Bitcoin Forum
December 15, 2017, 06:46:29 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 ... 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 [960] 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022643 times)
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 10:00:52 AM
 #19181

so i ask you, Adam, why should i do a 180 degree flip in what i was sold back then and now "trust" you to do what's right for Bitcoin when you have a fiduciary duty to do what's right for Blockstream?
Despite all promises made, my question was never answered:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhni79

I guess you mean:

Quote from: justusranvier link=reddit
Who are the investors in Blockstream, and how will you respond if they want you to discourage future Bitcoin protocol upgrades that would reduce the need for sidechains?

Why shouldn't the rest of the community be concerned by the apparent financial incentive Blockstream has to get their soft fork in, and then filibuster any future protocol upgrades?

I guess the response from myself and GMaxwell kind of drifted off the topic of your question.

Sidechains are not a proprietary technology.  Everything is FOSS, open IP.  And we invested a fair bit of mental energy and legal review already into making sure it stays that way, even if blockstream management were someone replaced or blackmailed; to imagine yourself or a company a perpetual lifetime role is naive, and we've seen it before eg digicash patents got sold by the investors when they went bankrupt to some company that sat on them, preventing people who wanted to innovate using ecash.  We're all anti-patent and want to avoid that kind of crap creeping into bitcoin.  I have some first hand knowledge that some companies are patenting things related to bitcoin, and probably much more I dont know about.  I suppose someone could search patent db though filing is a long slow process.  At ZKS where I was working on our ToR-precursor and ecash, back in 1999-2001, Austin tried to buy digicash patent and making it available in the public domain, we failed to buy it sadly.  John Gilmore was our advisor and he'd helped cook up an open patent license GNU like scheme.

Its not our softfork - its a softfork to enable a generic extension mechanism.  We have no monopoly (and wouldnt want one) on use of the op code.  Our only defence is meritocracy - if we build better, more secure sidechains and people prefer to use them.  We wont be getting the fees off the sidechain either because those go to miners.  If we have the technical edge and people use our stuff that seems sort of fair enough to me.

Personally I guarantee I trust each and everyone of our team more than J Random web2.0 startup CEO.  What do those guys want?  To make a profit.  Would they stop at sabotaging bitcoin to get there?  I doubt it.  Some of the bitcoin web2.0 startup guys are cool and bitcoin enthused.  But they're getting patents some of them, and not all of them will survive.  Crappy things the less cool startup CEOs might try eg the red-ilist or other things so sucky I wouldnt even describe them for fear it'd give people ideas that they lack the technical competence to design.

I do get where you're coming from, in the past I was the guy holding people to account eg PGP incorporated when they were busy trying to include key escrow into PGP ostensibly for corporate data access.  (I imagine people selling stingrays tell themselves something also).  Partly due to my efforts that was never included in the open-pgp IETF spec.

Sidechains are just a mechanism to extend bitcoin.  The interesting thing is the extension not the chain.  If a better way to do it materialises great.  If some sidechain innovations are so cool and well validated from $1b resting on them for a year that it allows bitcoin core to merge them fantastic.  Actually Pieter Wuille views that as the best way to view the utility of sidechains, to enable longer and live validation of things that could then go into bitcoin where that'd be difficult to impossible to gain that confidence on directly.

There can also however be one-size fits-all limits.  Some extensions are mutually incompatible, or too risky though interesting (eg snark contracts, zerocash) unless a way to contain the risk in chain is found.  Also you can get some new scaling possibilities by having chains with different blocksizes.  Its more decentralised and safer to have a small bitcoin main block and a medium sized sidechain block, than introduce a large main bitcoin block as there is an escape route and choice.  You can within limits get your cake and eat it.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513320389
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513320389

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513320389
Reply with quote  #2

1513320389
Report to moderator
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 10:19:55 AM
 #19182

I encourage you (or others) to read David Krawisz article http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/ he is quite knowledgeable about economics and able to reason.  He draws a conclusion that is a little different to what most are assuming: that it is investors that drive bitcoins price & network effect, and transactional usage follows; rather than the assumption many make that it is the usage that drives intrinsic value & network effect.  I am not sure about that - maybe its a bit of both, but its an interesting and well reasoned argument, that is somewhat reassuring - we're not fully beholden to the success of people like bitpay trying to integrate merchants and the success of those merchants in having people pay in bitcoin etc. if Krawisz is to some extent right.

Right. At the end of all of this, stands bitcoin's status as limited-supply, censorship resistant money.

It's something of an accident that *right now* bitcoin enjoys superior transactional properties to online fiat payment systems. Legacy money will get better over time, and crypto won't have the same sorts of obvious and immediate transactional advantages that it currently enjoys. How would the btc merchant-service-providers fair if legacy payments didn't suck?

At that point, it should become more obvious that bitcoin's strength and value proposition is not so much in payments, or even "programmable" money, but as fully independent money. People have to eventually find value in that for bitcoin to have a robust future.

Yep.  Bitcoin has a lot to offer, and some of those things are not possible for the legacy systems to mimic.  Particularly sound money, no counter-party risk, irreversable transactions (seizing and freezing basically prevent that outside of paper cash, though even that is partly relying on fungibility laws or it could have reversibility problems).  Smart-contracts that are strengthened by no counter-party risk and irreversibility are one of the most interesting advantages I think.  Without irreversibility and no freezability a "smart-contract" isnt smart, its just an electronic contract and we already have those.  Ultimately if you combine it all you could rearchitect the financial system to largely remove systemic risk, add competition legacy systems cant react to (they intrinsically need their governance costs).  This is why people gave us $21mil.  Bitcoin all-in is a big deal.  Sound-money is cool, but its only part of the picture.

Even if bitcoin transactions ended up costing more than headline fees for some transaction types, but it would still be worth it because of those features, the legacy system has higher costs, its just those are appearing in other places or disguised in the price.  The dispute resolution cost and auditors and governance and separate of duties and systemic risk and strong relevance of credit rating create an environment that must charge higher fees, and can charge much higher fees on top because of the barrier to entry to obtaining a corporate credit rating and reputation.  With bitcoin technology the product has the credit-rating, and is subject to real-time audit like bitcoins real-time assay.

A good day to buy more bitcoins.  Its cheap at the price and most do not understand this potential.  Its like 1990s internet tech stocks.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 03:19:52 PM
 #19183

SC solves all known problems.
Death also does this, but I am not eager for it.

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
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 03:49:39 PM
 #19184

Of course, as always, I happen to see sidechains as not only 'right' for Bitcoin but basically Bitcoin's best hope for success.  Naturally this goes some distance toward helping build my confidence in the enterprise as well, and makes it quite understandable why this novel contract agreement bullet-point is acceptable to all.

you're missing the point.  the act of leaving by those devs requires a conscious act and decision to do the "right" thing.  how can we keep trying to sell Bitcoin to the world as a "trustless" system when we have to "trust" Blockstream devs to do the right thing?

I'm not sure if you know but people who can code in bitcoin core receive frequent lucrative offers (eg like $500k) to code altcoins.  Devs all received them, and rejected them.  The only people who took such money was Peter Todd (I think busy at $250/hr), however as I understand it he only takes that work with the caveat that he can work on decentralising bitcoin or other tech that is mutually useful to bitcoin.   A few of these guys have almost no bitcoins or spent them trying to do startups or such things.  I think thats a pretty clear evidence of intent to do the right thing.  They have more fealty to bitcoin as a concept and doing the right thing than putting food on their table.  And also disdain for ethics of pump & dump business models that have victims at the bottom of the pyramid.

You can view that while in theory some one could fork bitcoin if Gavin went nutso on something really bad (or was blackmailed into doing something dodgy) or something, that the community could fork the code.  However in practice there is also realistically a shortage of people with the skill set to maintain and create security patches for a fork, so while the desire to do it would be real, the number of devs is a problem.

As Greg mentions here thats something we thought was important to improve - train more core devs - so there is more decentralisation.  http://www.coindesk.com/gregory-maxwell-went-bitcoin-skeptic-core-developer/

Secondly basically there isnt anything thats going to happen in the core that a consensus of this group of people dont agree to.  And they listen to feedback and want to keep the social contract and understand that contract.  In fact their view is ideally its impossible for them to not keep the social contract (for their own personal safety as well as desired outcome) because the bitcoin network is really controlled by the economic majority.  Thats kind of what cant be evil is about, an attempt to replicate that type of thinking into a corporate structure to fail-safe it.  Not even miners can fork the protocol if no full nodes nor users like the change.  That effect holds companies honest to bitcoin ethos - companies are dead in the water without developers.  As I said our company was founded by core developers.  And we actually view it as a feature that if we all disagreed vehemently with a strategy the company would have a problem - like a technical inability to do the thing we disagreed with.

Its actually in the companies interest to do the right thing as a company also, in terms of fiduciary responsibility because something bad for bitcoin ethos will likely be rejected by the bitcoin user & business community.

You might imagine given the shortage any core developer could walk out and get  job the next day.  Even outside of bitcoin its a pretty uber-geek architect level crowd in terms of employability.  But right now the only hope of doing something might be Peter Todd (however he's pretty rabidly pro-decentralisation, pro-anonymity (eg stealth addresses etc), anti-censorship (work on proof of publication and end-to-end policy full node only exploration with tree-chains idea) etc so I doubt he'd be interested to do something bad for users), or perhaps Mike Hearn (who sort of floated the idea of red-lists though I'm not sure how serious he was).  However I dont think Mike did a lot of core development in years, more working on java wallet library and apps.

Sidechains may also be good for that - an escape valve - people who want to do crazy stuff, can go do it in a sidechain, that no one (who cares about bitcoin ethos features) would use.  Vs try to coerce legally or otherwise developers into subverting bitcoin itself at its core where there's no choice left, and bitcoin risks destruction.

In summary yes we thought about this stuff, and outside of some disagreement that sidechains create more risk than they remove (I say they remove risk, because bitcoin is exposed to offchain risk & monetary shocks from eg mtgoxings, such that sidechains are a clear improvement over offchain economically), I'd imagine we're in violent agreement on the ethos of bitcoin and whats are the important aspects of idealised bitcoin features & ethos.

Feel free to suggest protocol improvements.  Eg other ways to firewall features (eg hardened vm per feature inside core) or whatever.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1269


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 03:51:06 PM
 #19185

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014/12/31/winklevoss-bitcoin-trust-files-to-sell-201-million-shares/

"The Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust on Wednesday filed to sell 20.1 million shares on the Nasdaq exchange. The shares represent units of interest in the bitcoin exchange-traded fund launched by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, the twins who are best known for their legal dispute with Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's origins. The ETF will be listed under the symbol COIN, according to the filing. The Winklevoss brothers also launched a bitcoin index - the Winkdex - in February. Bitcoin is a decentralized virtual currency that has attracted attention for its big price swings."  Cool

▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 03:55:02 PM
 #19186

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014/12/31/winklevoss-bitcoin-trust-files-to-sell-201-million-shares/

"The Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust on Wednesday filed to sell 20.1 million shares on the Nasdaq exchange. The shares represent units of interest in the bitcoin exchange-traded fund launched by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, the twins who are best known for their legal dispute with Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's origins. The ETF will be listed under the symbol COIN, according to the filing. The Winklevoss brothers also launched a bitcoin index - the Winkdex - in February. Bitcoin is a decentralized virtual currency that has attracted attention for its big price swings."  Cool

Sure hoping 2015 is the year (and earlier in better than later!) they get the bitcoin ETF operational.  I know lots of semi-technical or even technical people who'd really like to invest in bitcoin that cant handle or dont want the risk of the technical management of coins and so have held off buying for purely that reason.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 03:57:09 PM
 #19187

SC solves all known problems.
Death also does this, but I am not eager for it.

JStolfi is a troll but I'd guess he'd call this marketing.
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1269


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:00:33 PM
 #19188

http://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/2014/12/31/winklevoss-bitcoin-trust-files-to-sell-201-million-shares/

"The Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust on Wednesday filed to sell 20.1 million shares on the Nasdaq exchange. The shares represent units of interest in the bitcoin exchange-traded fund launched by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, the twins who are best known for their legal dispute with Mark Zuckerberg over Facebook's origins. The ETF will be listed under the symbol COIN, according to the filing. The Winklevoss brothers also launched a bitcoin index - the Winkdex - in February. Bitcoin is a decentralized virtual currency that has attracted attention for its big price swings."  Cool

Sure hoping 2015 is the year (and earlier in better than later!) they get the bitcoin ETF operational.  I know lots of semi-technical or even technical people who'd really like to invest in bitcoin that cant handle or dont want the risk of the technical management of coins and so have held off buying for purely that reason.

Adam


Exactly!

▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 04:04:35 PM
 #19189

so i ask you, Adam, why should i do a 180 degree flip in what i was sold back then and now "trust" you to do what's right for Bitcoin when you have a fiduciary duty to do what's right for Blockstream?
Despite all promises made, my question was never answered:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhni79

furthermore, imo for global adoption to occur, Bitcoin must be free from all conflicts of interest.  it has evolved to the level of a public good.

For conflict freedom to occur (and I think its an interesting and useful objective) bitcoin perhaps needs to be simplified and frozen, maybe moved to a formally provable specification rather than code as definition.  Soft-forks could be prevented by consensus rule if we were convinced of perfect correctness.  

Hard-forks are harder to foist on people because they require a near absolute majority whereas soft-forks are a bit more miner influenceable.

If we had an extension mechanism that doesnt touch core once setup, the core becomes that bit closer to freezable & formal specifiable refactor becoming possible.  If we have the possibility for live-betas we are more likely to be able to get to formal specification as definition.  (Thats a hard-fork for sure).

Another aspect of conflict freedom (other than freezing and forcing change to be hard-fork) is to enable permissionless innovation - then there's no conflict, people who want to try things can go try them without lobbying for changes to bitcoin.  Also good.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:10:40 PM
 #19190

the bitcoin network is really controlled by the economic majority.  Thats kind of what cant be evil is about, an attempt to replicate that type of thinking into a corporate structure to fail-safe it.  Not even miners can fork the protocol if no full nodes nor users like the change.

You are aware of the Eyal and Sirer paper on this, right?  As I understant, a majority coalition of miners can force users to change the protocol, by sabotaging the "orthodox" chain.  Then it would be in the interest of uses and any "orthodox" miners to upgrade to the protocol chosen by the cartel.

If the change is minor (e.g., "postpone the next reward halving to 2018"), most bitcoin users will not mind.  Only ideological purists will be upset, but all they could do is create yet another fork, with a PoW that cannot be mined by the current equipment.  But then no orthodox miners could mine this new "true bitcoin reborn" chain either, so it would start out with a minuscule CPU-based network.

Quote
outside of some disagreement that sidechains create more risk than they remove (I say they remove risk, because bitcoin is exposed to offchain risk & monetary shocks from eg mtgoxings, such that sidechains are a clear improvement over offchain economically)

What would prevent a sidechain from being a scam?  Sidechains will not be cleared, audited, or reulated, by Blockstream or anyone else.  Their protocols cannot be constrained in any significant way, without destroying their presumed merits.  Or is there anything in the whitepaper and other literature that I have missed?

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 04:15:24 PM
 #19191

you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms.

I thought you said you didnt do ad-hominems to troll and fan reaction?  Just a few posts back too.  

Decorum!

Stuff like that is why bitcointroll.org is redirecting here.  Also it pushes out more tech focussed people who want some civility and dont have the USENET flame war developed rhinoceros hide and egos to say "fuck you too" and keep talking.

What the tvbcof said seemed pretty reasoned to me, and if you read it neutrally, not to be calling Gavin names, just talking about hypothetical conflicts of interest, independence etc.  

I share his view about balance of power helping also, eg you can see that Microsoft & Apple are both pretty world domination evil corporations.  And yet the growth of apple's market penetration of OSX has weakened eithers ability to execute on their rent-seeking actions.  Thats a pretty conventional understanding of the real-world.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 04:27:37 PM
 #19192

the bitcoin network is really controlled by the economic majority.  Thats kind of what cant be evil is about, an attempt to replicate that type of thinking into a corporate structure to fail-safe it.  Not even miners can fork the protocol if no full nodes nor users like the change.

You are aware of the Eyal and Sirer paper on this, right?  As I understant, a majority coalition of miners can force users to change the protocol, by sabotaging the "orthodox" chain.  Then it would be in the interest of uses and any "orthodox" miners to upgrade to the protocol chosen by the cartel.

They can only force soft-forks, hard-forks are ignored by full-nodes and clients.  An attempted forced-hard fork results in hostile miners forming an alt-coin with no users.  The limiting factor is soft-forks are quite flexible and can do a lot, some of which could be undesirable.

Quote
If the change is minor (e.g., "postpone the next reward halving to 2018"), most bitcoin users will not mind.  Only ideological purists will be upset, but all they could do is create yet another fork, with a PoW that cannot be mined by the current equipment.  But then no orthodox miners could mine this new "true bitcoin reborn" chain either, so it would start out with a minuscule CPU-based network.

the nuclear big-red-button option of tweaking the PoW hash is a meta threat to miners that they dont quite have the upper hand - if they abuse it, or get too crazily centralised - people would worst case be willing to push it.

Probably thats a MAD argument that keeps miners somewhat sensible as if that button is pushed they are sitting on $500m of scrap electronics with a low scrap parts salvage value.

Quote
Quote
outside of some disagreement that sidechains create more risk than they remove (I say they remove risk, because bitcoin is exposed to offchain risk & monetary shocks from eg mtgoxings, such that sidechains are a clear improvement over offchain economically)

What would prevent a sidechain from being a scam?  Sidechains will not be cleared, audited, or reulated, by Blockstream or anyone else.  Their protocols cannot be constrained in any significant way, without destroying their presumed merits.  Or is there anything in the whitepaper and other literature that I have missed?

Outside of spam limits which could be protocol enforced, its caveat emptor, you shouldnt put money into a chain unless there is some assurance that security & bitcoin protocol knowledgeable people have audited it.  People could certify chains (like sign them - "my name is blah and I'm a security researcher with reputation and I and my buddies audited this code and its good") or wallets could etc.  Its good and a feature that people can opt to use uncertified chains.  You want a situation where there is real open possibility for technical innovation & competition in chain features.

You also want no central control so no chains can get black listed.

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:36:43 PM
 #19193

you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms.

I thought you said you didnt do ad-hominems to troll and fan reaction?  Just a few posts back too.  

Decorum!

Stuff like that is why bitcointroll.org is redirecting here.  Also it pushes out more tech focussed people who want some civility and dont have the USENET flame war developed rhinoceros hide and egos to say "fuck you too" and keep talking.

What the tvbcof said seemed pretty reasoned to me, and if you read it neutrally, not to be calling Gavin names, just talking about hypothetical conflicts of interest, independence etc.  

I share his view about balance of power helping also, eg you can see that Microsoft & Apple are both pretty world domination evil corporations.  And yet the growth of apple's market penetration of OSX has weakened eithers ability to execute on their rent-seeking actions.  Thats a pretty conventional understanding of the real-world.

Adam


Adam, you're soft and need to develop a back bone.

you don't understand how to develop a popular thread nor sustain interest in one over a several year time period either it appears.  the reason this thread is so popular and long lasting is precisely b/c i am NOT a troll.  i bring a large amount of dedicated, insightful info, and logic to this thread and balance it with a healthy bit of "discipline" towards those who i think deserve it. it's my way of screening out the real trolls. i've been very effective at it over the years yet you conveniently try to lump this thread with bitcointroll.org while ignoring what Justusranvier just said a few posts up about how this thread has a high SNR unlike other threads throughout the forum. the high # of views and the mere fact that you are here are testimony to this fact.  you have no insight into the relationship i have with tvbcof going back 4 yrs so you ought not comment on it.  i actually don't mind him and i think he actually likes me.  but we go back and forth with each other once in a while and it provides entertainment for everyone.  we have a "volatile relationship" so to speak. Wink

speaking of trolling, btw, did you or BS hire brg444 to come here and troll me and promote SC's?
HeliKopterBen
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 622



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 04:37:21 PM
 #19194

i view Bitcoin as digital gold which is the principle behind this long thread.  but better.  no one can transmute gold atoms into SCgold. 

Here is food for thought... What if the dollar had somehow been pegged at an elemental level to gold from the beginning?  Would the dollar still be sound money today?  Obviously, a very fragile and subjective peg maintained by central banks did not work.  Gold lost is dominance as the world's reserve currency because of lack of utility but if that utility could have been preserved by scaling gold's utility at a fundamental level vs scaling at such a weak level (USD), then it may have worked.

I believe this is the crux of the whole issue and you are right, there is no precedent for it.  Unfortunately, the only way I see to figure out if a protocol level peg will be strong enough is by trial and error in a live environment.  Theoretically, this should be the last major untested change to the main chain as all other major changes can be done on side chains before being implemented on the main chain, if ever.

Counterfeit:  made in imitation of something else with intent to deceive:  merriam-webster
JorgeStolfi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 05:13:30 PM
 #19195

[A majority cartel] can only force soft-forks, hard-forks are ignored by full-nodes and clients.  An attempted forced-hard fork results in hostile miners forming an alt-coin with no users.  The limiting factor is soft-forks are quite flexible and can do a lot, some of which could be undesirable.

Perhaps I did not explain myself clearly.  Here is a more detailed scenario:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2qdfat/without_downvoting_me_to_hell_can_someone_explain/cn5s41z

Is there anything wrong with that, technically or economically?

Quote
Quote
Only ideological purists will be upset, but all they could do is create yet another fork, with a PoW that cannot be mined by the current equipment.  But then no orthodox miners could mine this new "true bitcoin reborn" chain either, so it would start out with a minuscule CPU-based network.

the nuclear big-red-button option of tweaking the PoW hash is a meta threat to miners that they dont quite have the upper hand - if they abuse it, or get too crazily centralised - people would worst case be willing to push it.

Probably thats a MAD argument that keeps miners somewhat sensible as if that button is pushed they are sitting on $500m of scrap electronics with a low scrap parts salvage value.

That button is not MAD but SAD, assured self-destruction. Or not even that,  It would just create another junk coin, with a minuscule network, that bitcoin users could start using -- if they would rather use a junk coin than give in to the cartel.  By definition, the faithful miners would not be able to mine it.  Meanwhile, the cartel's fork would continue working as before, with at least 51% of the original hashrate; and the only option for users and miners to keep using bitcoin would be to upgrade to the cartel's protocol.

Putting it more simply: an entity that can jam some process for sufficiently long time can force the people who depend on that process to accept changes to it, as long as the changes are not as bad as the jamming itself.

Quote
Outside of spam limits which could be protocol enforced, its caveat emptor, you shouldnt put money into a chain unless there is some assurance that security & bitcoin protocol knowledgeable people have audited it.  People could certify chains (like sign them - "my name is blah and I'm a security researcher with reputation and I and my buddies audited this code and its good") or wallets could etc.  Its good and a feature that people can opt to use uncertified chains.  You want a situation where there is real open possibility for technical innovation & competition in chain features.

You also want no central control so no chains can get black listed.

That is my understanding, and that is I why I cannot see any technical content in the sidechains proposal.  Unless it specifies some things that every sidechain must do (or must not do), with a mechanism to enforce those constraints, it will not bring any new tools or ideas to cryptocurrency technology.  So far it is only a nomenclature proposal: "let's use the word 'sidechain' for any project or entity that could 'own' some bitcoins for some time".

Why wouldn't Bitstamp be already a sidechain, for example?

EDIT: not worse --> not as bad as

Academic interest in bitcoin only. Not owner, not trader, very skeptical of its longterm success.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 05:14:14 PM
 #19196

You know my experience of flame fests and trolling is the effective way to deal with it is to create signal, let the ad-hominems slide and circle back to the interesting tech/policy discussion.

Anyway its your thread so if you two enjoying saying fuck-you too to each other all-day long, knock yourself out.

speaking of trolling, btw, did you or BS hire brg444 to come here and troll me and promote SC's?

Nopes dont know him personally and i was presuming he was in the thread for a long time.

You know a lot of people think sidechains are the coolest thing since bitcoin itself.  He might be one of those people?

Adam

hashcash, committed transactions, homomorphic values, blind kdf; researching decentralization, scalability and fungibility/anonymity
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 05:23:08 PM
 #19197

Quote
as for Daniel's video, you're late, as i already posted about their podcast and commented on it 5d ago here:  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9945975#msg9945975

I posted the article http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/ which came before the podcast and covers more topics & is clearer IMO.

Actually not even.  The podcast is on a completely different topic: a response to Vitalik Buterin's bitcoin maximalism assertion (its pretty funny everyone is too polite to accuse Vitalik of ether maximalism given the percentage of the premine he owns).  

I encourage you (or others) to read David Krawisz article http://bitcoinist.net/the-two-ideologies-in-bitcoin/ he is quite knowledgeable about economics and able to reason.  He draws a conclusion that is a little different to what most are assuming: that it is investors that drive bitcoins price & network effect, and transactional usage follows; rather than the assumption many make that it is the usage that drives intrinsic value & network effect.  I am not sure about that - maybe its a bit of both, but its an interesting and well reasoned argument, that is somewhat reassuring - we're not fully beholden to the success of people like bitpay trying to integrate merchants and the success of those merchants in having people pay in bitcoin etc. if Krawisz is to some extent right.

Adam

sorry, posted the wrong link. and yes, you're still late.  this is the right one:  
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9840830#msg9840830

btw, Daniel and i do think alike in many regards which is why i post his pieces here on this thread regularly.  and he's right, speculation aka investment/SOV the collective efforts of speculators/merchants/users/devs/miners is what has driven Bitcoin to where it is today. i am living evidence of this of the investment side.  and i invested b/c of Bitcoins Money Function, not it's potential to be a trading platform for speculative assets.  which is why any proposals to change the current rules have the burden to prove to all of us that there shall be no screw ups or invalid assumptions.  esp those economic when coming from a bunch of coders.
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
December 31, 2014, 05:50:09 PM
 #19198

Sidechains are not a proprietary technology.  Everything is FOSS, open IP.  And we invested a fair bit of mental energy and legal review already into making sure it stays that way, even if blockstream management were someone replaced or blackmailed; to imagine yourself or a company a perpetual lifetime role is naive, and we've seen it before eg digicash patents got sold by the investors when they went bankrupt to some company that sat on them, preventing people who wanted to innovate using ecash.  We're all anti-patent and want to avoid that kind of crap creeping into bitcoin.  I have some first hand knowledge that some companies are patenting things related to bitcoin, and probably much more I dont know about.  I suppose someone could search patent db though filing is a long slow process.  At ZKS where I was working on our ToR-precursor and ecash, back in 1999-2001, Austin tried to buy digicash patent and making it available in the public domain, we failed to buy it sadly.  John Gilmore was our advisor and he'd helped cook up an open patent license GNU like scheme.

Its not our softfork - its a softfork to enable a generic extension mechanism.  We have no monopoly (and wouldnt want one) on use of the op code.  Our only defence is meritocracy - if we build better, more secure sidechains and people prefer to use them.  We wont be getting the fees off the sidechain either because those go to miners.  If we have the technical edge and people use our stuff that seems sort of fair enough to me.

Personally I guarantee I trust each and everyone of our team more than J Random web2.0 startup CEO.  What do those guys want?  To make a profit.  Would they stop at sabotaging bitcoin to get there?  I doubt it.  Some of the bitcoin web2.0 startup guys are cool and bitcoin enthused.  But they're getting patents some of them, and not all of them will survive.  Crappy things the less cool startup CEOs might try eg the red-ilist or other things so sucky I wouldnt even describe them for fear it'd give people ideas that they lack the technical competence to design.

I do get where you're coming from, in the past I was the guy holding people to account eg PGP incorporated when they were busy trying to include key escrow into PGP ostensibly for corporate data access.  (I imagine people selling stingrays tell themselves something also).  Partly due to my efforts that was never included in the open-pgp IETF spec.

Sidechains are just a mechanism to extend bitcoin.  The interesting thing is the extension not the chain.  If a better way to do it materialises great.  If some sidechain innovations are so cool and well validated from $1b resting on them for a year that it allows bitcoin core to merge them fantastic.  Actually Pieter Wuille views that as the best way to view the utility of sidechains, to enable longer and live validation of things that could then go into bitcoin where that'd be difficult to impossible to gain that confidence on directly.

There can also however be one-size fits-all limits.  Some extensions are mutually incompatible, or too risky though interesting (eg snark contracts, zerocash) unless a way to contain the risk in chain is found.  Also you can get some new scaling possibilities by having chains with different blocksizes.  Its more decentralised and safer to have a small bitcoin main block and a medium sized sidechain block, than introduce a large main bitcoin block as there is an escape route and choice.  You can within limits get your cake and eat it.
What I see in this answer is statements that safeguards have been established, without any description of what they are or why we should assume they'll be effective.

I also see a lot of appeal to past performance which amount to, "trust us."

Despite being more verbose, in substance it's identical to the reply I got from Peter Vessenes when I asked him the same question two years ago:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=113400.msg1227012#msg1227012

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 05:53:32 PM
 #19199

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is?  do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

you still didn't answer me as to why we should "trust" you and Blockstream when it goes against the very ethos of what Bitcoin is all about.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624



View Profile
December 31, 2014, 06:19:41 PM
 #19200

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is?  do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

I read somewhere that they invested personally instead of via organized venture funds specifically because they are bitcoin supporters and the investment didn't really meet the usual criteria for the funds (roughly described by you as a 10x return). I can't vouch for any of this being actually true or relevant, but I did read it.
Pages: « 1 ... 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 [960] 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 ... 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!