Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 12:22:22 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   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 ... 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] 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 ... 1560 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1804132 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:18:24 PM
 #17141


So who are you?  If brg444's privacy has to be sacrificed for the sake of an honest discussion, so should yours.

what i'm really looking for is a connection of brg444 to Blockstream.  it would explain the all out character assassination mode, afaic.

Quote
Quote
and it didn't come with a silver spoon or connections.  i grew up in a lower, middle class family in a shitty city.  the only way i was going to a quality university was to get a full scholarship out of high school, which i did.  that was the ticket that got my career rolling.

And a wife with a nice fat trust fund.

nice try but i didn't get married until i was 27.
Quote
Quote
so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.

And we'd like to know who we're dealing with.

you're dealing with someone who has fought 2 previous long, grueling troll battles in the past supporting Bitcoin:  the gold collapsing debate since Aug 2011 when gold was near its top @1923 and the brutal Bitcoin crash of 2011 from 32-->1.98 against the Bitcoin bears.  this current debate is nothing new for me and is consistent with my past behavior.
1480854142
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480854142

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480854142
Reply with quote  #2

1480854142
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 06:25:32 PM
 #17142

2. Considering, as I've explained,  that only a small fraction of the sidechains built by Blockstream could be supported by SPVproof+MM then I see their proposal as ANY OTHER WHITE PAPER that proposes an improvement on an existing technology that could serve the greater good of the community and not only them because.. you know.. OPEN SOURCE.

It is likely that their business model is not entirely dependent on SPVproof. The unethical thing to do would've been to keep for themselves this potentially revolutionary technology.

Is Blockstream only writing OPEN SOURCE code forever and into the future?

Or is your argument that Blockstream can not benefit from changing the Bitcoin protocol to suit their business because Bitcoin is open source?
(This it seems would be a weird thing to claim.)

There wasn't a possibility to keep for themselves this revolutionary technology.
It was funded by a EU grant to an Israel academic team, and the results published and presented openly at Bitcoin2013 conference, and elsewhere.
I was in the room for that presentation, as was gmaxwell and many others.  The technology is open, it is the implementation/company that isn't.

I wish them every success.

It matters little what use Blockstream makes of the code. The fact is the code is open source. I see that you recognize this further down below so I'm not sure what is the point of your question.

My argument is ANYONE can benefit from the change to the protocol that Blockstream suggests.

Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:27:21 PM
 #17143

Has anyone else noticed that we have won a major, major concession from brg444 inadvertently?

For the first 150 pages or so of this debate he has argued that SC's are one and the same ledger as bitcoin. He had contorted that definition with terms like "extensions"  or "sub ledgers"  in his rush to defend Blockstream and SC's .

Now,  for the last 50  pages or so he has inadvertently given up that battle and now inexplicably agrees with with every argument I've used assuming that they are in fact different ledgers.  This is what happens when you're blindy  defending something based not on principle but emotion.

And that is a major victory. Certainly one worth pointing out. The different ledger theory is a major pillar of the objection against SC's due to their insecurity and potential for manipulation.  

Maybe you're the only one to notice it since it is all part of your schyzophrenic mind  Huh

I continue to say that sidechains that are pegged 1:1 to Bitcoin are effectively sub-ledgers since their units are derived from BTC's. Therefore the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger is respected.

I don't expect you to understand this anymore although it is pretty simple.

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:27:37 PM
 #17144

Most radical new ideas get tested out in the alt currency scene, no matter how insanely great they are.
This is soft of an incident of first precedence yes?

The SPV does the verification of the proof.  The proof is conducted externally.  Implementing SPV institutionalizes within the Bitcoin protocol, an external proof provider.  This provider is then trusted by the Bitcoin network, and verified in the protocol for every bitcoin user to trust.

The proof engines are not inexpensive to run, they will of necessity be centralized for the foreseeable future.  They are a sort of block chain of their own in that they are cryptographically encoding every computer instruction and chaining these into programmatic proofs.  I don't know how much competition there will be for Blockstream.  If they have the lock on the Bitcoin protocol, probably not much in the crypto currency arena.

That may let them bootstrap into all the other obvious venues for deterministic computing.  Many of these are government computing assurance regimes for computer assurance such as FIPS in the USA.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIPS_140

This provides the level of security to avoid STUXNET type attacks.  It does it in a way that is WAY better than any alternative yet and for arbitrary code.  It is hard to imagine that governments will not be their best customers for these technologies.

This provider is only trusted for unlocking BTC from concrete SC.
If you do not trust  to the "external proof provider" then do not send BTC into this SC. => Your signature is required before your BTC are send into SC.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 06:31:07 PM
 #17145

My argumented has never been that "we should just do it". I have presented a case why it is dangerous for security concerns and integrity of the Bitcoin ledger to concede ALL of the processing of different transactions types to federation/oracles.

So there is a dangerous practice that is not really being done today much at all, but theoretically it could be done, and if it were, it might be dangerous.
And that is why we should just do it?

Do you see why this is unconvincing?

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:31:57 PM
 #17146

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

I do not understand. Can you explain ?

the way i see it, adding the spvp to source forever alters Bitcoins property of Sound Money.  i would no longer view it as a SOV. 

as it currently stands, you want outsiders to either pay hard cash to buy BTC's to get a seat at the table or trade something of value for BTC.  by introducing an offramp spvp, these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative asset to trade into and just wait.  eventually, once everyone figures out that there's a leak in the system they will start moving out in droves into all manner of speculative assets and SC's

it's like a barn full of cattle.  they feel perfectly safe and secure while the barn door is closed.  the wolves outside have no way of getting in except for scaling the side of the barn to an open upstairs window.  the cost is high for the wolves cuz they might fall and kill themselves.  instead, someone throws the front door wide open.  initially nothing happens and an occasional cattle glances over at the open door and figures the owner will close it back up to protect them.  eventually they figure out the door isn't closing.  instead of the wolves rushing thru the front door, they decide to just wait outside and pick off every single cattle that comes storming out with time.

this is all possible using federated pegs.

did you sell your Bitcoins yet?

"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 16, 2014, 06:32:40 PM
 #17147

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

I do not understand. Can you explain ?

the way i see it, adding the spvp to source forever alters Bitcoins property of Sound Money.  i would no longer view it as a SOV.  

as it currently stands, you want outsiders to either pay hard cash to buy BTC's to get a seat at the table or trade something of value for BTC.  by introducing an offramp spvp, these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative asset to trade into and just wait.  eventually, once everyone figures out that there's a leak in the system they will start moving out in droves into all manner of speculative assets and SC's

it's like a barn full of cattle.  they feel perfectly safe and secure while the barn door is closed.  the wolves outside have no way of getting in except for scaling the side of the barn to an open upstairs window.  the cost is high for the wolves cuz they might fall and kill themselves.  instead, someone throws the front door wide open.  initially nothing happens and an occasional cattle glances over at the open door and figures the owner will close it back up to protect them.  eventually they figure out the door isn't closing.  instead of the wolves rushing thru the front door, they decide to just wait outside and pick off every single cattle that comes storming out with time.

Current situation (without spvp):
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via ALTCOIN offering some speculative ALT-CURRENCY to trade into and just wait.  
 - they must use "trusted/federated" party to exchange  bitcoin with altcoin or use Appendix C Atomic swaps

they "think" Bitcoin is broken, just like many dead bodies along the way like:  Bitcorn, Kaminsky, Emin Gun Sirer, and thousands of others.  nope.  like i am fond of saying "most investors in cryptocurrenices are going to lose money".  yep, and it's b/c they don't understand Bitcoin.
Quote
Quote
SC word situation (with spvp)
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative
to trade into and just wait.
 - now they can use bitcoin-protocol to exchange bitcoin with SIDECURENCY  (but main question is who will want SIDECURENCY when scBTC can provide same functionality)  => It makes only sense if sidecurency can be redeemable for real asset e.g. gold or $ => it is same as buying gold with btc on decentralized exchange.

OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

scBTC cannot perform same functionality as SIDECURENCY.  they are both independent currencies riding on the same SC.  there is not even the possibility that any dev would fork SIDECURENCY into Bitcoin.  that doesn't even make sense as why would Bitcoin bring in a competing SIDECURENCY into the MC?  no, Bitcoin will forever have to live with SIDECURENCY mooching off value from Bitcoin itself.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:35:25 PM
 #17148

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.
Thanks for distilling the essence of the issues being discussed.

still waiting  Undecided

"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 16, 2014, 06:35:58 PM
 #17149

My argumented has never been that "we should just do it". I have presented a case why it is dangerous for security concerns and integrity of the Bitcoin ledger to concede ALL of the processing of different transactions types to federation/oracles.

So there is a dangerous practice that is not really being done today much at all, but theoretically it could be done, and if it were, it might be dangerous.
And that is why we should just do it?

Do you see why this is unconvincing?

federated server SC's won't ever gain traction.  i would much rather use OT federated servers from what i know about it.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 06:37:07 PM
 #17150

This provider is only trusted for unlocking BTC from concrete SC.
If you do not trust  to the "external proof provider" then do not send BTC into this SC. => Your signature is required before your BTC are send into SC.

It institutionalized this trust of a particular company into the protocol.
Or do you think that people should just not use Side Chains?

There should be a better way of doing this.  Maybe that is the federated system?   In the first instance SPV is federated too, and it may always be, there may never be another Blockstream after all.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:40:13 PM
 #17151

do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems?  it just shows how young and immature you are.

they just laugh at you like i do.


Soluvox is a Quebec company specializing in the management of customer communications.
Maybe they are more into "antisocial media" than "social media"?


 Roll Eyes

Can we please have the decency to leave my personal life out of this?

It looks like your professional not personal life  Smiley

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:40:48 PM
 #17152

This provider is only trusted for unlocking BTC from concrete SC.
If you do not trust  to the "external proof provider" then do not send BTC into this SC. => Your signature is required before your BTC are send into SC.

It institutionalized this trust of a particular company into the protocol.
Or do you think that people should just not use Side Chains?

There should be a better way of doing this.  Maybe that is the federated system?   In the first instance SPV is federated too, and it may always be, there may never be another Blockstream after all.

i thought we all already agreed that there are precious few ppl who can do this work? 

in that sense, this is why there might be a monopoly on SC construction by Blockstream.  i'm sure that's what they're betting on with the $15M raised so far. 

but how is this good for Bitcoin?  brg444 keeps spitting out the words "open source" as if magically all the concerns are supposed to just go away.  the only thing that has been suggested will be OS is the spvp.  everything else Blockstream may code up doesn't have to be, including any SC they might want to set up for their own purposes.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:43:21 PM
 #17153

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.
Thanks for distilling the essence of the issues being discussed.

let me distill it even further.

brg444 is trying to scare us into believing that unless we implement spvp to core, all these thousands of SC entities are going to move to federated servers which are opaque and much more ominous and threatening to Bitcoin.  somehow.

that's reality. unless you want to argue there is no demand for transactions types that are not implementable on Bitcoin's mainchain

"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 16, 2014, 06:47:05 PM
 #17154

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.
Thanks for distilling the essence of the issues being discussed.

let me distill it even further.

brg444 is trying to scare us into believing that unless we implement spvp to core, all these thousands of SC entities are going to move to federated servers which are opaque and much more ominous and threatening to Bitcoin.  somehow.

that's reality. unless you want to argue there is no demand for transactions types that are not implementable on Bitcoin's mainchain

and i accept that.  i just don't think it represents the existential danger you're trying to make it out to be and certainly is not to be used as a "reason" to implement spvp.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:48:47 PM
 #17155

...
Seriously cypher, don't be a dick.  There is no reason to fuck with people's privacy over an internet fight.  Grow the fuck up.

I think his account was hacked, or maybe he's been tweaking a bit.  The real cypherdoc would never do anything like that.



hey, it worked didn't it?  Grin

i got his identity within minutes and from the most unlikely of all sources, brg444 himself.  and i didn't have to pay a dime.  btw, the 2 BTC bounty is still open for any evidence, subject to my approval, of a direct link of Alex Berg @bergalex to Blockstream.

it really helps to know who your opponent is. isn't that what Sun Tzu said?  for a moment there, he had me worried i was talking to gmax or luke and i'd actually have to learn something technically.  instead, i now know he really is a 24 yo kid with a shitty job who has only been in Bitcoin for a mere 8mo and who has no perspective on the ups and downs of Bitcoin since Jan 2011 when i got involved (lurking).

hell, when i was 24 yo my career success was baked in the cake.  i was in the middle of my training at the #3 ranked school in the nation for what i do and the #1 research grant recipient for same said school.  i've gone on to reach the absolute apex of my field and in my element i have absolute authority to which ppl have to respond within seconds or else lose their jobs.  i work with the highest and coolest of technologies and enjoy a level of respect from clients only granted to a few select professions.  i love what i do and i have time for Bitcoin, which i also love.

and it didn't come with a silver spoon or connections.  i grew up in a lower, middle class family in a shitty city.  the only way i was going to a quality university was to get a full scholarship out of high school, which i did.  that was the ticket that got my career rolling.

so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.

 Roll Eyes

you're so cool cypher. had you traveled to 5 continents and lived in two for more than a year by then too? because I have

"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
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:52:46 PM
 #17156

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

I do not understand. Can you explain ?

the way i see it, adding the spvp to source forever alters Bitcoins property of Sound Money.  i would no longer view it as a SOV. 

as it currently stands, you want outsiders to either pay hard cash to buy BTC's to get a seat at the table or trade something of value for BTC.  by introducing an offramp spvp, these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative asset to trade into and just wait.  eventually, once everyone figures out that there's a leak in the system they will start moving out in droves into all manner of speculative assets and SC's

it's like a barn full of cattle.  they feel perfectly safe and secure while the barn door is closed.  the wolves outside have no way of getting in except for scaling the side of the barn to an open upstairs window.  the cost is high for the wolves cuz they might fall and kill themselves.  instead, someone throws the front door wide open.  initially nothing happens and an occasional cattle glances over at the open door and figures the owner will close it back up to protect them.  eventually they figure out the door isn't closing.  instead of the wolves rushing thru the front door, they decide to just wait outside and pick off every single cattle that comes storming out with time.

Current situation (without spvp):
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via ALTCOIN offering some speculative ALT-CURRENCY to trade into and just wait.  
 - they must use "trusted/federated" party to exchange  bitcoin with altcoin or use Appendix C Atomic swaps

SC word situation (with spvp)
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative SIDECURENCY to trade into and just wait.
 - now they can use bitcoin-protocol to exchange bitcoin with SIDECURENCY  (but main question is who will want SIDECURENCY when scBTC can provide same functionality)  => It makes only sense if sidecurency can be redeemable for real asset e.g. gold or $ => it is same as buying gold with btc on decentralized exchange.

OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

Bingo!

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:53:39 PM
 #17157

This provider is only trusted for unlocking BTC from concrete SC.
If you do not trust  to the "external proof provider" then do not send BTC into this SC. => Your signature is required before your BTC are send into SC.

It institutionalized this trust of a particular company into the protocol.
Or do you think that people should just not use Side Chains?

There should be a better way of doing this.  Maybe that is the federated system?   In the first instance SPV is federated too, and it may always be, there may never be another Blockstream after all.


Satoshi paper, page 5
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Quote
8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 06:57:38 PM
 #17158


OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

Bingo!

It doesn't actually do this though.  Not yet at least.  The trusted counterparty being the proof provider.
There are precious few folks that can do a good analysis of that counterparty.  The best anyone else can do is trust the analysis.

Good cryptography takes some time to evaluate, it is complicated.  They should not expect this to be rushed.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 630

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 06:59:37 PM
 #17159


Which code is open?  You mean Bitcoin code, Not Blockstream's, right?

At this time there is no competition.
It is not likely that there will be any competition soon, if ever.
Adding SPV is really only for Blockstream.

Do you know the complexity of setting up a proof system for which these verifications are made?  Look into it.  It is a major effort taking some of the best minds many years and a LOT of computational power.

 Huh

You are really arguing Blockstream will be the only one building sidechains on top of SPVproof !?

Blockstream has no code per say, they will write some for clients but SPVproof code is open source.

What's to stop Vitalik and the gang or Peter Todd and the crew from creating Blockstream2-3 when they realise that Blockstream business model is viable and is in fact the future of Bitcoin development.

"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
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 07:02:17 PM
 #17160


OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

Bingo!

It doesn't actually do this though.  Not yet at least.  The trusted counterparty being the proof provider.
There are precious few folks that can do a good analysis of that counterparty.  The best anyone else can do is trust the evaluation.

Good cryptography takes some time to evaluate, it is complicated.  They should not expect this to be rushed.

:-)  This proof will create user who want exit from SC. Bitcoin miner only verifies this proof. If other user on SC will see it it not valid proof then he can provide valid (with more PoW).
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 ... 1560 »
  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!