Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

I was referring to Bitcoin's white paper, not Sidechains'. You know, the one were Adam Back is credited with developing the proof-of-work system that Bitcoin runs under.

Adam Back figured that proof of work could be useful and but where it could most usefully be employed.

He deserves credit for what he accomplished, and that credit in no way absolves him of proving his case in future endeavours.

Adam Back has to show his work, just like anybody else. Even Satoshi would be in that same category.

Past returns are not a guarantee of future results.

And they absolutely plan to show it.

I simply have some issues seeing people's reputation be ignorantly attacked when they are in part responsible for the existence of Bitcoin or have contributed to the technology and movement that spawned Bitcoin before most of us here even considered it possible or desirable

[1714229144]

1714229144

[1714229144]

1714229144

[1714229144]

1714229144

[1714229144]

1714229144

[cypherdoc]

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt.

also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also.

but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book.

I can recognize this.

But the fact that you so conveniently dismiss the works of people who have been involved in crypto since before you even knew about Bitcoin says a lot about your character.

These guys have been developing for years some of the very technology that underlies Bitcoin.

I think that deserves some respect

you're continuing to use selective memory loss.

if you go back, i've acknowledged Adam's contributions many times in this thread.  i'm not sure about Austin's.

the only reason we're talking about these "contributions" is b/c you brought their names into the recent discussion as examples of the only ones we should be listening to in regards to SC's.  you've also given preference to dev opinion as more important to Bitcoins success.  this is wrong as this is a community you know and involves much more than just code.

[brg444]

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt.

also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also.

but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book.

I can recognize this.

But the fact that you so conveniently dismiss the works of people who have been involved in crypto since before you even knew about Bitcoin says a lot about your character.

These guys have been developing for years some of the very technology that underlies Bitcoin.

I think that deserves some respect

you're continuing to use selective memory loss.

if you go back, i've acknowledged Adam's contributions many times in this thread.  i'm not sure about Austin's.

the only reason we're talking about these "contributions" is b/c you brought their names into the recent discussion as examples of the only ones we should be listening to in regards to SC's.  you've also given preference to dev opinion as more important to Bitcoins success.  this is wrong as this is a community you know and involves much more than just code.

this was all in reference to you stupid "devs gon devs" meme.

Austin founded Zero Knowledge Systems in 1997. If you want to debate vision. This guy has loads of it.

[Adrian-x]

where were those 2 guys and you back in 2011 when the real war was being fought from 32 down to 1.98?  my whole argument and vision at the time was that Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV and sound money which had the potential to replace gold.  hence, the birth of this thread in 8/11 just before the peak in gold @1923 and my constant and incessant evangelizing of Bitcoin.  which yes, happens to rival and probably exceed in terms of hours many of the devs who have worked on Bitcoin.  Bitcoin is a community if you hadn't noticed that involves all types, not just devs.  we've all worked towards its success as much as you would like us to think otherwise.

now Blockstream wants to change Bitcoin into a WoW trading platform which will dilute the money function which in my opinion is its strongest potential to change the fiat world.  the genesis block even indirectly references this in Satoshi's statement as he did many times in his posts.

and all it takes is for us to "keep our eye on the ball" as to what brought us to where we are today.

Oh please.  

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

I don't see you name in the Bitcoin's whitepaper. I do see Adam Back's though.

Bitcoin's killer app is SoV, those who have put cold hard cash create the liquidity we all so value, those are the heroes. Businesses who look to find win win and tax us are welcome, but businesses who want to change the rules of the game, so they can extract value and influence the network growth, at the protocol level need to stand up to a whole new paradigm of scrutiny.  Who cares if its open source, we'r talking about the rules, it has as much value as saying its a free market and sure anyone can start a bank and compete in this open market under the rules of the FED, and if you dont like the rules start a political campaign and change them when you have a majority.  

The parallels to the banking collapses in the late 1800 and early 1900 and the failed Bitcoin companies, and the Bitcoiners attitudes are uncanny, and to top it all off the solution is comparable to the FED backing banks but only this time its a network backed by the worlds greatest Network tightens, and if you hadn't realized Bitcoin is a network, not a bank.

 

[cypherdoc]

Austin founded Zero Knowledge Systems in 1997. If you want to debate vision. This guy has loads of it.

again, if they were so smart, how come they didn't get Bitcoin until 2013?  even with their noses buried within it?

how come some cypherdoc dude did?

facts are facts.

all i'm saying is your character assassination attempts towards me are just propaganda.  it's a good thing you're not associated with Blockstream, b/c if you are, that could turn out to be a big problem for them.

[Adrian-x]

With ZB we're now up to at least 5 people who have debunked that claim of yours. Maybe you'd like to work on your arguments.

brg444, your insolence is backfiring. I for one posted a very benign assessment of some concerns I has with the SC proposal on the day it was released, it didn't result in a discussion in the tread, but a PM telling me I was full of BS and clueless.

Naturally I wanted to know why, so I followed the discussion, anyone cowardly to attack me with a PM but not reply to my post made me think there is a problem here. So I looked, and sure enough this idea has problems, I don't hold all the same concerns as cypher, but I can't dismiss them either he is just exploring the defects to there very probable outcome, so I do see his points and can even imagine that many of the probabilities have higher odds of success than say Bitcoin did in 2010.

FYI if you weren't so closed minded I wouldn't have explored ways to engage with you, so thank you for that, the results are below.

It seems someone thought it a good idea to post my comments and cyphers on r/Bitcoin

I was surprised to see the community over there overwhelmingly 83% of over 300 votes feel we have valid ideas.  (that's about a 33% voter participation if you follow r/Bitcoin a lot.)

[NewLiberty]

You make it sound as if you are the reason for Bitcoin's success.

hey, the money i pumped in played a part no doubt.

also, the constant evangelizing and trench wars i fought right here in this forum went a long way in convincing others also.

but i'm not a dev though so i'm sure that doesn't count in your book.

I can recognize this.

But the fact that you so conveniently dismiss the works of people who have been involved in crypto since before you even knew about Bitcoin says a lot about your character.

These guys have been developing for years some of the very technology that underlies Bitcoin.

I think that deserves some respect

you're continuing to use selective memory loss.

if you go back, i've acknowledged Adam's contributions many times in this thread.  i'm not sure about Austin's.

the only reason we're talking about these "contributions" is b/c you brought their names into the recent discussion as examples of the only ones we should be listening to in regards to SC's.  you've also given preference to dev opinion as more important to Bitcoins success.  this is wrong as this is a community you know and involves much more than just code.

There are a lot of folks who have been involved in crypto since before Bitcoin that also read and contribute in this thread.  Most are not seeking acknowledgement.

[NewLiberty]

What are the other implementations of the protocol besides Bitcoin Core available right now?

btcd is the most complete in that it supports new block generation.

libbitcoin and bitcoinj are probably on the next tier.

Bits of Proof would have made it to this list had it not been successfully executed.

Thanks, and how can we monitor and foster the adoption of these alternatives?

AFAIK, none of these others have a mining implementation yet in practice, do they?

[Adrian-x]

What are the other implementations of the protocol besides Bitcoin Core available right now?

btcd is the most complete in that it supports new block generation.

libbitcoin and bitcoinj are probably on the next tier.

Bits of Proof would have made it to this list had it not been successfully executed.

AFAIK, none of these others have a mining implementation yet in practice, do they?

I believe i read btcd does, but it is not on par with Bitcoin Core and is planed to be dropped.

[Melbustus]

Zerg once asserted that i was probably the first venture capitalist to invest in Bitcoin back in 2011.  i believe he is right.

what i saw in Bitcoin was the ultimate SOV sound money system that had the potential to replace gold and silver and consume fiat currencies worldwide.  everybody knows i went out and acted on that belief by selling all my silver startingat its peak of 49 (avg out 44) in May 2011 and then almost all my gold in Aug 2011 (avg out around 1750).  i started buying BTC @ 1.60 the day before Easter Apr 2011 and for the rest of 2011 mostly into the bottom @1.98.  this vision has been more than fulfilled.

I'll vouch for Cypher's influence during that time. I remained a bull through that drawn-out bust, and Cypher helped me and others continue to stay on track with that position. Those not involved in the community during that period might be tempted to think "oh, it was just another bear market like today, easy enough to wait through if you see bitcoin's potential." Well, yes and no. Bitcoin was a toy in 2011. We were all fascinated with the technology and talked about how it could change the world, but *nobody* else cared. We believed what we were saying, but the disconnect between what we saw in this community and the rest of world was ridiculous. There was no VC money, the 3 or 4 mainstream news stories that happened that entire year were negative and treated bitcoin as a brief curiosity, the ecosystem sucked, people were scammed and hacked right and left, everything was a giant pain to use, and it was really difficult to talk about bitcoin in polite company without seeming like a total freak show. Couple that with a 90%+ drop in price from your first purchases (my case, anyways), and a total market-cap deflating to less than the value of some people's houses, and it really seemed like bitcoin might just go away. Granted, it was clear that the technology was important and would eventually, somehow, be influential, but it was very much rational at the time to think that the probability of bitcoin, as it stood, to succeed was pretty low.

Contrast that to the present bear market. We have more VC money than the internet in 1995 being pumped into the space. Bitcoin is being debated by top officials at major financial institutions, central banks, and all sorts of government bodies. We have some of the smartest people in the world, with reputations to protect, advocating for it publicly. Even the hard-line skeptics now mostly ack that at least the technology is potentially world-changing. And while we still get our fair share of terrible media pieces, we also get good ones, with no shortage of coverage in general. *This* bear market is a breeze.

So to Cypher's point... It doesn't take much vision to be excited by cool technology; "devs gonna dev". But in the environment we had in late 2011, it did take vision to see that this stuff is world-changing, and to put a significant portion of your net-worth where your mouth is.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120403154846/http://bitcoinmedia.com/bitcoin-vs-metals

now i see an existential threat to the whole concept of Bitcoin as Money with this spvp.  it breaks the linkage btwn the BTC currency unit and its ultrasecure blockchain.  this will dilute the entire money function and potential for Bitcoin as Money.  expect the price of BTC to drop if this is implemented.  you will no longer be able to describe Bitcoin as digital cash or digital gold or even as "apolitcal" money.  that's b/c of Blockstream control and the conversion of Bitcoin to a WoW trading platform.  you will have to say that Bitcoin is a trading platform that now offers stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts, Truthcoin, and oh, btw, currency.  this will cause confusion and dilution.

what a shame.  we had a chance to change the world.

I honestly don't know where I land on this stuff yet. I see that there's potential for a number of economic dynamics which we do not understand at first glance, and I personally need to think about how this all plays out with merged-mining a lot more. The spv op-code addition itself, though, I see as more a potential governance precedent issue than a technical problem (since OT can implement sidechains with the same economic implications (assuming that assertion is correct)).

However the idea you note above, that sidechains potentially changes the narrative from sound-money to something else, is a new viewpoint for me in this debate. I would hope, as do sidechains supporters, that the new narrative is *additive* to the old, not mutually exclusive, but I don't know yet.

[davec]

I believe i read btcd does, but it is not on par with Bitcoin Core and is planed to be dropped.

There are no plans to drop btcd.  I'm interesting to hear in what ways btcd is not on par with Bitcoin Core.  btcd has a more modular code base, more readable code, better documentation, better test coverage, and supports everything that Bitcoin Core does along with a few things it either doesn't yet have or only has on branches and isn't part of master (for example, BIP0023 block proposal support).

Note, that we're talking about the full node daemon, not bitcoin-qt which includes the wallet stuff.  btcd intentionally does not have the wallet integrated which is something that Bitcoin Core still hasn't separated out even though I believe it is on their list of things to do.

EDIT: Oh I just realized you were referring specifically to the mining support offered by btcd.  There are no plans to drop support for that either and, as mentioned above, it even has support for BIP0023 block proposals which is not yet part of the Bitcoin Core mainline.

[Adrian-x]

I believe i read btcd does, but it is not on par with Bitcoin Core and is planed to be dropped.

There are no plans to drop btcd.  I'm interesting to hear in what ways btcd is not on par with Bitcoin Core.  btcd has a more modular code base, more readable code, better documentation, better test coverage, and supports everything that Bitcoin Core does along with a few things it either doesn't yet have or only has on branches and isn't part of master (for example, BIP0023 block proposal support).

Note, that we're talking about the full node daemon, not bitcoin-qt which includes the wallet stuff.  btcd intentionally does not have the wallet integrated which is something that Bitcoin Core still hasn't separated out even though I believe it is on their list of things to do.

I was looking into it to see if I could use it for solo mining, I believe it is on par as a node, and as you point out probably better and continued support seems inevitable, but if I recall correctly I was looking at just a development road map and it didn't seem like there was demand to support the mining functionality, going forward I felt it wasn't worth risking if a block didn't propagate so I am not sure it will be used for mining.  

[davec]

I was looking into it to see if I could use it for solo mining, I believe it is on par as a node, and as you point out probably better and continued support seems inevitable, but if I recall correctly I was looking at just a development road map and it didn't seem like there was demand to support the mining functionality, going forward I felt it wasn't worth risking if a block didn't propagate so I am not sure it will be used for mining.  

Ah.  Thanks for your clarifications.  Mining support has been implemented for quite some time now.  I'd have to check the commit logs to be certain, but I want to say that mining support went in around the end of June, 4 to 5 months ago.  There is nothing on the development road map for it because there isn't anything else to do for it currently since it's complete.

It's a fairly simple matter to find out if a block will propagate by using BIP0023 block proposals since it checks if a block is valid (excepting the proof of work), before you ever start working on finding the nonce.  In fact, if mining infrastructures started to migrate to checking consensus against multiple implementations in general (or even multiple versions of Bitcoin Core itself), it would be beneficial to the miners and the entire ecosystem in the long run since even accidental forks between Bitcoin Core versions (as has already happened in the past) could be detected and handled gracefully.

[cypherdoc]

I was looking into it to see if I could use it for solo mining, I believe it is on par as a node, and as you point out probably better and continued support seems inevitable, but if I recall correctly I was looking at just a development road map and it didn't seem like there was demand to support the mining functionality, going forward I felt it wasn't worth risking if a block didn't propagate so I am not sure it will be used for mining.  

Ah.  Thanks for your clarifications.  Mining support has been implemented for quite some time now.  I'd have to check the commit logs to be certain, but I want to say that mining support went in around the end of June, 4 to 5 months ago.  There is nothing on the development road map for it because there isn't anything else to do for it currently since it's complete.

It's a fairly simple matter to find out if a block will propagate by using BIP0032 block proposals since it checks if a block is valid (excepting the proof of work), before you ever start working on finding the nonce.  In fact, if mining infrastructures started to migrate to checking consensus against multiple implementations in general (or even multiple versions of Bitcoin Core itself), it would be beneficial to the miners and the entire ecosystem in the long run since even accidental forks between Bitcoin Core versions (as has already happened in the past) could be detected and handled gracefully.

this is really encouraging.  we owe it to ourselves to further investigate the capabilities of btcd as an alternative to Core.

[justusranvier]

this is really encouraging.  we owe it to ourselves to further investigate the capabilities of btcd as an alternative to Core.

It's certainly a better platform to develop against.

[NewLiberty]

I was looking into it to see if I could use it for solo mining, I believe it is on par as a node, and as you point out probably better and continued support seems inevitable, but if I recall correctly I was looking at just a development road map and it didn't seem like there was demand to support the mining functionality, going forward I felt it wasn't worth risking if a block didn't propagate so I am not sure it will be used for mining.  

Ah.  Thanks for your clarifications.  Mining support has been implemented for quite some time now.  I'd have to check the commit logs to be certain, but I want to say that mining support went in around the end of June, 4 to 5 months ago.  There is nothing on the development road map for it because there isn't anything else to do for it currently since it's complete.

It's a fairly simple matter to find out if a block will propagate by using BIP0023 block proposals since it checks if a block is valid (excepting the proof of work), before you ever start working on finding the nonce.  In fact, if mining infrastructures started to migrate to checking consensus against multiple implementations in general (or even multiple versions of Bitcoin Core itself), it would be beneficial to the miners and the entire ecosystem in the long run since even accidental forks between Bitcoin Core versions (as has already happened in the past) could be detected and handled gracefully.

Thanks for this, I recall there was support for mining, my question was about implementation.  Our friend was looking for something to do to contribute.  How much hashrate is implemented, what miners use it?

[sickpig]

The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.

True up to a point.
After which it doesn't.

it depends on what will substitute bitcoin, after such a "point".
if it's a better bitcoin I'm all for it. I guess we won't know
until it will happen.

if you have understood cypers arguments it doesn't have to be a better Bitcoin, and if your understood the adjustment in the incentive dynamic one can make it look better for the user and the miners, however there are tradeoffs, many here will dismiss them as inconsequential, but the biggest one for me is environmental impact on running this decentralize world, and this conversation hasn't even filtered through to that level yet or (mainly the expertise aren't here, and most Liberians like to marginalize it to the outskirts of the free market.  

If I have to be honest I still can't quite grasp cypher arguments, I feel there's
something but at the same time I didn't find his narrative rigorously enough.
It seems more gut feeling rather than rational arguments.

E.g. the link between the ledger and the token that spvp should break if implemented:
If we consider 1:1 time invariant 2wp, for a transitive property I'd say that scBTC is
linked to the ledger in the same way btc is. At the same time I somewhat know that sc has
to be secured by merge mining and here come into play miner incentive you're referring to.

Having said what's your position on bitcoin current issues? Just to name a few:
scalability, tx confermation time, lack of incentive to run a node. Do you think
We can live with them? If not what are the needed solutions and how do you
think to deploy those?

[cypherdoc]

we are on our way boys to consuming the Forex fiat currency market:

“By making bitcoins a recognized payment instrument, Finland has pushed it towards being regarded as a formal currency," said Asquith.

http://www.coindesk.com/finland-classifies-bitcoin-vat-exempt-financial-service/

let's not fuck it up, please.

[Adrian-x]

If I have to be honest I still can't quite grasp cypher arguments, I feel there's
something but at the same time I didn't find his narrative rigorously enough.
It seems more gut feeling rather than rational arguments.

E.g. the link between the ledger and the token that spvp should break if implemented:
If we consider 1:1 time invariant 2wp, for a transitive property I'd say that scBTC is
linked to the ledger in the same way btc is. At the same time I somewhat know that sc has
to be secured by merge mining and here come into play miner incentive you're referring to.

Having said what's your position on bitcoin current issues? Just to name a few:
scalability, tx confermation time, lack of incentive to run a node. Do you think
We can live with them? If not what are the needed solutions and how do you
think to deploy those?

Scalability as in block size limit.  
Transaction fees.
The other issues are non issues in relation to the above. (I'd feel progress is happening if we just altered 2 lines of code over the next 3 years while we debated the issue)

http://www.freebanking.org/2014/11/18/bitcoin-will-bite-the-dust/ read this.

Where Kevin Dowd's analysis falls short is he doesn't account for the economics in the block halving. The block halving wrestles power away from miners.

I've outlined how miners in cooperation with the proposed change to the protocol can avoid the declining revenue in the halving.

For every cent miners earn mining Bitcoin on a SideChain they insulate themselves from the disruption in the inevitable 50% revenue drop, and for every bit of insulation we move closer to Kevin Dowd's inevitable Bitcoin prediction.

[BldSwtTrs]

Is there any ETA for the first attempt to plug a sidechain?