Bitcoin Forum
July 25, 2017, 02:57:22 PM *
News: BIP91 seems stable: there's probably only slightly increased risk of confirmations disappearing. You should still prepare for Aug 1.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 [844] 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1936696 times)
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:20:49 PM
 #16861

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.  these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors.  these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges.  their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess.  but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it.  they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

mostly all of your arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof.

bitcoins being converted to represent assets is not a new proposition and something that will exist sidechain or not.
no. your still not getting it, all the arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof. There is no point in arguing those.

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. This is the problem, creating SC with decentralized SPV proofs this changes the instructive that has given Bitcoin its value. this is the issue. 

Calling a federated 1:1 peg using m-of-n bitcoin addresses a SC, which can be done today the same thing as a SC that is decentralized and employes Merged Mining to proses SPV proofs with federated 1:1 peg is muddling the water, they are two separate technologies, one is available and fair, the other is a proposed protocol change that can upset the incentives that make Bitcoin money. 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
1500994642
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500994642

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500994642
Reply with quote  #2

1500994642
Report to moderator
1500994642
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500994642

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500994642
Reply with quote  #2

1500994642
Report to moderator
Decentralized search
Search for products or services and get paid for it
pre-sale Token CAT
25 July 50% discount
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1500994642
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500994642

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500994642
Reply with quote  #2

1500994642
Report to moderator
1500994642
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1500994642

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1500994642
Reply with quote  #2

1500994642
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:32:03 PM
 #16862

We already explain you
1. SC already exists. => proven
maybe.  i'll take your word for it.
Quote

2. SC using SPVProof are possible on current MC => proven

not proven.  we have not seen the math and it still is theoretical according to all i've read
Quote

3. SC with FedPeg can be same as SC with SPVProof  => proven  -> only you are not able to show us how siphon works

i don't have to.  i just have to believe that Blockstream has a monetary incentive to ensure that it does in fact happen.  otherwise, they don't make money from structuring these things for SC entities and they should give back the $15M that investors have handed over to them in the belief they can make this happen.
Quote
4. ... "MC thus destroying is Sound Money" -> you are not able to prove ...


i just showed you a viable path for these BTC to flow to SC enabled entities built specifically for this purpose by Blockstream for which they will be paid good money i'm sure to make it happen.  or else.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:33:47 PM
 #16863

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.  these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors.  these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges.  their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess.  but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it.  they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

mostly all of your arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof.

bitcoins being converted to represent assets is not a new proposition and something that will exist sidechain or not.
no. your still not getting it, all the arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof. There is no point in arguing those.

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. This is the problem, creating SC with decentralized SPV proofs this changes the instructive that has given Bitcoin its value. this is the issue.  

Calling a federated 1:1 peg using m-of-n bitcoin addresses a SC, which can be done today the same thing as a SC that is decentralized and employes Merged Mining to proses SPV proofs with federated 1:1 peg is muddling the water, they are two separate technologies, one is available and fair, the other is a proposed protocol change that can upset the incentives that make Bitcoin money.  

Or improve them.

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

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:36:40 PM
 #16864

Back to the bike!



Keep working on it bro; it'll happen for you.



Mark i'm not!

brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:41:38 PM
 #16865

We already explain you
1. SC already exists. => proven
maybe.  i'll take your word for it.
Quote

2. SC using SPVProof are possible on current MC => proven

not proven.  we have not seen the math and it still is theoretical according to all i've read
Quote

3. SC with FedPeg can be same as SC with SPVProof  => proven  -> only you are not able to show us how siphon works

i don't have to.  i just have to believe that Blockstream has a monetary incentive to ensure that it does in fact happen.  otherwise, they don't make money from structuring these things for SC entities and they should give back the $15M that investors have handed over to them in the belief they can make this happen.
Quote
4. ... "MC thus destroying is Sound Money" -> you are not able to prove ...


i just showed you a viable path for these BTC to flow to SC enabled entities built specifically for this purpose by Blockstream for which they will be paid good money i'm sure to make it happen.  or else.

and the same path is available for BTC to flow to SC through federated peg built specifically for this purpose by anyone.

you still haven't argued why Blockstream clients would prefer the uncertainty of MM to the security, control & oversight of federated server model

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:47:28 PM
 #16866

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.  these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors.  these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges.  their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess.  but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it.  they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

mostly all of your arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof.

bitcoins being converted to represent assets is not a new proposition and something that will exist sidechain or not.
no. your still not getting it, all the arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof. There is no point in arguing those.

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. This is the problem, creating SC with decentralized SPV proofs this changes the instructive that has given Bitcoin its value. this is the issue.  

Calling a federated 1:1 peg using m-of-n bitcoin addresses a SC, which can be done today the same thing as a SC that is decentralized and employes Merged Mining to proses SPV proofs with federated 1:1 peg is muddling the water, they are two separate technologies, one is available and fair, the other is a proposed protocol change that can upset the incentives that make Bitcoin money.  

Or improve them.

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.

large mmt of BTC to federated servers won't happen b/c they are centralized, less secure for niche purposes-as you have argued  Roll Eyes
Quote

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.

the demand only exists in the minds of devs who gotta dev and get paid handsomely to do it.  Blockstream offers the opportunity to cash in big time thru SPVproofs if they can pull it off.
Quote

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

miners don't care now about supposedly functional federated server SC's with 2wp.  they do have to worry, otoh, about SPVproof enabled siphoning of the very BTC tx fees that they rely on to survive in the long run if SC's get added to the source code that systematizes/institutionalizes and endorses the entire concept.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:50:10 PM
 #16867

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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:53:56 PM
 #16868

We already explain you
1. SC already exists. => proven
maybe.  i'll take your word for it.
Quote

2. SC using SPVProof are possible on current MC => proven

not proven.  we have not seen the math and it still is theoretical according to all i've read
Quote

3. SC with FedPeg can be same as SC with SPVProof  => proven  -> only you are not able to show us how siphon works

i don't have to.  i just have to believe that Blockstream has a monetary incentive to ensure that it does in fact happen.  otherwise, they don't make money from structuring these things for SC entities and they should give back the $15M that investors have handed over to them in the belief they can make this happen.
Quote
4. ... "MC thus destroying is Sound Money" -> you are not able to prove ...


i just showed you a viable path for these BTC to flow to SC enabled entities built specifically for this purpose by Blockstream for which they will be paid good money i'm sure to make it happen.  or else.

and the same path is available for BTC to flow to SC through federated peg built specifically for this purpose by anyone.

you still haven't argued why Blockstream clients would prefer the uncertainty of MM to the security, control & oversight of federated server model

 Huh

i already said that if SPVproof enabled SC enabled entities get up and going, like TC, they will most likely use a private signature scheme to validate blocks created on their SC.  but this requires trusting them as a centralized entity.  in this model, BTC uses the 2wp as an offramp into all sorts of assets, be they speculative, non speculative, or even altcoins (govcoin).  this drains value from Bitcoins MC and breaks the entire concept of Bitcoin as Sound Money.

we know that this will happen otherwise Blockstream can't pay a return to those investors who've poured $15M into their company and who expect this flow of value offramping to occur from the construction of thousands of SC's designed to take advantage of this.  the SC entities expect this to happen as well.  after all they paid Blockstream good money to construct these SC's for them.   otherwise they'll ask for their money back.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:57:24 PM
 #16869

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:00:59 AM
 #16870

large mmt of BTC to federated servers won't happen b/c they are centralized, less secure for niche purposes-as you have argued  Roll Eyes

Not true, there are already large amount of BTC sitting on centralized exchange/wallet servers. If no decentralized option is create to suffice the utilities/features I have presented then the demand for them will allow more centralized services to succeed.

the demand only exists in the minds of devs who gotta dev and get paid handsomely to do it.  Blockstream offers the opportunity to cash in big time thru SPVproofs if they can pull it off.
Quote

Blockstream will cash in big whether or not SPVproofs is implemented because most of their clients will be content using federated servers model. SPVproofs hardly incapacitate their business model as I have shown.

miners don't care now about supposedly functional federated server SC's with 2wp.  they do have to worry, otoh, about SPVproof enabled siphoning of the very BTC tx fees that they rely on to survive in the long run if SC's get added to the source code that systematizes/institutionalizes and endorses the entire concept.

Absolutely not true once again. Federated server models will compete with SPVproof chains. If SPVproof chains do not exist then the BTC tx fees will be siphoned to federated servers and will be out of the reach of miners.

If SPVproof gets added to the source code then we can avoid this situation and allow miners to maintain their incentive by mining any chain that gets universally adopted and supported by the community.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:04:32 AM
 #16871

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!"
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:06:23 AM
 #16872

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.

 Huh

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.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:07:42 AM
 #16873

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.

 Huh

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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:08:18 AM
 #16874

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 believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:08:32 AM
 #16875

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 cost 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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:12:52 AM
 #16876

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!"

you sicken me with you stupidity and dihonesty.

I have NEVER said there won't be speculative SC's. You are free to dig up any of my old post to prove me wrong. My point was that your speculative SC's will not be supported by the miners.

The argument that all BTC's will move to sidechain are yours, you & Adrian. Never did I propose this is likely to happen. This scenario has been a construct of your delusional minds all along.

I am merely turning the table and using this argument against both of you to demonstrate how the situation would be worse if the SPVproof model of sidechain would not be implemented.

Of course you are unable to argue this and so you proceed to your usual, disingenuous dodging & weaving and failure to address my arguments

Did you sell your Bitcoins yet? Because sidechains are coming, SPVproof or not, and watchout cause they're gonna siphon all of BTC value and break the holy link. You best act now.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:13:25 AM
 #16877

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.

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:14:38 AM
 #16878

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. 
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:19:29 AM
 #16879

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.
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1358



View Profile
November 15, 2014, 12:22:32 AM
 #16880

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.  

BlockStream have a win win proposition for miners, and for the community who fall for brg444 propaganda, I only hope Start ups like that go through the same stages as miners buying late First Gen ASIC's - (that money would have been better spent just buying Bitcoin)  I hope that $15 Million investment would have been better spent on BTC, than trying to change the prototypical.  

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
Pages: « 1 ... 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 [844] 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!