...

[tvbcof]

6)  Develop technology which safely allows 80,000 people to ride one bus with little or no difference in compfort and maintanance costs.

Rather:  "6) tell your investors that you have invented a fantastic technology which safely allows 80,000 people to ride one bus with little or no difference in compfort and maintanance costs."

Developing such technology is more challenging that the simplistic ideas of 'buy more buses', or 'charge more per ticket.' 

You bet it is.  That must be why Adam Back has ignored all hard technical questions about the "fee market" and the Lightning Network, and instead has been relentlessly spewing out baseless FUD and ad-hominems for the last two months.  "Let Blockstream decide the future of Bitcoin, because Mark is a CIA agent".  And it is working, it seems...

I've missed these, but in fairness it could be my own fault.  I follow only trolltalk and some of the links provided from here.  I don't even follow the commits anymore.

That seems to be the task that Blockstream is undertaking with their 'elements' suite of innovations.

AFAIK not even Blockstream claims that Sidechains will solve the scaling problem.  Their pie in the sky now is the Lightning Network, which seems to be just as plausible as an 80'000 passenger bus...

I guess you are missing the forest for the trees perhaps.  The idea that anyone can grab a reference implementation and do their own sidechain makes it kind of obvious to me how sidechains could solve the scaling problems and add a whole bunch more desirable niceties to the ecosystem as well.

As for LN, I have not followed it that closely.  My impression is that it is subtly different from how I envision sidechains, but very interesting technology which will be valuable to develop and experiment with if nothing else.  I figured that perhaps continuing development on LN might have been a way to draw in some of the high-end technical talent that was already working on it no matter what it becomes.

I could see [ the banking ] sector promoting something like XT which gives them the hope of monopolizing the take from a centralized and controlled solution just as they do with most fiat systems today.

Well, right now, if they control Blockstream, they control the future of Bitcoin...

Considering that most of the Bitcoin 'core developers' who are worth a shit are involved, that would be true with or without the Blockstream umbrella.

The fact that sidechains and Blockstream has you (Stolfi) running scared is one of the best indicators yet that the may live up to the hopes I have for them.

[1714811326]

1714811326

[1714811326]

1714811326

[1714811326]

1714811326

[Carlton Banks]

unless you have a Golden Priority Pass signed by Satoshi himself, there is no reason to suppose that your transactions will be confirmed faster than those of your peers.  Therefore you can expect to have your transactions delayed by hours, even though you will pay a lot more than you pay now.  

Have you not got any old outputs you could use in amongst all those Bitcoin's that you buy on a regular basis, Jorge?

[Swimmer63]

meono is a cunt.

do not listen to a single word of his poisonous speech. just look at his signature.

i even wonder if he is a NSA/CIA/whatever troll paid to spill his venom amongst the real and free bitcoin community.

You obviously did not read his speech because you just confirmed it with your helpful wisdom.

[JorgeStolfi]

I've missed these, but in fairness it could be my own fault.  I follow only trolltalk and some of the links provided from here.  I don't even follow the commits anymore. [ ... ] I guess you are missing the forest for the trees perhaps.  The idea that anyone can grab a reference implementation and do their own sidechain makes it kind of obvious to me how sidechains could solve the scaling problems and add a whole bunch more desirable niceties to the ecosystem as well.

It was one of the devs (Peter Todd maybe) who wrote on reddit that Sidechains are not a solution for scaling.  For some time now, I haven't seen them claim that they are.  Sidechains are still said to be ways to test all sorts of alternative ideas without endangering Bitcoin itself.

As for myself, I have read the Oct/2014 whitepaper with some care,  It mentions many examples of things that COULD be Sidechains of bitcoin; but I still don't know what CANNOT be a sidechain.  

One fundamental property is that each sidechain is supposed to be designed, implemented, and managed by an independent team.  Therefore the bitcoin developers cannot give any assurances that the sidechain will do what it claims to do, or will follow any constraints.  

According to the paper, a sidechain can even have its own tokens, not pegged to the bitcoins that were exported to it.  I cannot see how the sidechains could help bitcoin scale to hundreds of millions of users -- except by being altcoins independent of bitcoin.

As for LN, I have not followed it that closely.  My impression is that it is subtly different from how I envision sidechains, but very interesting technology which will be valuable to develop and experiment with if nothing else.

The LN is very different from sidechains.  It executed payments by means of "bitcoin IOUs" that are guaranteed by actual bitcoins that were locked by users for a predetermined time.  While sidechains are too unconstrained, the LN is too constrained.  

From all that I know, it has some formidable practical problems, like requiring that users lock in advance all the bitcoins that they intend to spend for the next 6 months into bank-like entities.

I have asked about these problems directly to Adam Back, Luke Jr, and a few other developers, including Joseph Poon, one of the LN inventors.  The dialogue always ends at that point.

Well, right now, if they control Blockstream, they control the future of Bitcoin...

Considering that most of the Bitcoin 'core developers' who are worth a shit are involved, that would be true with or without the Blockstream umbrella.

The fact that sidechains and Blockstream has you (Stolfi) running scared is one of the best indicators yet that the may live up to the hopes I have for them.

So you don't mind having the bitcoin network literally owned by one company, which intends to make it unusable for its original purpose and to reuse it as an internal component of their nonsensical project... It makes me very hopeful that bitcoin will collapse -- not under external attacks, as bitcoiners always feared, but from the greed and mistakes of its defenders.  It will be fun to watch...

[Carlton Banks]

I've missed these, but in fairness it could be my own fault.  I follow only trolltalk and some of the links provided from here.  I don't even follow the commits anymore. [ ... ] I guess you are missing the forest for the trees perhaps.  The idea that anyone can grab a reference implementation and do their own sidechain makes it kind of obvious to me how sidechains could solve the scaling problems and add a whole bunch more desirable niceties to the ecosystem as well.

It was one of the devs (Peter Todd maybe) who wrote on reddit that Sidechains are not a solution for scaling.  For some time now, I haven't seen them claim that they are.  Sidechains are still said to be ways to test all sorts of alternative ideas without endangering Bitcoin itself.

As for myself, I have read the Oct/2014 whitepaper with some care,  It mentions many examples of things that COULD be Sidechains of bitcoin; but I still don't know what CANNOT be a sidechain.  

One fundamental property is that each sidechain is supposed to be designed, implemented, and managed by an independent team.  Therefore the bitcoin developers cannot give any assurances that the sidechain will do what it claims to do, or will follow any constraints.  

According to the paper, a sidechain can even have its own tokens, not pegged to the bitcoins that were exported to it.  I cannot see how the sidechains could help bitcoin scale to hundreds of millions of users -- except by being altcoins independent of bitcoin.

The idea is that the sidechains are merge-mined, Jorge, on account of using the same hashing algorithm. So the miners will all be the same, except that a proportion of them will mine the other chains too, however they decide their capacity can be best utilised.

But of course, you knew that already.

@ wider bitcointalk: I and seemingly everyone else don't always have time to reply to all of this gizzard of a troll's willful distortions and contortions, suffice to say that unaddressed Stolfi posts are still staggeringly dishonest despite that. This man, and others like him, will be shunned throughout the remainder of this century when their conceits are fully exposed to the public.

[tvbcof]

It was one of the devs (Peter Todd maybe) who wrote on reddit that Sidechains are not a solution for scaling.  For some time now, I haven't seen them claim that they are.  Sidechains are still said to be ways to test all sorts of alternative ideas without endangering Bitcoin itself.

Last I heard, Todd has nothing to do with Blockstream other than he throws rocks at them as is his nature.  Philosophically, I like his treechains idea better but I see it as at best impractical and maybe impossible.  As I see it, what I had in 2011 called 'subordinate chains' have a wide and diverse set of advantages.  You've quasi-listed a few.

As for myself, I have read the Oct/2014 whitepaper with some care,  It mentions many examples of things that COULD be Sidechains of bitcoin; but I still don't know what CANNOT be a sidechain.  

One fundamental property is that each sidechain is supposed to be designed, implemented, and managed by an independent team.  Therefore the bitcoin developers cannot give any assurances that the sidechain will do what it claims to do, or will follow any constraints.  

According to the paper, a sidechain can even have its own tokens, not pegged to the bitcoins that were exported to it.  I cannot see how the sidechains could help bitcoin scale to hundreds of millions of users -- except by being altcoins independent of bitcoin.

As I see it, the 'chain' part of 'sidechains' would be a bit of a misnomer.  I'd imagine all sidecoins to have a chain to use as an interface layer but not necessarily as a back-end.  I would hope that it is close to true to say that there is not much which 'cannot' be a sidecoin.  I've argued (sort of) to Adam that a token back-end makes more sense for a lot of use-cases than a '(now)classic' chain-based system.  Of course I'm limited in what I can 'teach' Dr. Back about...well...almost anything.

As for Blockstream's 'design, implementation, and management', I've seen nothing which indicates that it will differ from any other open-source project and nothing to be threatened by (unless you have a burning need to feel threatened of course.)  If that changes, so will my stance toward Blockstream.  And, I expect, so will many of those who are currently organized under that tent.

Blockstream either said straight-out or I inferred that that intend to produce an open-source reference implementation for sidechains.  In that case, anyone could pick up the ball and run with it.

As for LN, I have not followed it that closely.  My impression is that it is subtly different from how I envision sidechains, but very interesting technology which will be valuable to develop and experiment with if nothing else.

The LN is very different from sidechains.  It executed payments by means of "bitcoin IOUs" that are guaranteed by actual bitcoins that were locked by users for a predetermined time.  While sidechains are too unconstrained, the LN is too constrained.  

From all that I know, it has some formidable practical problems, like requiring that users lock in advance all the bitcoins that they intend to spend for the next 6 months into bank-like entities.

I have asked about these problems directly to Adam Back, Luke Jr, and a few other developers, including Joseph Poon, one of the LN inventors.  The dialogue always ends at that point.

The thing about LN that really impressed me was the 'slack'.  Once in a while I pull the keys out of my pocket and a quarter comes with them and falls in a gutter.  That does not stop me from using coins and having pocket change.  From an engineering perspective there is a huge amount to be gained by having a little room for error.  That the designers were cognizant of this impressed me...although it is rather obvious to anyone who has done systems work.

I'll not speak for the LN developers, but as a general design goal a fraud-proofing perspective, the most critical thing is to not allow an operator to profit from fraud.  This will almost completely evaporate many forms of fraud from even being attempted.  A distant second priority would be how long it takes me to get my value back in the event of a failure (which I would expect to be an uncommon event and one I may never see.)

Well, right now, if they control Blockstream, they control the future of Bitcoin...

Considering that most of the Bitcoin 'core developers' who are worth a shit are involved, that would be true with or without the Blockstream umbrella.

The fact that sidechains and Blockstream has you (Stolfi) running scared is one of the best indicators yet that the may live up to the hopes I have for them.

So you don't mind having the bitcoin network literally owned by one company, which intends to make it unusable for its original purpose and to reuse it as an internal component of their nonsensical project... It makes me very hopeful that bitcoin will collapse -- not under external attacks, as bitcoiners always feared, but from the greed and mistakes of its defenders.  It will be fun to watch...

Blatant and bogus propaganda on several levels:

 - Open source means that they not only welcome competition but foster it.  So down goes the 'one company' BS.  Blockstream only need to do it better, and that is highly likely given the makeup of the entity.

 - Nothing about sidechains in any way detracts from the ability for individuals to use native Bitcoin except perhaps that they won't be subsidized and will thus have to pay transaction fees proportional to the cost of operating a secure system.

 - Given the level of talent who were induced to work on this project, you should think a little bit about who looks like a clown when you label it as 'nonsensical'.

I do sense that you are deeply hopeful that Bitcoin will collapse.  Again, I suspect that this is why Blockstream and sidechains bothers you so much.

[Bagatell]

It makes me very hopeful that bitcoin will collapse -- not under external attacks, as bitcoiners always feared, but from the greed and mistakes of its defenders.  It will be fun to watch...

I have no interest in seeing the real collapse further than it has already and wish Brazilians in general no harm but in your case I hope the real goes to zero.

[Zarathustra]

I've missed these, but in fairness it could be my own fault.  I follow only trolltalk and some of the links provided from here.  I don't even follow the commits anymore. [ ... ] I guess you are missing the forest for the trees perhaps.  The idea that anyone can grab a reference implementation and do their own sidechain makes it kind of obvious to me how sidechains could solve the scaling problems and add a whole bunch more desirable niceties to the ecosystem as well.

It was one of the devs (Peter Todd maybe) who wrote on reddit that Sidechains are not a solution for scaling.  For some time now, I haven't seen them claim that they are.  Sidechains are still said to be ways to test all sorts of alternative ideas without endangering Bitcoin itself.

As for myself, I have read the Oct/2014 whitepaper with some care,  It mentions many examples of things that COULD be Sidechains of bitcoin; but I still don't know what CANNOT be a sidechain.  

One fundamental property is that each sidechain is supposed to be designed, implemented, and managed by an independent team.  Therefore the bitcoin developers cannot give any assurances that the sidechain will do what it claims to do, or will follow any constraints.  

According to the paper, a sidechain can even have its own tokens, not pegged to the bitcoins that were exported to it.  I cannot see how the sidechains could help bitcoin scale to hundreds of millions of users -- except by being altcoins independent of bitcoin.

The idea is that the sidechains are merge-mined, Jorge, on account of using the same hashing algorithm. So the miners will all be the same, except that a proportion of them will mine the other chains too, however they decide their capacity can be best utilised.

But of course, you knew that already.

@ wider bitcointalk: I and seemingly everyone else don't always have time to reply to all of this gizzard of a troll's willful distortions and contortions, suffice to say that unaddressed Stolfi posts are still staggeringly dishonest despite that. This man, and others like him, will be shunned throughout the remainder of this century when their conceits are fully exposed to the public.

That's all you can. Spitting ad hominem.
Jorge Stolfi is doing better.

[Carlton Banks]

That's all you can. Spitting ad hominem.
Jorge Stolfi is doing better.

As with Jorge, you cannot make a statement any more true by virtue of speaking it aloud. The rest of us feel this need for their arguments to make sense.

 

[Zarathustra]

That's all you can. Spitting ad hominem.
Jorge Stolfi is doing better.

As with Jorge, you cannot make a statement any more true by virtue of speaking it aloud. The rest of us feel this need for their arguments to make sense.

"The rest of us..." Are you one of those collectivist us-men who blieve to be in a position to speak for the rest of the world.

[Carlton Banks]

Address my points directly, as I did with yours. Or submit to the continuance of your hypocritical embarrassment by indulging in the same behaviour of which you accuse me. I see that you currently prefer the latter.

[Zarathustra]

Address my points directly, as I did with yours. Or submit to the continuance of your hypocritical embarrassment by indulging in the same behaviour of which you accuse me. I see that you currently prefer the latter.

You don't have points. Jorge Stolfi has points and that's the point to which I refer.

[Peter R]

Address my points directly, as I did with yours. Or submit to the continuance of your hypocritical embarrassment by indulging in the same behaviour of which you accuse me. I see that you currently prefer the latter.

You don't have points. Jorge Stolfi has points and that's the point to which I refer.

I think Carlton may have been a victim of the CONSENS-A-TRON^TM too:

[hdbuck]

See Carlton? These people a beyond ignorance. They should not even have a single satoshi, like their idol stolfi.

They dont have a clue about what they are talking, buy anyway they mean nothing, and are irelevant. They are yappin in the emptyness of their servile life.

Exit bitcoin you idiots.

[desired_username]

Exit bitcoin you idiots.

Lol, guess why the exchange rate went down. More and more people realize that currently it's BlockstreamCoin.

I'll buy again if this company loses control over Core development, or the fork happens.

[Carlton Banks]

See Carlton? These people a beyond ignorance. They should not even have a single satoshi, like their idol stolfi.

They dont have a clue about what they are talking, buy anyway they mean nothing, and are irelevant. They are yappin in the emptyness of their servile life.

Exit bitcoin you idiots.

Respectfully, I disagree with your interpretation. We agree on much else.

You need to read Peter R more carefully than Stolfi or jonald, he is both more selective and stealthy with his manipulation. But it is there, and he is very well practiced.

This is intelligence, not stupidity. Sociopathic, passive-agressive intelligence (he'll be saying "Carlton is delusional" soon, the only retort to getting busted in this role)

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

Blatant and bogus propaganda on several levels:

 - Open source means that they not only welcome competition but foster it.  So down goes the 'one company' BS.  Blockstream only need to do it better, and that is highly likely given the makeup of the entity.

 - Nothing about sidechains in any way detracts from the ability for individuals to use native Bitcoin except perhaps that they won't be subsidized and will thus have to pay transaction fees proportional to the cost of operating a secure system.

 - Given the level of talent who were induced to work on this project, you should think a little bit about who looks like a clown when you label it as 'nonsensical'.

I do sense that you are deeply hopeful that Bitcoin will collapse.  Again, I suspect that this is why Blockstream and sidechains bothers you so much.

Hmmm, genuine and trustworthy propoganda trumps bogus propoganda? 

1. Open competition? If you are not afraid of competition, increase the blocksize *and* then do your sidechains when they are ready.
2. Nothing to stop regular folk using bitcoin?  Except being priced out of it by sidechain operators depending on restricted blocksize to drive up fees.
3. Its not the level of talent, its the amount of money that's riding on it that is the cause of concern. Money has a weird way of distorting peoples reality.

[JorgeStolfi]

The idea is that the sidechains are merge-mined, Jorge, on account of using the same hashing algorithm.

That is one of the things that sidechains CAN be.  The paper does npt say that they have to be merge-mined, or that they use that same algorithm, or even that their blockchain is anywhere like the bitcoin blockchain.  In fact, alternative blockchain designs was one of the things that the sidechains were supposed to experiment with.

@ wider bitcointalk: I and seemingly everyone else don't always have time to reply to all of this gizzard of a troll's willful distortions and contortions, suffice to say that unaddressed Stolfi posts are still staggeringly dishonest despite that.

You should spend some time actually trying to understand the things before staking your reputation on defending them.

[Carlton Banks]

The idea is that the sidechains are merge-mined, Jorge, on account of using the same hashing algorithm.

That is one of the things that sidechains CAN be.  The paper does npt say that they have to be merge-mined, or that they use that same algorithm, or even that their blockchain is anywhere like the bitcoin blockchain.  In fact, alternative blockchain designs was one of the things that the sidechains were supposed to experiment with.

@ wider bitcointalk: I and seemingly everyone else don't always have time to reply to all of this gizzard of a troll's willful distortions and contortions, suffice to say that unaddressed Stolfi posts are still staggeringly dishonest despite that.

You should spend some time actually trying to understand the things before staking your reputation on defending them.

Lol you're right Jorge, I haven't even read the Blockstream white paper yet, and I can still hold my own arguing with you about it.

This sounds a little like a challenge. Are you sure you would like me to be more informed on the topic than I am already? Is that really such a good idea, considering you actually want to defend your position successfully?

[Zarathustra]

Address my points directly, as I did with yours. Or submit to the continuance of your hypocritical embarrassment by indulging in the same behaviour of which you accuse me. I see that you currently prefer the latter.

You don't have points. Jorge Stolfi has points and that's the point to which I refer.

I think Carlton may have been a victim of the CONSENS-A-TRON^TM too:

Cartoons and graphics sometimes say more than thousand words.
Today I found the truth table in the cyberspace.