Blocksteam side chain released

[muyuu]

+1 for higher transaction rate.

Its wrong to say sidechain/LN is the solution.
Its wrong to say increased blocksize limit is the solution.

Its equally wrong to argue that either one of those things won't help. Equating either solution to some absurd extrapolation is bad form on both sides.

There's no two sides to that, much as some love to pretend that's the case. One side wants to force XT, the others don't. There is no "middle ground moderate position" to speak of. Opposing a radical change is not radical.

Everybody wants scalability. Some have decided exactly how.

In order to engineer that opposition to XT is radical, they fabricated an impending capacity crisis doom scenario, such that "opposing immediate action is radical". It's absolutely bogus and it's also classic populist politics.

[Zarathustra]

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?

That's the 'language' of a core moderator.

[clemahieu]

From a computer science point of view mining is the act of negotiating contention of a shared resource, the block chain.  Sidechains divides the contention down by a constant factor but creates a coherence issue between the separate chains because the protocol wasn't designed to communicate between them directly.

A project I'm working on RaiBlocks https://raiblocks.net/ eliminates the contention issue by having 1 sidechain per address and is designed to communicate transfers between chains.  This means consensus is only needed for double-spending attacks rather than for every transaction always.

[muyuu]

That's the 'language' of a core moderator.

Is it? I'm not a moderator and I'm only contributing occasionally to Core under a different pseudonym, but thanks for the heads up.

EDIT: by the way he got his shadowban lifted now, it was around a week. Must keep an eye on him and remember to report the admins 

[Zarathustra]

That's the 'language' of a core moderator.

Is it? I'm not a moderator and I'm only contributing occasionally to Core under a different pseudonym, but thanks for the heads up.

EDIT: by the way he got his shadowban lifted now, it was around a week. Must keep an eye on him and remember to report the admins  

The latest 'contributions' to the community by muyuu, an /r/Bitcoin_Core 'moderator' exposing himself in another thread:


Reddittards are mostly statist socialists

Looks like the ban on aquentin expired and he's back on his usual moron mode, since minute zero.

Loud XTard and renown fraudster Marc A. Lowe is incredibly butthurt about the release of sidechains in production

Today of all days, this is the top post in XTard land

To be expected from small men like Hearndresen

Peter_tRoll is increasingly pathetic

[muyuu]

That's the 'language' of a core moderator.

Is it? I'm not a moderator and I'm only contributing occasionally to Core under a different pseudonym, but thanks for the heads up.

EDIT: by the way he got his shadowban lifted now, it was around a week. Must keep an eye on him and remember to report the admins  

The latest 'contributions' to the community by muyuu, an /r/Bitcoin_Core 'moderator' exposing himself in another thread:


Reddittards are mostly statist socialists

Looks like the ban on aquentin expired and he's back on his usual moron mode, since minute zero.

Loud XTard and renown fraudster Marc A. Lowe is incredibly butthurt about the release of sidechains in production

Today of all days, this is the top post in XTard land

To be expected from small men like Hearndresen

Peter_tRoll is increasingly pathetic

Oh you mean that sub. I created this sub and it's closed to contributions, so it cannot grow until I open it.

It's in no way affiliated to actual Bitcoin Core.

[brg444]

Its wrong to say sidechain/LN is the solution.
Its wrong to say increased blocksize limit is the solution.

Its equally wrong to argue that either one of those things won't help. Equating either solution to some absurd extrapolation is bad form on both sides.

+1 also

Furthermore, the two are related. Rusty Russell has said that even though Lightning is super thrifty with block space, all that will do is make it popular to run and use. Massive pressure on blockspace will inevitably ensue (but much more space efficient than doing every individual latte on-chain), so it's blocksize increase whichever way you look at it. Unless someone devises something more cunning (which I wouldn't rule out; doubling the rate of blocks was one proposal in the blocksize debate that didn't attract much discussion, but it has merit if it didn't impact orphan rates too badly)

bitcoin will get larger blocks, just not now, "not tonight dear"

[VeritasSapere]

I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus, which is why Mike Hearn was so vocal about this change needing to be implemented in a hard fork instead, so that the economic majority can decide whether they want this feature implemented or not. This is in part why he was banned from the developer chat.

My criticism of side chains is based on them being to complex, and on the possibility of bitcoins being lost on side chains which would then in turn reflect badly on Bitcoin.

Exchanges being able to use such a side chain is also not an improvement if our goal was to have more transparent exchanges. I also do not think that anonymity should be implemented in Bitcoin either, because of the advantageous that transparency can bring.

The idea of paying a monthly subscription fee to a centralized company in order to transact in Bitcoin to me seems completely antithetical to the principles of Bitcoin. This should not be considered as a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly, since this is quite obviously not the case.

[brg444]

I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus, which is why Mike Hearn was so vocal about this change needing to be implemented in a hard fork instead, so that the economic majority can decide whether they want this feature implemented or not. This is in part why he was banned from the developer chat.

My criticism of side chains is based on them being to complex, and on the possibility of bitcoins being lost on side chains which would then in turn reflect badly on Bitcoin.

Exchanges being able to use such a side chain is also not an improvement if our goal was to have more transparent exchanges. I also do not think that anonymity should be implemented in Bitcoin either, because of the advantageous that transparency can bring.

The idea of paying a monthly subscription fee to a centralized company in order to transact in Bitcoin to me seems completely antithetical to the principles of Bitcoin. This should not be considered as a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly, since this is quite obviously not the case.

Thank you for making it clear from the first sentence on that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.

[VeritasSapere]

I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus, which is why Mike Hearn was so vocal about this change needing to be implemented in a hard fork instead, so that the economic majority can decide whether they want this feature implemented or not. This is in part why he was banned from the developer chat.

My criticism of side chains is based on them being to complex, and on the possibility of bitcoins being lost on side chains which would then in turn reflect badly on Bitcoin.

Exchanges being able to use such a side chain is also not an improvement if our goal was to have more transparent exchanges. I also do not think that anonymity should be implemented in Bitcoin either, because of the advantageous that transparency can bring.

The idea of paying a monthly subscription fee to a centralized company in order to transact in Bitcoin to me seems completely antithetical to the principles of Bitcoin. This should not be considered as a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly, since this is quite obviously not the case.

Thank you for making it clear from the first sentence on that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.

I could have already guessed, that you would have been opposed to people having the freedom of choice. At least you are consistent.

[brg444]

I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus, which is why Mike Hearn was so vocal about this change needing to be implemented in a hard fork instead, so that the economic majority can decide whether they want this feature implemented or not. This is in part why he was banned from the developer chat.

My criticism of side chains is based on them being to complex, and on the possibility of bitcoins being lost on side chains which would then in turn reflect badly on Bitcoin.

Exchanges being able to use such a side chain is also not an improvement if our goal was to have more transparent exchanges. I also do not think that anonymity should be implemented in Bitcoin either, because of the advantageous that transparency can bring.

The idea of paying a monthly subscription fee to a centralized company in order to transact in Bitcoin to me seems completely antithetical to the principles of Bitcoin. This should not be considered as a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly, since this is quite obviously not the case.

Thank you for making it clear from the first sentence on that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.

I could have already guessed, that you would have been opposed to people having the freedom of choice. At least you are consistent.

Maybe my post should have given you a hint to double check some of your assumptions? Here goes:

Sidechains as they are currently implemented in Liquid make use of Bitcoin script features and some fancy programming that required absolutely zero change to Bitcoin.

Saying that the implementation of Liquid should have been decided through consensus is the equivalent of suggesting the economic majority should approve of every Bitcoin companies out there who make use of the code in the protocol to fit their product. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Moreover the issue you refer to in regards to Mike's stubborn stonewalling of BIP65 is completely irrelevant to sidechains.

Mike was banned from the IRC chat room for being a dick and distracting the development process with his political bullshit.

Sidechains are indeed a complex matter as it stands and that is why they are not open yet to the public and general user. When they are this complexity will have been abstracted considerably and their security vetted by peer-review. The lost bitcoin concern is not reserved to sidechains but mostly every service that does not involve purely peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin (web wallets, exchanges, etc.)

From an exchange stand point it might not be an improvement on transparency yet it definitely does not make anything worse. As for your inability to understand the importance of privacy in these scenarios it just reflects on your poor imagination.

No one has suggested Liquid, or sidechains for that matter, were scaling solutions so your are just attacking a straw man here.

[onemorexmr]

I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus [...]

IMHO not true
nobody can force you to use a sidechain. if you do you should be aware of the risks (and you cant blame bitcoin for your own mistakes)

i very much welcome sidechains and i think its wonderful that they are possible without changing bitcoin.

if bitcoin would need to change to support them it could be that i am against them (depends on the specific implementation). bitcoin needs to stay strong. any change has risks which needs to be weight against the benefits.

[VeritasSapere]

I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus, which is why Mike Hearn was so vocal about this change needing to be implemented in a hard fork instead, so that the economic majority can decide whether they want this feature implemented or not. This is in part why he was banned from the developer chat.

My criticism of side chains is based on them being to complex, and on the possibility of bitcoins being lost on side chains which would then in turn reflect badly on Bitcoin.

Exchanges being able to use such a side chain is also not an improvement if our goal was to have more transparent exchanges. I also do not think that anonymity should be implemented in Bitcoin either, because of the advantageous that transparency can bring.

The idea of paying a monthly subscription fee to a centralized company in order to transact in Bitcoin to me seems completely antithetical to the principles of Bitcoin. This should not be considered as a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly, since this is quite obviously not the case.

Thank you for making it clear from the first sentence on that you have no idea what it is you are talking about.

I could have already guessed, that you would have been opposed to people having the freedom of choice. At least you are consistent.

Maybe my post should have given you a hint to double check some of your assumptions? Here goes:

Sidechains as they are currently implemented in Liquid make use of Bitcoin script features and some fancy programming that required absolutely zero change to Bitcoin.

Saying that the implementation of Liquid should have been decided through consensus is the equivalent of suggesting the economic majority should approve of every Bitcoin companies out there. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Moreover the issue you refer to in regards to Mike's stubborn stonewalling of BIP65 is completely irrelevant to sidechains.

Mike was banned from the IRC chat room for being a dick and distracting the development process with his political bullshit.

Sidechains are indeed a complex matter as it stands at that is why they are not open yet to the public and general user. Once they are this complexity will have been abstracted considerably and their security vetted by peer-review. The lost bitcoin concern is not reserved to sidechains but mostly every service that does not involve purely peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin (web wallets, exchanges, etc.)

From an exchange stand point it might not be an improvement on transparency yet it definitely does not make anything worse. As for your inability to understand the importance of privacy in these scenarios it just reflects on your poor imagination.

No one has suggested Liquid, or sidechains for that matter, were scaling solutions so your are just attacking a straw man here.

As far as I understood it, it is a small change that needed to be made to Bitcoin in order to allow the side chains to function. As far as I understand furthermore this change within BIP65 deals with nLockTime which is the variable that deals with and is very important for side chains. I might not be a coder myself however my friends who are coders have explained this to me very thoroughly.

I am indeed saying that the implementation of side chains should have been decided by consensus, even though it represents a minor technical change, from an economics perspective however among others it is a huge change, which should have been decided by and through consensus.

The same criticism holds for web wallets and exchanges however some people might see side chains as being a part of bitcoin and might falsely equate the two more then they would with web wallets and exchanges.

I think that Bitcoin should be simple, in its basic fundamentals, I can explain Bitcoin in its basic form to a eight year old, I can no longer do that if side chains become an intrinsic part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. So yes I am skeptical in part purely because I think there is to much complexion.

It is true that from an exchange point of view it does not make it any worse, which in a way is similar to the debate we have been having about mining centralization in relation to the block size. So what you say here is accurate.

I do oppose implementing increased anonymity in Bitcoin, you can say this is because of my poor imagination, however I have good reasons to stand on this believe. I do think there is a need for anonymous cryptocurrency in the world and I even support projects like XMR, Dash and SDC. I think that Bitcoin however should serve a different purpose and arguably a more important purpose by staying transparent and allowing the advantages that this brings to be maximized.

[VeritasSapere]

I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus [...]

IMHO not true
nobody can force you to use a sidechain. if you do you should be aware of the risks (and you cant blame bitcoin for your own mistakes)

i very much welcome sidechains and i think its wonderful that they are possible without changing bitcoin.

if bitcoin would need to change to support them it could be that i am against them (depends on the specific implementation). bitcoin needs to stay strong. any change has risks which needs to be weight against the benefits.

It did require a change to Bitcoin in order to support side chains, I just think that this change should have been implemented through consensus. This is setting a bad precedent for making changes to Bitcoin, which should be discussed and evaluated by the larger community as opposed to just being implemented by a small group of Core developers. Especially important changes like the implementation of side chains.

[brg444]

Maybe my post should have given you a hint to double check some of your assumptions? Here goes:

Sidechains as they are currently implemented in Liquid make use of Bitcoin script features and some fancy programming that required absolutely zero change to Bitcoin.

Saying that the implementation of Liquid should have been decided through consensus is the equivalent of suggesting the economic majority should approve of every Bitcoin companies out there. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Moreover the issue you refer to in regards to Mike's stubborn stonewalling of BIP65 is completely irrelevant to sidechains.

Mike was banned from the IRC chat room for being a dick and distracting the development process with his political bullshit.

Sidechains are indeed a complex matter as it stands at that is why they are not open yet to the public and general user. Once they are this complexity will have been abstracted considerably and their security vetted by peer-review. The lost bitcoin concern is not reserved to sidechains but mostly every service that does not involve purely peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin (web wallets, exchanges, etc.)

From an exchange stand point it might not be an improvement on transparency yet it definitely does not make anything worse. As for your inability to understand the importance of privacy in these scenarios it just reflects on your poor imagination.

No one has suggested Liquid, or sidechains for that matter, were scaling solutions so your are just attacking a straw man here.

As far as I understood it, it is a small change that needed to be made to Bitcoin in order to allow the side chains to function. As far as I understand furthermore this change within BIP65 deals with nLockTime which is the variable that deals with and is very important for side chains. I might not be a coder myself however my friends who are coders have explained this to me very thoroughly.

Wrong, the Liquid sidechain, as implemented, required no change to Bitcoin. As for BIP65 and nLockTime (which is not yet implemented) it helps with a host of use cases (sidechains & Lightning being one of them). This is certainly not a function that is being pulled into Bitcoin Core only to serve sidechains.

I am indeed saying that the implementation of side chains should have been decided by consensus, even though it represents a minor technical change, from an economics perspective however among others it is a huge change, which should have been decided by and through consensus.

You are working from an assumption that is wrong: implementing BIP65 is a whole different debate than sidechains. Moreover sidechains are not implemented into Bitcoin, they are created out of existing Bitcoin features and script language. They are a voluntary service that is not being force onto Bitcoin users therefore it makes absolutely no sense to propose that we need consensus to allow them to exist. What you propose works precisely against the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin.

The same criticism holds for web wallets and exchanges however some people might see side chains as being a part of bitcoin and might falsely equate the two more then they would with web wallets and exchanges.

So creation of web wallets and exchange require consensus?

I think that Bitcoin should be simple, in its basic fundamentals, I can explain Bitcoin in a its basic form to a ten year old I can no longer do that if side chains become an intrinsic part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. So yes I am skeptical in part purely because I think there is to much complexion.

So multi-signature should not exist because it is a complex use of Bitcoin's scripting language that has become an intrinsic part of Bitcoin?

I do oppose implementing increased anonymity in Bitcoin, you can say this is because of my poor imagination, however I have good reasons to stand on this believe. I do think there is a need for anonymous cryptocurrency in the world and I even support projects like XMR, Dash and SDC. I think that Bitcoin however should serve a different purpose and arguably a more important purpose by staying transparent and allowing the advantages that it brings to be maximized.

No one is proposing to implement anonymity into Bitcoin, at least not yet, so you are again attempting to fight a straw man.

[brg444]

I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus [...]

IMHO not true
nobody can force you to use a sidechain. if you do you should be aware of the risks (and you cant blame bitcoin for your own mistakes)

i very much welcome sidechains and i think its wonderful that they are possible without changing bitcoin.

if bitcoin would need to change to support them it could be that i am against them (depends on the specific implementation). bitcoin needs to stay strong. any change has risks which needs to be weight against the benefits.

It did require a change to Bitcoin in order to support side chains, I just think that this change should have been implemented through consensus. This is setting a bad precedent for making changes to Bitcoin, which should be discussed and evaluated by the larger community as opposed to just being implemented by a small group of Core developers. Especially important changes like the implementation of side chains.

Please accept that you are just utterly confused.

Once again: side chains are not implemented into Bitcoin they are a superficial layer making use of Bitcoin's existing scripting language.

[VeritasSapere]

Maybe my post should have given you a hint to double check some of your assumptions? Here goes:

Sidechains as they are currently implemented in Liquid make use of Bitcoin script features and some fancy programming that required absolutely zero change to Bitcoin.

Saying that the implementation of Liquid should have been decided through consensus is the equivalent of suggesting the economic majority should approve of every Bitcoin companies out there. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Moreover the issue you refer to in regards to Mike's stubborn stonewalling of BIP65 is completely irrelevant to sidechains.

Mike was banned from the IRC chat room for being a dick and distracting the development process with his political bullshit.

Sidechains are indeed a complex matter as it stands at that is why they are not open yet to the public and general user. Once they are this complexity will have been abstracted considerably and their security vetted by peer-review. The lost bitcoin concern is not reserved to sidechains but mostly every service that does not involve purely peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin (web wallets, exchanges, etc.)

From an exchange stand point it might not be an improvement on transparency yet it definitely does not make anything worse. As for your inability to understand the importance of privacy in these scenarios it just reflects on your poor imagination.

No one has suggested Liquid, or sidechains for that matter, were scaling solutions so your are just attacking a straw man here.

As far as I understood it, it is a small change that needed to be made to Bitcoin in order to allow the side chains to function. As far as I understand furthermore this change within BIP65 deals with nLockTime which is the variable that deals with and is very important for side chains. I might not be a coder myself however my friends who are coders have explained this to me very thoroughly.

Wrong, the Liquid sidechain, as implemented, required no change to Bitcoin. As for BIP65 and nLockTime (which is not yet implemented) it helps with a host of use cases (sidechains & Lightning being one of them). This is certainly not a function that is being pulled into Bitcoin Core only to serve sidechains.

I am indeed saying that the implementation of side chains should have been decided by consensus, even though it represents a minor technical change, from an economics perspective however among others it is a huge change, which should have been decided by and through consensus.

You are working from an assumption that is wrong: implementing BIP65 is a whole different debate than sidechains. Moreover sidechains are not implemented into Bitcoin, they are created out of existing Bitcoin features and script language. They are a voluntary service that is not being force onto Bitcoin users therefore it makes absolutely no sense to propose that we need consensus to allow them to exist. What you propose works precisely against the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin.

The same criticism holds for web wallets and exchanges however some people might see side chains as being a part of bitcoin and might falsely equate the two more then they would with web wallets and exchanges.

So creation of web wallets and exchange require consensus?

I think that Bitcoin should be simple, in its basic fundamentals, I can explain Bitcoin in a its basic form to a ten year old I can no longer do that if side chains become an intrinsic part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. So yes I am skeptical in part purely because I think there is to much complexion.

So multi-signature should not exist because it is a complex use of Bitcoin's scripting language that has become an intrinsic part of Bitcoin?

I do oppose implementing increased anonymity in Bitcoin, you can say this is because of my poor imagination, however I have good reasons to stand on this believe. I do think there is a need for anonymous cryptocurrency in the world and I even support projects like XMR, Dash and SDC. I think that Bitcoin however should serve a different purpose and arguably a more important purpose by staying transparent and allowing the advantages that it brings to be maximized.

No one is proposing to implement anonymity into Bitcoin, at least not yet, so you are again attempting to fight a straw man.

If sidechains do not require nLockTime and BIP65 then I was wrong and I can accept that, it is wisdom to recognize when we are wrong.

In regards to web wallets and exchanges I was referring to how people wrongly equate them with Bitcoin and how this hurts the perception of Bitcoin, and how people might also falsely make the same mistakes in relation to side chains.

I can still explain the basic fundamentals of multi signatures to an eight year old. Having multiple keys to a lock for instance is not hard to explain.

I never said that anyone is claiming we should implement anonymity and I also never said that anyone considers side chains to be a complete solution to scalability, I was just stating my opinion on these subjects, so please stop accusing me of straw man arguments since I was not putting these words in the mouths of anyone else, only myself.

[brg444]

Maybe my post should have given you a hint to double check some of your assumptions? Here goes:

Sidechains as they are currently implemented in Liquid make use of Bitcoin script features and some fancy programming that required absolutely zero change to Bitcoin.

Saying that the implementation of Liquid should have been decided through consensus is the equivalent of suggesting the economic majority should approve of every Bitcoin companies out there. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.

Moreover the issue you refer to in regards to Mike's stubborn stonewalling of BIP65 is completely irrelevant to sidechains.

Mike was banned from the IRC chat room for being a dick and distracting the development process with his political bullshit.

Sidechains are indeed a complex matter as it stands at that is why they are not open yet to the public and general user. Once they are this complexity will have been abstracted considerably and their security vetted by peer-review. The lost bitcoin concern is not reserved to sidechains but mostly every service that does not involve purely peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin (web wallets, exchanges, etc.)

From an exchange stand point it might not be an improvement on transparency yet it definitely does not make anything worse. As for your inability to understand the importance of privacy in these scenarios it just reflects on your poor imagination.

No one has suggested Liquid, or sidechains for that matter, were scaling solutions so your are just attacking a straw man here.

As far as I understood it, it is a small change that needed to be made to Bitcoin in order to allow the side chains to function. As far as I understand furthermore this change within BIP65 deals with nLockTime which is the variable that deals with and is very important for side chains. I might not be a coder myself however my friends who are coders have explained this to me very thoroughly.

Wrong, the Liquid sidechain, as implemented, required no change to Bitcoin. As for BIP65 and nLockTime (which is not yet implemented) it helps with a host of use cases (sidechains & Lightning being one of them). This is certainly not a function that is being pulled into Bitcoin Core only to serve sidechains.

I am indeed saying that the implementation of side chains should have been decided by consensus, even though it represents a minor technical change, from an economics perspective however among others it is a huge change, which should have been decided by and through consensus.

You are working from an assumption that is wrong: implementing BIP65 is a whole different debate than sidechains. Moreover sidechains are not implemented into Bitcoin, they are created out of existing Bitcoin features and script language. They are a voluntary service that is not being force onto Bitcoin users therefore it makes absolutely no sense to propose that we need consensus to allow them to exist. What you propose works precisely against the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin.

The same criticism holds for web wallets and exchanges however some people might see side chains as being a part of bitcoin and might falsely equate the two more then they would with web wallets and exchanges.

So creation of web wallets and exchange require consensus?

I think that Bitcoin should be simple, in its basic fundamentals, I can explain Bitcoin in a its basic form to a ten year old I can no longer do that if side chains become an intrinsic part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. So yes I am skeptical in part purely because I think there is to much complexion.

So multi-signature should not exist because it is a complex use of Bitcoin's scripting language that has become an intrinsic part of Bitcoin?

I do oppose implementing increased anonymity in Bitcoin, you can say this is because of my poor imagination, however I have good reasons to stand on this believe. I do think there is a need for anonymous cryptocurrency in the world and I even support projects like XMR, Dash and SDC. I think that Bitcoin however should serve a different purpose and arguably a more important purpose by staying transparent and allowing the advantages that it brings to be maximized.

No one is proposing to implement anonymity into Bitcoin, at least not yet, so you are again attempting to fight a straw man.

If sidechains do not require nLockTime and BIP65 then I was wrong and I can accept that, it is wisdom to recognize when we are wrong.

Some might do, not all of them. Are you aware that BIP65 is not yet implemented ?

[VeritasSapere]

If sidechains do not require nLockTime and BIP65 then I was wrong and I can accept that, it is wisdom to recognize when we are wrong.

Some might do, not all of them. Are you aware that BIP65 is not yet implemented ?

I suppose that is where some of the confusion might lie then, since when I learned about sidechains I thought that nLockTime was required. Interesting to learn that they do not all require this. If there is no change to the Bitcoin code then it does not require consensus indeed.

The lighting network does require nLocktime or BIP65 however. I am not as skeptical of the lighting network actually, as long as the main bitcoin blockchain still remains viable for most people, I do not have any issues with the lightening network, I rather like it in fact.

[VeritasSapere]

Most people who disagree with XT or BIP101 doesn't necessary disagree with bigger blocks.

+1 for higher transaction rate.

Its wrong to say sidechain/LN is the solution.
Its wrong to say increased blocksize limit is the solution.

Its equally wrong to argue that either one of those things won't help. Equating either solution to some absurd extrapolation is bad form on both sides.

I do agree with this however, and I think that anyone who disagrees with this is being overly polarizing. Thankfully I think that most people can agree with what sgbett said here at least.

This gives me hope that we will be able to reach consensus, we need a third alternative implementation, unless either Core or XT compromises their current position. Decentralization and financial freedom is what most of us here want after all.