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). |
|
|
|
Probably because some people became invested (financially and/or emotionally) in various strategies which were predicated on certain expectations of how Bitcoin would overcome it's rather obvious weaknesses and did not anticipate sidechains as being one of them.
In this respect sidechains are every bit as much of a 'disruptive technology' to Bitcoin as Bitcoin is to the mainstream debt-based monetary system. Naturally some people will lose, but they won't be going down without a fight.
I'm glad to see that we agree for once. It IS disruptive. And it will cause massive volatility whereby we all may lose as you obviously can't comprehend in your eagerness to criticize me out of spite. I'd love to see your face if and when you lose all your Sound Money BTC value to speculative SC's. Bitcoin already has massive volatility in case you didn't notice (which is possible considering the number of 'Bitcoin up' posts you have made in 2014.) By the laws of nature we cannot all lose. Sidechains will, if anything, tend to act as a buffer to this volatility just as they will act as a buffer to coding accidents, legislative hassles, etc, etc. 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. 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. |
|
|
|
This is a popular thread in that it's always at the top. I've been fascinated by Bitcoin for for over a year, and have decided to join bitcointalk.org to get more involved.
I see Side Chains as more interesting than gold and would really appreciate a summary of the pros and cons they have for Bitcoin.
Why is this even a debated topic?
Probably because some people became invested (financially and/or emotionally) in various strategies which were predicated on certain expectations of how Bitcoin would overcome it's rather obvious weaknesses and did not anticipate sidechains as being one of them. In this respect sidechains are every bit as much of a 'disruptive technology' to Bitcoin as Bitcoin is to the mainstream debt-based monetary system. Naturally some people will lose, but they won't be going down without a fight. I'm glad to see that we agree for once. It IS disruptive. And it will cause massive volatility whereby we all may lose as you obviously can't comprehend in your eagerness to criticize me out of spite. I'd love to see your face if and when you lose all your Sound Money BTC value to speculative SC's. |
|
|
|
I mean, this guy seriously believes that anyone who cares enough to debunk his FUD and misinformation is somehow tied or working for Blockstream. That is some serious case of paranoid dementia.
Anyone spending this much energy must have some financial interest, you're admitted to owning just pennies worth of Bitcoin, why are you here?
my job is to confront trolls who spread FUD and misinformation. I'd say I did a pretty good job with you
define: " job" in that statement? This is how pitiful this guy is. Either he's lying or he's dirt poor with a nefarious agenda: 95% of my wealth is in BTC.
|
|
|
|
Cmon man, do your job.
In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions!
I have no problem. I'll make too !!!!!!! You and brg444 have made that abundantly clear. |
|
|
|
1. I'll fund SC.
2. You will Protein folding me "data"
3. then you will be able to withdraw BTC from SC.
I have a much better idea - how about we replace all money with sidechains! How do you want replace all money with SC ? Every restaurant in the world will create their own sidechain currency which they can mine via proof of cooking.
SCs are using Bitcoin as currency. Then customers pay by using the 2 way peg to buy some sidechain units from the restaurant, and the restaurant will cash out via the 2 way peg to pay their suppliers.
Or, even better, they will do atomic swaps for their own proof of cooking sidechain units for their supplier's proof of delivery sidechains or proof of plumbing sidechains.
This is so much better than just having money.
A whole new world of possibilities is upon is. We could invent the barter system again except improve it by adding trade barriers and a bunch of imaginary extra goods that aren't useful for anything but that people are required to trade with for some reason.
he's just fucking with you... (he was being sarcastic) Cmon man, do your job. In JR's scenario, Blockstream would make Billions! |
|
|
|
the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks. where did all that FUD go? and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:  What are you talking about?  When have I ever tried to scare people? You've been doing a good job at it ever since we started discussing sidechains and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.
The reality is there is plenty of things wrong about Bitcoin if we want it to effectively change the world of money as we think it will. At its core it is unfortunately very limited. There may be good reasons for this but if we're gonna have the world's economy sitting on top of this thing, status quo does not cut it. It's like trying to invent the internet with only TCP/IP. It is very shortsighted to imagine Bitcoin is perfect as is and needs not to improve. This thing need to develop and be able to adapt to the new realities. The simple fact that schemes like Counterparty, Ethereum, Coloredcoins are getting traction is a clear representation of a demand and a need for such additional layer built on top of Bitcoin and that the Bitcoin blockchain alone does not suffice. The decision is whether or not we want these layers to be as equally decentralized as Bitcoin in the event that a majority of us gets to use them. Read this again, maybe you'll get a clue. It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.
This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it, then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network
who really needs absolute anonymity? sure, for illegal stuff. but most of us don't do that.
Please don't make me laugh... i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity. therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.
since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?
I'm so glad we got to the bottom of this. brg444 and Blockstream are here to fix Bitcoin. All hail to the new Fedstream! |
|
|
|
the answer is, there is nothing wrong with Bitcoin. it's a nascent currency that is going up against the world's greatest powers in both the political and financial world and all we see is increasing adoption globally. more and more exchanges are coming online along with payment processors. we've had a record year in merchant adoption and tx volumes are growing and just hit an all time high. VC capital investments are at record highs and you can feel the increasing momentum in the news if you care to follow closely:    hashrate has experienced record growth and is finally leveling off as it has reached a rate that has successfully secured our precious network. NOW is the time for all the $ pouring into mining to be diverted into the price. but SC's threaten to disrupt this delicate equilibrium:  the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks. where did all that FUD go? and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium: and as far as volatility of the price goes, this is normal price action. the fact that we are still way up here at $397 speaks volumes that Bitcoin is here to stay. everything is going as planned and gold is suffering as i predicted and will soon be a feeder source for Bitcoin. if we get a financial crisis that will help too. all we have to do is not fuck it up. and that means having patience. and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money. it will also send a bad message and establish a precedent for criticism from outsiders. the business of Money cannot be conflicted if we want nations and all classes of ppl to buy in. who cares about the 10 min block time? really? that's about what it takes for a decentralized network to synchronize worldwide. the network needs that time to prevent attacks. who really needs absolute anonymity? sure, for illegal stuff. but most of us don't do that. and if you really want you can mix your coins or do a Coinjoin. no problem. there are many issues that keep being debated but Bitcoin keeps grinding on. many, many ppl always call for major changes at the bottom of these cycles. i've seen it 5x. brg444 is a newbie around since February. he has no experience in the Bitcoin arena if we are to believe what he has said. we've got a great opportunity to make major changes for the better in the financial system. just be patient and hodl. |
|
|
|
But sidechains can potentially save Bitcoin.
Save me! Save Bitcoin!  |
|
|
|
Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?
Please bestow us with your wisdom of these indisputable facts or shut the hell up. That was Adrian-x's challenge to you, your response was your belief in a potential future. I was defending you. He did a switch up on you, and challenged you to change your argumentation style. and for that you attack me? You aren't even turning out to be a good rhetorician. You can't even tell who is on your side. he's so frantic to shill for Blockstream, you'd think he was being paid by them to do so. |
|
|
|
How does this adress my arguments?
stay on topic, what type of an answer is a diversion? is this a joke ? no, you're the joke. and you are a plant. |
|
|
|
abusing their powerful 40% of core dev + 3 major committers to try and force this SPVproof thru, refusing to resign if implemented, setting up a for profit Blockstream company designed to profit off of said SPVproof is NOT open source development.
especially when it comes down to Bitcoin as Sound Money, which is a public good, that is NOT supposed to be subject to improprieties or a vested interest group.
First off, only in your delusional mind can you demonstrate that they are trying to FORCE the SPVproof thru. Second, SPVproof is a feature that improve the EXISTING sidechain technology that will benefit ANYONE willing to leverage this technology, not only Blockstream. YES this is open source. NO Blockstream does not have any kind of significant advantage over the use of this technology other than having a team of very competent developers. Third, SIDECHAINS ARE PUBLIC GOOD, they are not closed source development and will be free to use by everyone. Yes, yes, and yes. Sidechains development will be OPEN SOURCE without any proprietary advantage bestowed to Blockstream. so sad. no. Bitcoin is the public good. sidechains are a sideshow. |
|
|
|
that's BS. they even say in the WP that moving to SPVproof is the preferred outcome. but of course, that is obvious as it institutionalizes the scheme and it forces the entire community to scramble to figure out all the changed economic assumptions this malfeasance has produced. especially those due to the conflict of interest monetary incentives that are created by Blockstream
It is not. It is a very intuitive and quite logical assumption. The necessary level of MM required to provide secure infrastructure is not guaranteed and hardly attainable unless a chain gets the support of the whole network. What other option exist then to secure your chain? Federated servers. They are the option of choice for any actors willing to excercise more control and oversight over their sidechain. Until you argue against this I will consider this fact. fine. LET THEM USE FEDERATED SERVERS. are you deaf? that won't hurt Bitcoin like the SPVproof. And stop uttering meaningless words like "institutionalizes" and what not. This is open source software we are talking about. SPV proof is indeed the preferred outcome for the reasons I have stated : more decentralized & conservation of miners incentive.
i highlight this b/c i don't want you changing your position yet again. you're a chameleon and everyone can see it The BS is your pathetic attempt at moving goal posts and inability to properly address every one of your arguments. You are a sad, sad person. ftfy. don't be fooled by this guy.
Blockstream will be pretty good a creating sidechains, I agree. Fortunately, because of... you know... OPEN SOURCE, millions of developers will also have their hand at it. well, there you go. devs gotta dev; and get paid for it. never mind that Bitcoin as Sound Money is our first chance at monetary freedom ever and that it should be viewed as a public good not to be messed with by vested interest groups and devs seeking profit at any costs. i can see you don't care about any improprieties that exist. |
|
|
|
in my Fedstream analogy, sure other companies can come in and try to compete, but it would be rather pitiful competing against insiders who get a head start and remain inside the Fed with all the insider info that comes with that. they also know when they're going to change the rules once again before everyone else.
Blockstream sets a bad precedent.
Headstart? Insider info? Do I have to remind you of the concept behind open source technology? You are so desperate it is pathetic Get a clue, seriously. abusing their powerful 40% of core dev + 3 major committers to try and force this SPVproof thru, refusing to resign if implemented, setting up a for profit Blockstream company designed to profit off of said SPVproof is NOT open source development. especially when it comes down to Bitcoin as Sound Money, which is a public good, that is NOT supposed to be subject to improprieties or a vested interest group. |
|
|
|
he doesn't care b/c he isn't signif invested in Bitcoin. that's clear. he doesn't care about disadvantaging all that came before him.
you are exactly right. Bitcoin miners desperately need all those BTC to stay put on MC and be used locally for tx fees to replace the known decrease in block rewards over the upcoming years, soon to be only 12.5 BTC starting 2016.
Blockstreams monetary incentive, otoh, is to push all these BTC into SC entities thru the SPVproof so that these SC entities begin generating value of their own in essence leeching off value from Bitcoin. these SC entities have to make money or they get mad. Blockstream investors get mad if thousands of SC entities are NOT formed, otherwise how does Blockstream generate return? they will get mad too.
95% of my wealth is in BTC. When are you ever going to address the fact that Blockstream does not need SPVproof to create such schemes? Do you have any valid argument for that? that's BS. they even say in the WP that moving to SPVproof is the preferred outcome. but of course, that is obvious as it institutionalizes the scheme and it forces the entire community to scramble to figure out all the changed economic assumptions this malfeasance has produced. especially those due to the conflict of interest monetary incentives that are created by Blockstream It is only your twisted mind that sees this construction of decentralized infrastructure on top of the BTC metalayer as "leeching off value from Bitcoin".
the logic, motives, and game theory on this are as clear as a whistle in my mind, and YOU have helped me crystallize this. Any SC entities will generate value for themselves if they offer a service that fullfills a certain demand in the market. It doesn't have to "take over" all of BTC's value.
Blockstream generates value from creating and maintaining decentralized applications Sidechains on top of Bitcoin. That's it, that's all. Whether these applications get any traction is up to the idea and the entity behind them. If it creates any legitimate value proposition then it will be adopted to the extent of the market/demand that it adresses.
ftfy. don't be fooled by this guy. |
|
|
|
that is disingenuous and not in the public good.
great point. Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this. There should be no Redhat for Money. You really don't get it. Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true. Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer. I know how you feel, a central bank is also in the public good. That would be a great analogy except for the fact that it is a very poor one. A central bank has monopoly. Blockstream does not. in my Fedstream analogy, sure other companies can come in and try to compete, but it would be rather pitiful competing against insiders who get a head start and remain inside the Fed with all the insider info that comes with that. they also know when they're going to change the rules once again before everyone else. Blockstream sets a bad precedent. |
|
|
|
that is disingenuous and not in the public good.
great point. Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this. There should be no Redhat for Money. You really don't get it. Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true. Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer. I know how you feel, a central bank is also in the public good. my hypothetical Fedstream is a damn pretty good analogy. 40% of Fed governors along with several key top managers decide to establish a for profit company to take advantage of a brand new negative interest rate scheme for profit. this federal monetary policy change is exactly akin to changing the Bitcoin source code protocol. both are a set of rules upon which entire economies depend on, until they can't, due to some inside actors in control of the policy pull a fast one causing everyone to scramble to compensate their investment strategies. they refuse to resign b/c they can control the outcomes much easier if they stay. most ppl get killed financially when this shit is done. this won't be any different and look, brg444 is already telling me to sell my BTC b/c he does know full well this changes all our assumptions. |
|
|
|
It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains. What about the theoretical issue of one moving a largent percent of value into federated peg chains. Because if we end up with only federated server models then your concerns about miners incentives being removed are much more of a reality. Whereas if we want to improve on the money functions of Bitcoin (transaction speed, anonymity) without sacrificing decentralization then we absolutely need SPVproofs sidechains. So either we chose to enable these functions only through a federated server peg and cut miners incentive to process transactions or we give ourselves the option to use the best of both model. Sidechains are an answer to a demand that exist and that will eventually be solved through more centralized schemes if sidechains are not implemented.
What is more dangerous for the miners and the ecosystem? To modify the incentive model to have them mine a group of chains where the value reside or bypass them through federated servers/oracles and remove their incentives to protect the network the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation. Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch. he doesn't care b/c he isn't signif invested in Bitcoin. that's clear. he doesn't care about disadvantaging all that came before him. you are exactly right. Bitcoin miners desperately need all those BTC to stay put on MC and be used locally for tx fees to replace the known decrease in block rewards over the upcoming years, soon to be only 12.5 BTC starting 2016. Blockstreams monetary incentive, otoh, is to push all these BTC into SC entities thru the SPVproof so that these SC entities begin generating value of their own in essence leeching off value from Bitcoin. these SC entities have to make money or they get mad. Blockstream investors get mad if thousands of SC entities are NOT formed, otherwise how does Blockstream generate return? they will get mad too. |
|
|
|
Like i said a billion times, I have no problem with the federated server model and if Blockstream can make money off that fine. Just don't change the source code asiI see that as a conflict of interest meant to drive their profits at the expense of bitcoin
So how do you explain this this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.
You have no problem with a federated model that "breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain" and will "destroy Bitcoin"?As long as Blockstream is not profiting from it, right ? Just FUD, Bitcoin is working as is, if you don't know it, the value is in the Blokchain the ledger, the fact we trade BTC as a way of interacting with the ledger is how we do it they need to be one and the same for it to grow as it has been doing. There is only one issue, you seem to understand it, and support breaking the link, the for profit company just makes it easier to see why they are doing it. if you don't want to risk real wealth by growing Bitcoin's success, sure hide behind the open source argument, and employ political pressure to make the change to allow companies with a head start to extract it. that is disingenuous and not in the public good.  It seems you do not understand my argument. Bitcoin, as is, enables the creation of federated peg models that can effectively disassociate BTC from the Blockchain. Cypherdoc argues this will kill Bitcoin. So should we understand that Bitcoin is dead, as is? I will repeat this again, the link, can be broken with Bitcoin staying as it is. And there is nothing you can do to stop that. SPVproof is merely an upgrade to the existing sidechain technology that improve the decentralization of such a scheme and also enables miners to participate in these sidechains without being replaced by federated servers. what a hypocrite |
|
|
|
|
notice how brg444's argument has morphed from "SC's will only be implemented as utility chains which will be MM'd 100% and there will be no speculative SC's" to "ZOMG, all the BTC's will move to federated servers if we don't implement SPVproofs!"
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
