Bitcoin Forum
November 24, 2017, 04:37:15 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   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 ... 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] 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2013502 times)
Melbustus
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 08:37:41 PM
 #17161

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

Bitcoin is the first monetary system to credibly offer perfect information to all economic participants.
Cryptoasset rankings and metrics for investors: http://onchainfx.com
1511498235
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498235

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498235
Reply with quote  #2

1511498235
Report to moderator
Join ICO Now Coinlancer is Disrupting the Freelance marketplace!
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511498235
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498235

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498235
Reply with quote  #2

1511498235
Report to moderator
1511498235
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498235

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498235
Reply with quote  #2

1511498235
Report to moderator
1511498235
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511498235

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511498235
Reply with quote  #2

1511498235
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 08:37:56 PM
 #17162

You are dispicible, and I regret ever coming to your defense in previous "troll battles".  If your own privacy is so important, how can you justity putting a bounty on someone else's personal life?  Talk about a double standard.

dude, you really have trouble defining your own ethics don't you? 


Should have let me out you... we could have split the bounty.


 Cheesy Cheesy

of course! to no surprise cypher doesn't catch an obvious sarcasm/joke attempt

"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, 08:44:26 PM
 #17163

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?

Not being done much today? Are you kidding me?

Coinbase, Counterparty, Coloredcoins, Bistamp.

Every exchanges, any "off-chain" schemes present the exact risk I am referring to. The trend is VERY clear in that sense.

Do you not think that these are security concerns and have a HIGH-risk potential to temper with the Bitcoin ledger?

Is it not true that with proper implementations sidechains are a very tempting alternative to these?

once again, you misunderstand. 

they can mess with their own internal ledgers but any BTC deposited to the general deposit address still lies on the MC.
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 08:45:34 PM
 #17164

Yes we know.  It is the validation of a proof that is EXTERNALLY CREATED.  The Validation and the Proof are coming from the same source, a trusted source until the crypto gets this evaluation.  There are a lot of C operations there, and a lot of math.

I'm comfortable that the core devs that are jumping ship have vetted it to their satisfaction, but then they also have an economic incentive to be satisfied with it as well.

There is not "trusted source" -> it works same as Bitcoin (what chain is longer ? chain with more PoW)
only roles will be changed.  It is not miner who look for then longest sidechain. It is SC-user who must deliver list of HASH-es that proves he destroyed scBTC and now he can unlock BTC.

I think we are getting closer.
Help me to understand what the codebase is, upon which this SPV does its verification.  Is it not the Side Chain?
So perforce Bitcoin must trust each of the side chains' proof mechanisms.
Side Chains may or may not be open source, and the source may or may not get decent analysis with each update.
The complexity risks are interesting in that they enable so many long cons.


SC-client will perform SPV proof
Quote
8. Simplified Payment Verification
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep
a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain


Using SNARKs he can create proof
1. that he "keeps a copy of ALL the block headers of the longest proof-of-work sc-chain" -> user will compress 80 M of sc-headers into few hashes
2. that this sc-chain contains transaction where he destroyed scBTC and this transaction is 2 days old


Edit:
It is not exactly what SC whitepaper say => how to compress SPV
How to compress SPV is detail :-)  we can use SNARKs/SCIP to do verify it has been done.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 08:47:20 PM
 #17165

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

The only valid argument against MM is more potentially more centralization of the miners. One could argue this is an inevitable reality either way.

My position also proposes that the alternative of fulfilling on off-chain or federated servers the demand for any type of transactions that cannot be accomodated on the mainchain can lead to a dangerous loss of incentive for miners.

These schemes effectively deny them the rights to claim all of the network's transaction fees effectively diminishing their incentive to secure.

Sidechains, to that effect, are a valuable alternative that should, imo, be considered a "win" scenario.

"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, 08:49:10 PM
 #17166

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 08:52:24 PM
 #17167

once again, you misunderstand. 

they can mess with their own internal ledgers but any BTC deposited to the general deposit address still lies on the MC.

Except if they decide to run a fractional reserve.

That has nothing to do with my argument anyway which you again so conveniently avoid : TXs are not processed by the miners.

My argument 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.

Once again, your brain dead logic fails you.

"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, 08:56:17 PM
 #17168

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.

you have used this argument ad nauseam in previous pages. you and buddy Adrian-x have made it a concern to the sound money principle of Bitcoin that the miners incentive to mine the mainchain be lost or tampered with.

you are not being very honest once again cypher

its not a question of honesty, which is one of your favorite ad hominem attacks.  it's our different assessments of the threat of the federated server SC's to Bitcoin.  i don't see any threat at all.  you do.   fine.  others will have to evaluate themselves.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 08:56:41 PM
 #17169

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

"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: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:00:20 PM
 #17170

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.

you have used this argument ad nauseam in previous pages. you and buddy Adrian-x have made it a concern to the sound money principle of Bitcoin that the miners incentive to mine the mainchain be lost or tampered with.

you are not being very honest once again cypher

its not a question of honesty, which is one of your favorite ad hominem attacks.  it's our different assessments of the threat of the federated server SC's to Bitcoin.  i don't see any threat at all.  you do.   fine.  others will have to evaluate themselves.

I repeat

Quote
you have used this argument ad nauseam in previous pages. you and buddy Adrian-x have made it a concern to the sound money principle of Bitcoin that the miners incentive to mine the mainchain be lost or tampered with.

This is exactly what is going to happen with more off-chain/federated servers sidechains.

"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, 09:12:19 PM
 #17171

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:13:50 PM
 #17172

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its 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, 09:20:46 PM
 #17173

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its mainchain?




the answer is clear. 

the spvp is the biggest threat cuz it breaks the sound money principle by changing source.  yes, you can't stop all stupid ppl from doing a 2wp to a federated server.  i'm sure some will but it won't be a large # b/c they are centralized and insecure and represent niche local community uses.  they won't gain any traction and thus don't threaten the sound money principle as they are not institutionalized into the protocol.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
November 16, 2014, 09:36:44 PM
 #17174

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:39:25 PM
 #17175

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:44:55 PM
 #17176

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its mainchain?

the answer is clear. 

the spvp is the biggest threat cuz it breaks the sound money principle by changing source.  yes, you can't stop all stupid ppl from doing a 2wp to a federated server.  i'm sure some will but it won't be a large # b/c they are centralized and insecure and represent niche local community uses.  they won't gain any traction and thus don't threaten the sound money principle as they are not institutionalized into the protocol.

The SPVP introduces a new proof verification method. It does not guarantee that everyone will be able to leverage it because to do so you have to depend on miners adopting your chain.

This is a very shaky proposition and it is very likely that federated servers will have an important place in the sidechain ecosystem. In fact, any of the proposed malicious schemes you have described will likely use that format.  

Only community approved and adopted sidechains will be able to command MM from the miners. These are very likely to be utility chains that are 100% open source, transparent and serves the public good.

The very SPECULATIVE chains you are so concerned about will most certainly be supported by federated servers. The reason is evident and logic very intuitive : since it is impossible for them to guarantee a sufficient enough level of MM by miners, they will opt to provide "security" through a more centralized proof mechanism.

I believe you had agreed that only a certain number of chains would be MM to provide a security level equivalent to BTC. Any others are subject to the necessary centralization tradeoff.

It is for that reason that a great majority of Blockstream's chains built for clients will be AT LEAST bootstrapped on top of federated server model. It only makes sense.

Therefore, yes federated model sidechains will absolutely gain traction and detach a considerable portion of the BTC assets off the mainchain. Their off ramp, while different from SPVproof, results in the exact same mechanism.

SPVproof only enables the possibility to bestow the ultimate decentralization to the chains that command this feature. They are most certainly not an open door that allow anyone to magically "siphon" more BTC than they would through a federated sidechain.


"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: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:47:52 PM
 #17177

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

Promissory notes engineered on the protocol level are a whole different animal : no counter-party risk.

"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: 1260



View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:48:08 PM
 #17178

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.
it will be hard lesson you will be learnt in the next year.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 16, 2014, 09:55:35 PM
 #17179

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

This is complete non-sense.

Off ramp created by federated sidechains can be equally speculative & inflationary.

SPVProof is neutral and has no inherent inflation attached. The sidechain issued from a SPVProof are whatever their creator make them to be.

"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, 09:55:43 PM
 #17180

Do we have a consensus on the unsolved issues in this debate yet?

Correct me if I'm wrong; I've only had time to skim (not read) the last, oh, 150 pages or so (sheesh):

brg444's position:
Sidechains will reduce demand for alt-coins, and increase demand for bitcoins, by allowing alt-coin experimentation that doesn't require a completely new unit.
The economic dynamics are no different than those that would/will arise from implementing Sidechains via a federated model, such as with OT, which does not require any code change to Bitcoin. Thus, there's no more ecosystem risk to adding SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY to Bitcoin versus doing it on OT anyways.

cypher's position:
The economic incentives surrounding Sidechains may be more complex than they look, especially when merged-mining is taken into account.
The developer incentives/precedent created by allowing a code-change to Bitcoin to get this done may have long run negative consequences, especially since the entity pushing this is for-profit, and comprised of many Bitcoin core-devs.


Fair?

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its mainchain?

the answer is clear. 

the spvp is the biggest threat cuz it breaks the sound money principle by changing source.  yes, you can't stop all stupid ppl from doing a 2wp to a federated server.  i'm sure some will but it won't be a large # b/c they are centralized and insecure and represent niche local community uses.  they won't gain any traction and thus don't threaten the sound money principle as they are not institutionalized into the protocol.

The SPVP introduces a new proof verification method. It does not guarantee that everyone will be able to leverage it because to do so you have to depend on miners adopting your chain.

This is a very shaky proposition and it is very likely that federated servers will have an important place in the sidechain ecosystem. In fact, any of the proposed malicious schemes you have described will likely use that format.  

Only community approved and adopted sidechains will be able to command MM from the miners. These are very likely to be utility chains that are 100% open source, transparent and serves the public good.

The very SPECULATIVE chains you are so concerned about will most certainly be supported by federated servers. The reason is evident and logic very intuitive : since it is impossible for them to guarantee a sufficient enough level of MM by miners, they will opt to provide "security" through a more centralized proof mechanism.

I believe you had agreed that only a certain number of chains would be MM to provide a security level equivalent to BTC. Any others are subject to the necessary centralization tradeoff.

It is for that reason that a great majority of Blockstream's chains built for clients will be AT LEAST bootstrapped on top of federated server model. It only makes sense.

Therefore, yes federated model sidechains will absolutely gain traction and detach a considerable portion of the BTC assets off the mainchain. Their off ramp, while different from SPVproof, results in the exact same mechanism.

SPVproof only enables the possibility to bestow the ultimate decentralization to the chains that command this feature. They are most certainly not an open door that allow anyone to magically "siphon" more BTC than they would through a federated sidechain.



c'mon man, you do realize what you're saying and how contorted it is?  let me summarize:

"b/c spvp SC's are insecure b/c they won't be MM'd, Blockstream will develop federated SC's instead.  b/c federated SC's will prevent miners from collecting tx fees, we should therefore adopt spvp SC's even though they're insecure and then they can be MM'd."  Roll Eyes
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 ... 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!