Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2017, 03:24:32 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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] 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 ... 1559 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1903055 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 05:35:59 AM
 #17541

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.


"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
1495682672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682672
Reply with quote  #2

1495682672
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1495682672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682672
Reply with quote  #2

1495682672
Report to moderator
1495682672
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1495682672

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1495682672
Reply with quote  #2

1495682672
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 05:40:06 AM
 #17542

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.



Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 05:42:39 AM
 #17543

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.



Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is.

You sound like an insider. Tell us more.  Huh

"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 19, 2014, 05:48:06 AM
 #17544

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.



Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is.

You sound like an insider. Tell us more.  Huh

Wat? Lol, I'm just a highly attuned and interested observer who can easily see and feel the tensions between devs and the future direction of bitcoin.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 19, 2014, 05:49:00 AM
 #17545

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.



Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is.

You sound like an insider. Tell us more.  Huh

Wat? Lol, I'm just a highly attuned and interested observer who can easily see and feel the tensions between devs and the future direction of bitcoin.

feel it heh

 Roll Eyes

there's a post for you up top btw

"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
molecular
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282



View Profile
November 19, 2014, 06:20:24 AM
 #17546

    [questions]
    [answers]
    Quote
    [/list]

    Maybe someone can be so kind to help me understand by answering some of above questions or disputing my assertions?

    Thanks!
    [...]

    thank you!


    PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
    molecular
    Donator
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2282



    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 06:25:24 AM
     #17547

    [personal 'discussion' with brg444]

    actually I'm here to read differing opinions (and also the odd news item) and it's working.

    Let's not resort to name-calling and mud-slinging please, that would make this thread unbearable and make grown men look like pissed of little children.

    PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
    molecular
    Donator
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2282



    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 06:26:36 AM
     #17548

    Yes but right now the price of GOLD depends on whats happens to the Gold referendum with the CHF.

    Its massive news at the moment.

    are the any surveys as to how the swiss will vote?

    I'm seriously considering swapping more fiat for metal next week.

    PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
    molecular
    Donator
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2282



    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 06:28:42 AM
     #17549

    Yes but right now the price of GOLD depends on whats happens to the Gold referendum with the CHF.

    Its massive news at the moment.

    the referendum is on the 31st no? anyway, could also have 0 impact. referendum lately tend not to be so game changing. scotland's independance for example...

    I think it would be game-changing... the gold market would price in the fact that the swiss central bank would have to back the franc (again) at least 20% with gold if I understand correctly. Since they don't currently hold such reserves, they'd have to buy gold. It'd be good for the SFR and gold prices.

    PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
    molecular
    Donator
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2282



    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 06:41:15 AM
     #17550

    ...
    With altcoins we have that fear.  But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.  
    ...


    Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here?

    Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin.

    Interesting. I don't think this has been answered on a technical level.

    Is the second bolded part (first one in melbustus quote) even possible?

    I was of the impression that a sidecoin with a fixed peg could not introduce a limit on the amount of coins on its own (apart from the implicit limit on BTC) and there would be no mechanism stopping more BTC being locked and 'converted'. This impression of mine might well be wrong (damn, I'm overdue reading that paper, can't just form opinion from heresay)

    If it's indeed possible to impose a limit, then the third (second in melbustus quote) bolded part would be true. Free market price of the sidecoin would rise and that of bitcoin would fall. This would indeed be a grave danger for Bitcoin and could easily kill it. Bitcoin-holders would (contrary to some opinions here) not enjoy the fact that they could always convert their BTC to the new successfull sidechain at any time and would have to worry about having to evaluate it (like with altcoins now). They'd have to make up their mind in time or be forced to buy the SC with their BTC increasingly losing value.

    I don't like this scenario.

    Can someone who looked at the tech comment?

    PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
    Dabs
    Staff
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1694



    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 06:49:58 AM
     #17551

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

    Escrow Service (Services) - GPG ID: 32AD7565, OTC ID: Dabs
    All messages concerning escrow or with bitcoin addresses are GPG signed. Please verify.
    CompTIA A+, Microsoft Certified Professional, MCSA: Windows 10; Windows Server 2012, MCSE: Cloud Platform and Infrastructure; Productivity; Messaging
    molecular
    Donator
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 2282



    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 06:50:58 AM
     #17552

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

    why not? Doesn't it have its own mining and could just cut loose from the main chain once the internal limit is reached?

    PGP key molecular F9B70769 fingerprint 9CDD C0D3 20F8 279F 6BE0  3F39 FC49 2362 F9B7 0769
    Dabs
    Staff
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1694



    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 07:56:58 AM
     #17553

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

    why not? Doesn't it have its own mining and could just cut loose from the main chain once the internal limit is reached?

    I'm not sure really. I thought sidechains would be merged mined. Otherwise, the security of the sidechain would not be much better than bitcoin's own blockchain.

    Escrow Service (Services) - GPG ID: 32AD7565, OTC ID: Dabs
    All messages concerning escrow or with bitcoin addresses are GPG signed. Please verify.
    CompTIA A+, Microsoft Certified Professional, MCSA: Windows 10; Windows Server 2012, MCSE: Cloud Platform and Infrastructure; Productivity; Messaging
    justusranvier
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1400



    View Profile WWW
    November 19, 2014, 10:01:24 AM
     #17554

    And what if they step down?

    Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

    You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

    Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.
    You've actually hit on a separate, but related issue.

    There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved.

    There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel.

    Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute.

    PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins.
    NewLiberty
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1148


    Gresham's Lawyer


    View Profile WWW
    November 19, 2014, 11:07:07 AM
     #17555

    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.

    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
    sickpig
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1162


    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 11:14:35 AM
     #17556

    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.


    Bitcoin is a participatory system which ought to respect the right of self determinism of all of its users - Gregory Maxwell.
    NewLiberty
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1148


    Gresham's Lawyer


    View Profile WWW
    November 19, 2014, 12:02:10 PM
     #17557

    these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors.  to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money.  in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation.

    I'm so sorry to have to say this again but you are out of you mind.

    The core devs you talk down on have been hacking for hours on Bitcoin's code for the previous few years.

    You think that you have got all the answers because you have a popular thread on bitcointalk forum and your join date says 2011 ?

    Did you even bother reading their blogs and understand where they are coming from? Who they are? What this project means to them?

    For some, it is the culmination of nearly 20 years of cryptography related work. These guys are all champions of the open-source movement. Cypherpunks that have collectively recognized that Bitcoin is their opportunity to show their work to the world.

    Your insistence on using the stupid "devs gonna dev" meme is a blatant offense at the core of Bitcoins' ethos. I sometimes wonder if you forget about the audience you are talking to. This very forum is full of devs creating the services YOU are using, without charging you a satoshi. All because of open source.

    Considering you are an ardent defender of Satoshi's blockchain, I propose you consider having some respects for devs, that have devved & came up with the technology that you use everyday and will make you filthy rich.

    As for these people, no they are not in the business of creating "speculative SCs".

    They are in fact hoping to build a decentralized environment of trust-less infrastructure that will support the Bitcoin economy and actually help strengthen its core.

    Sidechains are IMO *the* natural evolution of BTC. It is Bitcoin 2.0 done right. Now that does not mean that all other crypto 2.0 projects are irrelevant : I think federated models/oracles/voting pools and maybe colored coins will find their niche and be used most probably in majority by the corporate world to create whatever model of infrastructure that provides necessary control, oversight & transparency.

    Sidechains will likely support large scale open source infrastructure where the value exchanged might command a security model that should be considerably more decentralized. My bet is these open source platforms will be developed by Blockstream.

    These 20 millions are going to be used to develop Sidechains' dev kit. This kit might include platforms ("official" sidechains) that enable bootstrapping other secondary sidechains. Reid Hoffman has insisted that Blockstream at this stage is akin to the Mozilla Corporation. He has stressed prioritization of "public good over returns to investors."

    In that sense, you are right that SPVP is crucial to their success because it is the only way they can create these ambitious extensions of Bitcoin I'm sure they have in mind.

    I suspect they will leverage these open source platforms to then concentrate on consulting and developing secondary sidechains that serve corporations/governments interest. These will likely not be MM for reasons stated below, they are likely to use a different model.

    What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop.

    If you think they are going to be alone playing with these toys you are fooling yourself. None of this is proprietary.

    By its open source nature it will become part of the internet and will lay the foundation for hundreds, thousands of unimaginable innovations.

    SPVP, sidechains are a public good for everyone to use, Blockstream are the innovators leading the way.

    Yes there will be idiots who will try to abuse the system but they will be flushed out by honest, hardworking technologists that will build recognizagle, safe and useful applications for the world to use, preserve its value & grow the economy.

    Yes speculative instruments will be built but they will run on mathematically proven and secure reserve that does not inflate the value of its holder's wealth. Withstanding the obvious fluctuations of whatever market or asset he decides to invest in. Your suggestion that people are going to be throwing their money into half-assed scams that will sink the Bitcoin economy is asinine at best.

    If these sidechains are successful than logically so is Bitcoin because unlike what you twisted up logic leads you to think no one can sit at the table without having purchased its tickets. It matters little whether people decide to hold stocks, bond, insurance & contract because they are all trading in BTC. Someone has to pay for them, whether they decide to use them as bearer instrument for anything or as currency.

    No, people are *not* having a free pass by "siphoning" BTC through a sidechain. Unless they effectively steal them they will have to pay "cold hard cash" to claim them (BTC).
    Careful!
    Canada has NI 51-102.  In the US its section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933.
    But when making such strong claims about the future you may want something like this somewhere in your public facing documentation:

    Quote
    The above contains statements related to future business and financial performance and future events or developments involving Blockstream that may constitute forward-looking statements.
    These statements may be identified by words such as "expect," "look forward to," "anticipate" "intend," "plan," "believe," "seek," "estimate," "will," "project" or words of similar meaning.
    Blockstream may also make forward-looking statements in other reports, in presentations, in material delivered to shareholders and in press releases. In addition, Blockstream representatives may from time to time make oral forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on the current expectations and certain assumptions of Blockstream management, of which many are beyond Blockstream's control. These are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and factors. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying expectations not occur or assumptions prove incorrect, actual results, performance or achievements of Blockstream may (negatively or positively) vary materially from those described explicitly or implicitly in the relevant forward-looking statement. Blockstream neither intends, nor assumes any obligation, to update or revise these forward-looking statements in light of developments which differ from those anticipated.

    I didn't see anyone is alleging actual impropriety, merely pointing out a conflict of interest due to the duties of care and trust which exists between the Blockstream employees to their investors, and to the constituent community of Bitcoin Core.

    It isn't the first time for such conflicts, it likely won't be the last.  People will be watching how the conflict is managed and making decisions based on that.  There are already some mechanisms in place for work review and commit review, and they might consider adding or some reviewers or looking at the process to avoid the appearance of any impropriety.

    It is probably a good thing you have nothing whatsoever to do with Blockstream because if you did, you would be a problem for them.

    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
    Zangelbert Bingledack
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 1036


    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 04:43:11 PM
     #17558

    Great post as usual, ZB.  I mostly1 agree: the amount of bitcoins that move to a sidechain will depend, in part, on the credibility of the 2-way peg.  And, realistically, it will probably take years for any sidechain to establish enough credibility to attract a significant amount of bitcoins (assuming OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY is implemented, and even this could take a few years if it happens at all).  So I suspect any migration of economic activity away from the Blockchain to be slow and anti-climactic.    

    Hypothetical Question: If we assume (perhaps unrealistically) that the 2-way peg is unbreakable and if we also assume (again, perhaps unrealistically) that the security of Bitcoin's blockchain remains unchanged with sidechains, what additional risks do sidechains impose?  The risks I can see are (a) that sidechains could be used as an "excuse" to avoid addressing Bitcoin's scalability, thereby making the likelihood of an uber sidechain absorbing all the bitcoin more likely (along with the possible shenanigans that such an event might entail), and (b) that it sets a precedent that soft-forking changes to add new "features" are OK.

    1I think even if one assumes the 2-way peg is unbreakable, that value is still stored on the sidechain ledger (at least) in the extreme case where the majority of coins and economic activity take place on that sidechain.  If everyone moves out of bitcoin and onto the sidechain, then the Blockchain no longer serves its memory function--it becomes superseded by the sidechain's ledger.

    Thanks for this, Peter. It brings me to something I've been thinking about recently: is the ledger we talk about really "with Bitcoin" (the main chain) in the first place? Or, in what sense is the ledger with Bitcoin or with a sidechain (or with a spin-off)?

    Quote
    If everyone moves out of bitcoin and onto the sidechain, then the Blockchain no longer serves its memory function--it becomes superseded by the sidechain's ledger.

    It seems to me that, assuming the 2wp is perfect and permanent, if everyone moves to the sidechain, the ledger remains perfectly preserved as long as the sidechain continues working. Bitcoin is no longer serving the memory function (Bitcoin the protocol/chain is dead), but the memory function is being served by another chain (and Bitcoin the ledger lives on). The store of value function has been maintained, but not by what we'd usually want to call "Bitcoin."

    There are some definitional ambiguities making this difficult to pin down. The word Bitcoin is used to mean:

    • Bitcoin the protocol
      • Bitcoin the protocol maintained by the people now known as the core devs
      • Bitcoin the protocol adopted by the economic majority, or the majority of mining power
    • Bitcoin the blockchain
    • Bitcoin the ecosystem
    • Bitcoin the ledger (who owns what percentage of the ledger)

    The most notable thing about this list, I think, is that the first meanings are the most commonly used, but the last meanings are what really matter from an investor's perspective. Especially Bitcoin the ledger. A sidechain takeover threatens the protocol and the blockchain, but not necessarily the ecosystem, and not the ledger insofar as the peg is ensured and the sidechain is as sound as Bitcoin.

    Now whether the sidechain will be as sound as Bitcoin is up in the air. I am skeptical for now, but again in a scenario where everyone is moving to the sidechain that condition has presumably been met in a most credible fashion.

    To me, spin-offs are a safer and more elegant way to add functionality to Bitcoin the ledger. Perhaps if Bitcoin the ledger was recognized as the real essence of Bitcoin, rather than the protocol used for updating that ledger, spin-offs would be recognized by everyone as the obvious choice. What do you think?
    BldSwtTrs
    Legendary
    *
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 839


    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 05:32:54 PM
     #17559

    And what if they step down?

    Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

    You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

    Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.
    You've actually hit on a separate, but related issue.

    There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved.

    There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel.

    Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute.

    PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins.
    What are the other implementations of the protocol besides Bitcoin Core available right now?
    brg444
    Hero Member
    *****
    Offline Offline

    Activity: 686

    Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


    View Profile
    November 19, 2014, 05:34:11 PM
     #17560

    More good stuff from Back :

    Quote
    "There’s a lot of education that needs to occur, there’s a lot of communication, and we look forward to the coming months where we’re going to be publishing more details, more technical details, sample code on GitHub, and allow people to start experimenting with various parts of the technology stack," Hill said.

    The CEO said that Blockstream will strive to illustrate how sidechains can be used to empower entrepreneurial development, and that for now, this means educating developers through workshops and co-development.

    Hill

    Quote
    "The entire project was born out of the open-source community, so the idea that we would do anything that isn’t open source or isn’t decentralized or open permission-less innovation is anti-bitcoin"

    bu bbbu bbbuttttt Blockstream are the only one that profit from sidechains, right?

    "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
    Pages: « 1 ... 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] 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 ... 1559 »
      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!