quite mad. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
