Blocksteam side chain released

[muyuu]

A fantastic contribution to the community by Blockstream .. a home run of ingenuity and technical abilities..

+1

The Confidential Transactions are total utter genius..

I am curious as to whether the exchanges can operate the sidechain independently of Blockstream ? Or are they required ?

Can any group of companies/organisations set one up - and benefit from free/fast intra-company transfers ?

From TFA:

"The startups involved will participate in the operation of the sidechain, but at the same time will be customers of Blockstream, paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"

This is the best part of it.

They need funding to continue their important work. They won't get it from artificially making themselves necessary in the solutions themselves. They won't do any sort of premine. They won't hold developments to ransom.

From the alternatives I can see working for funding this, it's the best and the least damaging as a model.

[brg444]

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.

It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.

[knight22]

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.

It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.

Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

[brg444]

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.

It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.

Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases.

The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as more distributed alternatives to the array of closed source, centralized private databases currently in use and should prove to become testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they it is demonstrated that they are compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions).

They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing financial activity already occurring inside walled gardens closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem in order to improve its liquidity and value.

Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit.

[knight22]

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.

It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.

Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases.

The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they are proven to be compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions).

They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing centralized services operating under private databases closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem to improve its liquidity and value.

Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit.

I wouldn't mind about Blockstream if they worked as an independent company but the fact that they are also responsible of decision making of Core development is the worst thing that could happened to bitcoin.

They will never work to scale the bitcoin blockchain properly no matter what solution there is.

Too bad you're too much of an idiot to see the conflict of interest here.

[brg444]

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.

It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.

Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases.

The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they are proven to be compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions).

They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing centralized services operating under private databases closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem to improve its liquidity and value.

Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit.

I wouldn't mind about Blockstream if they worked as an independent company but the fact that they are also responsible of decision making of Core development is the worst thing that could happened to bitcoin.

They will never work to scale the bitcoin blockchain properly no matter what solution there is.

Too bad you're too much of an idiot to see the conflict of interest here.

Blockstream is not solely responsible for decision making in Core development. Here is a non-exhaustive list of current Core contributors pulled from most recent release notes, Blockstreams employees in bold:

- - Adam Weiss
- - Alex Morcos
- - Casey Rodarmor
- - Cory Fields
- - fanquake
- - Gregory Maxwell
- - Jonas Schnelli
- - J Ross Nicoll
- - Pavel Janík
- - Pavel Vasin
- - Peter Todd
- - Pieter Wuille
- - randy-waterhouse
- - Ross Nicoll
- - Suhas Daftuar
- - tailsjoin
- - ฿tcDrak
- - Tom Harding
- - Veres Lajos
- - Wladimir J. van der Laan


As I've previously stated they have already worked tirelessly to scale Bitcoin blockchain properly.

You're just too dumb to realize that there's more to scaling Bitcoin than raising the block size.

[knight22]

Tried to find good point from side chain, but give up after saw this : "paying an undisclosed monthly subscription fee"
Not transparent, centralized & have to pay monthly subscription fee. Why should we use it, unless if we really need to send bitcoin instanly?

It's good solution to fix long waiting time, but i hope it could be more transparent & cheap

well, we have to assume the exchanges are using it because they choose to.  No one is forcing them.
Perhaps its easier to settle than using Bitcoin.  

Maybe they find it less cluttering and easier to manage than the main chain.

I have no problem with it as long as people have a choice and its not used to justify keeping blocksize limited.

Indeed but it is also clearer now why the blocksize is being kept limited.

It's not clear to me why the Bitcoin blocksize would make any difference at all with respect to Liquidity.  Can you explain?

By letting the blocks getting bloated which will gives incentives for businesses to move to their lucrative centralized solutions. Liquid being the first of many.

Liquid is an alternative to the already-centralized private databases of the exchanges.  The block size has nothing to do with it at all.

It has a lot to do when their business model to make profits by driving transactions to their centralized services.

Their business model is to create distributed environments following Bitcoin's model to accommodate use cases that are not possible on the mainchain yet leverage Bitcoin's scarcity and liquidity.

Exactly. They are making profits to drive away transactions from the main chain so they will never work to get the bitcoin blockchain more efficient and scale properly because it will threaten their business model. 5 of them are working for Core.

Instant transactions will never be possible under Bitcoin and unless Confidential Transactions is eventually merged into Bitcoin the main chain will never serve the privacy needs of certain use cases.

The solution offered by Liquid is derived from shortcomings inherent to the main chain. These sidechain essentially serve as testing grounds for features that could eventually be backported into Bitcoin once they are proven to be compatible and functional (Confidential Transactions).

They are not driving any transaction away from the main chain but actually bringing centralized services operating under private databases closer to the Bitcoin ecosystem to improve its liquidity and value.

Every Core developers working at Blockstream have made considerable contributions to the progress of Bitcoin scaling and efficiency and continue to do so. You're just so full of shit that you choose to fixate on one parameter of scalability and ignore the tremendous amount of work that has been put into the code so that Bitcoin actually functions properly under existing 1 MB limit.

I wouldn't mind about Blockstream if they worked as an independent company but the fact that they are also responsible of decision making of Core development is the worst thing that could happened to bitcoin.

They will never work to scale the bitcoin blockchain properly no matter what solution there is.

Too bad you're too much of an idiot to see the conflict of interest here.

Blockstream is not solely responsible for decision making in Core development. Here is a non-exhaustive list of current Core contributors, Blockstreams employees in bold:

- - Adam Weiss
- - Alex Morcos
- - Casey Rodarmor
- - Cory Fields
- - fanquake
- - Gregory Maxwell
- - Jonas Schnelli
- - J Ross Nicoll
- - Pavel Janík
- - Pavel Vasin
- - Peter Todd
- - Pieter Wuille
- - randy-waterhouse
- - Ross Nicoll
- - Suhas Daftuar
- - tailsjoin
- - ฿tcDrak
- - Tom Harding
- - Veres Lajos
- - Wladimir J. van der Laan
- - LukeJr
- - Jeff Garzik

As I've previously stated they have already worked tirelessly to scale Bitcoin blockchain properly.

You're just too dumb to realize that there's more to scaling Bitcoin than raising the block size.

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

[Kprawn]

Well, as long as it's not forced onto people and still cheap to use for the people who wants to use it... it's cool with me. Looks like it's a attractive option for the exchanges who

wants to keep the transaction volumes private for some reason. I cannot see why people have so much hangups with side chains anyway... I guess if you used to services like

Xapo, this is not something new. Let's move on..

[brg444]

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

Look at the right places, retard.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls

GMaxwell:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Agmaxwell+

Peter Wuille:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Asipa

Matt Corallo:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Athebluematt+

Jorge Timon:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Ajtimon

Mark Friedenbach:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Amaaku

[RKing]

Who makes decision in the core development? We have to consensus from our community all the time?

[knight22]

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

Look at the right places, retard.

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls

GMaxwell:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Agmaxwell+

Peter Wuille:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Asipa

Matt Corallo:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Athebluematt+

Jorge Timon:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Ajtimon

Mark Friedenbach:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pulls?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=is%3Apr+author%3Amaaku

Doesn't change anything about the conflict of interest. Sorry.

[brg444]

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

In Bitcoin Core 0.10 we are migrating transaction signing, and only signing for now, to a cryptographic library we're currently developing-- libsecp256k1-- which is intended to provide a high-speed, sidechannel avoiding, and high-assurance implementation of the underlying public-key cryptography used in Bitcoin. Doing this allows us to deliver safer and more reliable software that better fits Bitcoin's specific needs. The library is mostly the work of Bitcoin Core super-contributor Pieter Wuille (sipa), though many other people are working on it too-- software created alone tends to be inherently unreviewed. This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_to

Scaling: check

Bitcoin blockchain: check

Blockstream originated: check

[knight22]

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

In Bitcoin Core 0.10 we are migrating transaction signing, and only signing for now, to a cryptographic library we're currently developing-- libsecp256k1-- which is intended to provide a high-speed, sidechannel avoiding, and high-assurance implementation of the underlying public-key cryptography used in Bitcoin. Doing this allows us to deliver safer and more reliable software that better fits Bitcoin's specific needs. The library is mostly the work of Bitcoin Core super-contributor Pieter Wuille (sipa), though many other people are working on it too-- software created alone tends to be inherently unreviewed. This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_to

Scaling: check

Bitcoin blockchain: check

Blockstream originated: check

Wake me up when it is implemented.

Conflict of interest? still check

[brg444]

Talk is cheap. Wake me up when something happen for the bitcoin blockchain.

BTW contributors are not responsible for decision making you dumb kid.

In Bitcoin Core 0.10 we are migrating transaction signing, and only signing for now, to a cryptographic library we're currently developing-- libsecp256k1-- which is intended to provide a high-speed, sidechannel avoiding, and high-assurance implementation of the underlying public-key cryptography used in Bitcoin. Doing this allows us to deliver safer and more reliable software that better fits Bitcoin's specific needs. The library is mostly the work of Bitcoin Core super-contributor Pieter Wuille (sipa), though many other people are working on it too-- software created alone tends to be inherently unreviewed. This library is part of what Pieter and I are working on at Blockstream.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2rrxq7/on_why_010s_release_notes_say_we_have_reason_to

Scaling: check

Bitcoin blockchain: check

Blockstream originated: check

Wake me up when it is implemented.

Conflict of interest? still check

It is implemented as of Bitcoin Core 0.10.

Are you not tired of moving the goal posts? Must be pretty heavy.

[muyuu]

Are you still shadowbanned in reddit, knight22? Aww isn't it a shame that admins shadowban brigadiers like you? But your opinions are so important, it's just not fair that you wouldn't be allowed to brigade.

Oh yes you are.
https://www.reddit.com/user/knight222


It's a good job there's no brigading here, although you XTards can of course try to appear to dominate the discussion by bringing over your motley crew.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3opees/trying_to_talk_some_sense/

Oh well. We are still aware. You guys need to resort to these dirty tricks all the time, ain't that a shame?

[iCEBREAKER]

https://www.reddit.com/user/knight222

page not found

lol rekt

[spartacusrex]

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.

I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.

I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.

BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

because that day WILL come.

[brg444]

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

I am not saying that the Blockstream boys are not passionate about bitcoin.

I am not saying that they have not done wonderful work and continue to do so.

I am not saying Sidechains are not an amazing achievement.

BUT - when the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will they go for blockstream's wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

because that day WILL come.

When the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will Gavin go for MIT's (USG) wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

When the honeymoon is over.. and a choice needs to be made, will Mike go for Google's/NSA/Circle (USG) wishes, or the bitcoin community ?

[Carlton Banks]

Hmm..

I'm sorry - but can someone give me a definition of 'CONFLICT OF INTEREST' that would not apply to a decentralised open source project where the lead devs also work for a private company ?

Ok, and which parties have expressed the most "interest" in the main-chain-only, SPV-for-all centralised alternative? They've got a bit of a conflict of interest also, being as they're funded and backed by big banking incumbents.

I'm happy with this particular crossover; Wuille, Maxwell, Friednbach, Russell, Back et al are biased, just like anyone. I like their bias. Choose your bias wisely.

[xyzzy099]

Since there are clearly a lot more people doing Bitcoin development who DON'T work for Blockstream than there are that DO work for Blockstream, why is it that so many people seem to presume that Blockstream will somehow dominate Bitcoin development and pervert it into their own personal corporate tool?