Bitcoin Forum
August 19, 2017, 05:04:19 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [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 ... 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 1011 1012 1013 1014 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1953808 times)
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:43:09 AM
 #19261

But I do find it pretty funny that you jump on me as trolling when I replay your own questions to you

The trolling part is when you pretend that what we're doing is anything at all like what you're doing.

We're building products which any future customers will need to trust are built correctly and everyone else can ignore.

You're trying to change the Bitcoin protocol and are asking all present and future Bitcoin users to trust you.

Your (and others) questions about our investors were far more pointy and detailed than I asked you also.  You didnt name them.

I actually don't know, except in extremely general terms. I've been designing products, not fundraising.

You didnt say why we should trust you.  You didnt give your backup plan for what'd happen if Monetas went evil.

Again, I'm didn't answering that question since nobody has to trust Monetas, because we aren't putting ourselves in that position of asking for or requiring trust.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503162259
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503162259

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503162259
Reply with quote  #2

1503162259
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:45:56 AM
 #19262

yeah, the spvp insertion is a sticking point for me.  it's clear this is the critical piece for your success as a company.

That is actually not clear to me. Aside from the fact that pivoting is common (and a $21 million seed round with no obviously large source of burn gives a fair amount of room to pivot), it is entirely possible that sidechains are a lot of sizzle and the steak is closer to just being the premier bitcoin software and services company (which may or may not work out depending on how big bitcoin gets -- at present the scale really isn't there for this to be a big deal).
justusranvier
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:46:45 AM
 #19263

Nobody forced Blockstream into a position where your actions would draw greater scrutiny than other companies - that's a choice you made all on your own.

Asking why companies which did not choose to take the same route aren't subject to the same scrutiny is obfuscation.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 01:47:30 AM
 #19264

Adam, what are your thoughts on increasing Bitcoin's blocksize limit?  Does Blockstream have a position on this topic?

I am not sure its a blockstream position as there are multiple independent minded bitcoin-protocol aware people that compose blockstream who dont always agree on everything.

But my view is increasing blocksize increases centralisation so you'd want to be careful about that.

I guess the current tx throughput is about 3-4x away from the 1MB limit with current average tx sizes?

It may also not be as close to the limit as it looks because once there was actual block space scarcity, maybe the economics will push out some stuff that is currently basically spam.  But you dont want that to go too far or actual transactions will back up.

Maybe the interim solution is to increase it a little bit or be prepared to, as it takes time to be ready.

If sidechains were ready, for people who like the security tradeoff, it offers another degree of freedom, because you can have different blockchains with different blocksizes.  eg you could have a lower value transaction blockchain where people can better tolerate the small extra centralisation risk (centralisation being if the bandwidth is 10x or 100x fewer nodes have the bandwidth to validate all tx.)   You might even make the argument bitcoin main blocksize could be reduced to improve its decentralisation.  It decouples from the one-size fits all aspect of bitcoin, which I think is a good thing - we can have more decentralisation where it matters, and more and faster transactions where it doesnt as much.

ps As its not always obvious to people a sidechain could also have a shorter block interval for faster clearing of lower valued transactions.  I'm sure you know that, but not everyone does.

Adam

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:50:48 AM
 #19265

Yes.  I argue altcoins and appcoins are fooling themselves as they imagine that the feature they are selling creates value.  It is the network effect and liquidity that creates value.  And their feature if it were really really killer awesome, would actually get copied and patched into bitcoin core

Clearly false, if their features includes different monetary rules. In fact this is the case for most of the moderately "successful" (if you even want to call them that) altcoins right now. I'm not familiar with Paycoin (it is pretty new), but this is true for every single one of the top 10 altcoins right now except LTC, and most of the top 20 (and also Ethereum).



yep, this is the argument i made to brg444 way back.  representing SC's as some sort of altcoin killer via assimilation thru a SC makes no sense at all.  no dev would take the time and no bitcoiner would move BTC to it.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240


View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:51:51 AM
 #19266

Blockstream and Monetas are essentially competitors, no?

Sounds like Monetas will soon be more of a customer of Blockstream.  Paying them to consult on how to make whatever they are trying to cook up into a viable sidechain.

After the likes of Justus's attacks here, there is at least one person who wouldn't touch Monetas's stuff with a 10' pole even when it is just another sidechain.  That would be me.


cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 01:56:16 AM
 #19267

yeah, the spvp insertion is a sticking point for me.  it's clear this is the critical piece for your success as a company.

That is actually not clear to me. Aside from the fact that pivoting is common (and a $21 million seed round with no obviously large source of burn gives a fair amount of room to pivot), it is entirely possible that sidechains are a lot of sizzle and the steak is closer to just being the premier bitcoin software and services company (which may or may not work out depending on how big bitcoin gets -- at present the scale really isn't there for this to be a big deal).

i think in one of my discussions with nullc he admitted to that fact.  certainly it would help BS from a marketing standpoint as those SC's would be viewed as integrated and part of Bitcoin.  which is probably why we don't hear any buzz about any existing federated SC's as Odalv is quick to point out are already functioning.
davec
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
January 01, 2015, 02:04:28 AM
 #19268

I understand we're the only company to propose actually extending the core so there's a higher standard - but really btcd is kind of opaque which to my mind is a bit of a concern given that its proposed as a full node and creates risk of network fork as it has a reimplementation of consensus critical code.

Adam

That's quite an assertion.  In what way is it opaque?  The code is ISC licensed, freely available on github, and the issues are openly tracked via the github tracker.   It also has has high quality comments and code documentation (frankly I would even contend that means btcd is actually _less_ opaque in that regard as the code is generally more modular and easier to follow).
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 02:05:02 AM
 #19269

Nobody forced Blockstream into a position where your actions would draw greater scrutiny than other companies - that's a choice you made all on your own.

Asking why companies which did not choose to take the same route aren't subject to the same scrutiny is obfuscation.

I could persist, and I think you are glossing over questions that could and should be asked of monetas (it is also some kind of offchain thing and brings its own risks - if people wanted to get concerned about economic models, sucking fees out of bitcoin, encouraging lower security transactions - they could call OpenTransactions a kind of sidechain and with full justification make all the same observations that you just saw on this thread), but I think I made my point - there are hard questions that could and should be asked to companies and individuals proposing changes or architectures/trust-models for handling bitcoin.

And its better to be open, clear and non-confrontational in your responses - people have a right to ask.  I think I handled it more openly and gracefully than you did.  So there Tongue

Adam

ps the correct response is touche not deflection.

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
January 01, 2015, 02:08:36 AM
 #19270

I understand we're the only company to propose actually extending the core so there's a higher standard - but really btcd is kind of opaque which to my mind is a bit of a concern given that its proposed as a full node and creates risk of network fork as it has a reimplementation of consensus critical code.

Adam

That's quite an assertion.  In what way is it opaque?  The code is ISC licensed, freely available on github, and the issues are openly tracked via the github tracker.   It also has has high quality comments and code documentation (frankly I would even contend that means btcd is actually _less_ opaque in that regard as the code is generally more modular and easier to follow).

Oh boy, thats another can of worms.  You dont happen to work for conformal do you btw?

So (it a long story) but a) no one knows who's funding them; b) most of them seem to have ex-defence contractor profiles; c) no one knows why they are coding it; d) if there is one off by even a single bit interpretation bug in it it breaks consensus and forks bitcoin, which can likely be systematically abused, to create a massive accounting/double-spend mess that will be too expensive to repair as last time - that could create a mega fork worse than the leveldb bug, and kill bitcoin or force some really harsh choices to best effort cleanup where there are innocent losers; e) it apparently took a lot of effort by the core devs to persuade them that this was a problem; f) it still has that problem.

I think that about covers it.

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
January 01, 2015, 02:13:33 AM
 #19271

After the likes of Justus's attacks here, there is at least one person who wouldn't touch Monetas's stuff with a 10' pole even when it is just another sidechain.  That would be me.

Nah Justus is the good guy.  He just flames a little, so what.

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
January 01, 2015, 02:16:15 AM
 #19272

yep, this is the argument i made to brg444 way back.  representing SC's as some sort of altcoin killer via assimilation thru a SC makes no sense at all.  no dev would take the time and no bitcoiner would move BTC to it.

I think thats wrong, lets say bytecoin with its ringsigs.  That provides some interesting privacy properties, not quite zerocoin, but safer crypto and more compact.  I could imagine a number of people would be interested to use that as a sidechain.

Adam

ps checkout cryptonote https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf and http://cryptonote.org for explanations (seems they've been busy making a nice web site with explanations).

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 02:25:01 AM
 #19273

ps the correct response
Is that you're still not off the hook.

You've acknowledged that Blockstream is trying to change the protocol.

You've acknowledged that other companies which are not trying to change the protocol aren't subject to the same levels of legitimate scrutiny as those which are.

You haven't given a better answer than "trust us to to the right thing" for why Bitcoin users shouldn't be concerned about your plans for the protocol.

Which basically means we're at the same point today we were this morning, and at the months leading up to today, and where I expect things will remain for the foreseeable future.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 02:28:32 AM
 #19274

yep, this is the argument i made to brg444 way back.  representing SC's as some sort of altcoin killer via assimilation thru a SC makes no sense at all.  no dev would take the time and no bitcoiner would move BTC to it.

I think thats wrong, lets say bytecoin with its ringsigs.  That provides some interesting privacy properties, not quite zerocoin, but safer crypto and more compact.  I could imagine a number of people would be interested to use that as a sidechain.

Adam

ps checkout cryptonote https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf and http://cryptonote.org for explanations (seems they've been busy making a nice web site with explanations).

no, you missed the point.  take Dogecoin which is an inflationary alt.

try building a SC with an inflationary coin; no Bitcoiner would move their BTC to it b/c they don't believe in inflation.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 02:31:43 AM
 #19275

Yes.  I argue altcoins and appcoins are fooling themselves as they imagine that the feature they are selling creates value.  It is the network effect and liquidity that creates value.  And their feature if it were really really killer awesome, would actually get copied and patched into bitcoin core

Clearly false, if their features includes different monetary rules. In fact this is the case for most of the moderately "successful" (if you even want to call them that) altcoins right now. I'm not familiar with Paycoin (it is pretty new), but this is true for every single one of the top 10 altcoins right now except LTC, and most of the top 20 (and also Ethereum).

Hmm so it took me a while to see this, but actually most economic differences can be mathematically modelled and opted into on a sidechain.  For example demurrage could be implemented.  Or different block intervals.  Or different tapering of block reward, or ongoing block reward.  Those define a deterministic calculable difference.

Sidechain pegs do not have to be 1:1 nor silly things like 1:1000 just mean sidecoins are milli bitcoins, but also the rate can be deterministically time-changing.

Now the even more interesting realisation once you see this, is it provides a formula to value altcoins.  If you wouldnt opt into the sidechain with that behaviour, if you had to pay above par, you probably are just seeing more clearly that you similarly shouldnt buy that altcoin.  An alt-coin is a watermarked bitcoin sold above par with a marketing story.


Using the really high level definition that bitcoin is an abstract model for converting electricity into proofs of work, where in all of these proofs globally define the total electrical expenditure, which then adjusts the J/proof to hold block interval on target at 10mins.  When you look at it like that, and if bitcoin cant quite do that its an implementation limitation, that maybe we can fix with quantum sci-fi in the future, then you can see that mining an alt-coin is sort of like watermarking a bitcoin and calling it a foo and expecting people to be suckered into paying above-par for it.

Or like gold bars but making them into triangular shapes or stamping them with a doge and expecting people to pay more.  A gold atom is a gold atom.  A proof of electrical consumption is a proof of electrical consumption.  That not many people are stamping doges on their gold bars doesnt mean doge stamped bars are more valuable, once the fad wears off, someone will realise they are being ripped off for gold or buy their own doge stamping machine and buy basic gold.

Adam

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

Activity: 1764



View Profile
January 01, 2015, 02:44:07 AM
 #19276

Yes.  I argue altcoins and appcoins are fooling themselves as they imagine that the feature they are selling creates value.  It is the network effect and liquidity that creates value.  And their feature if it were really really killer awesome, would actually get copied and patched into bitcoin core

Clearly false, if their features includes different monetary rules. In fact this is the case for most of the moderately "successful" (if you even want to call them that) altcoins right now. I'm not familiar with Paycoin (it is pretty new), but this is true for every single one of the top 10 altcoins right now except LTC, and most of the top 20 (and also Ethereum).

Hmm so it took me a while to see this, but actually most economic differences can be mathematically modelled and opted into on a sidechain.  For example demurrage could be implemented.  Or different block intervals.  Or different tapering of block reward, or ongoing block reward.  Those define a deterministic calculable difference.

Sidechain pegs do not have to be 1:1 nor silly things like 1:1000 just mean sidecoins are milli bitcoins, but also the rate can be deterministically time-changing.

Now the even more interesting realisation once you see this, is it provides a formula to value altcoins.  If you wouldnt opt into the sidechain with that behaviour, if you had to pay above par, you probably are just seeing more clearly that you similarly shouldnt buy that altcoin.  An alt-coin is a watermarked bitcoin sold above par with a marketing story.


Using the really high level definition that bitcoin is an abstract model for converting electricity into proofs of work, where in all of these proofs globally define the total electrical expenditure, which then adjusts the J/proof to hold block interval on target at 10mins.  When you look at it like that, and if bitcoin cant quite do that its an implementation limitation, that maybe we can fix with quantum sci-fi in the future, then you can see that mining an alt-coin is sort of like watermarking a bitcoin and calling it a foo and expecting people to be suckered into paying above-par for it.

Or like gold bars but making them into triangular shapes or stamping them with a doge and expecting people to pay more.  A gold atom is a gold atom.  A proof of electrical consumption is a proof of electrical consumption.  That not many people are stamping doges on their gold bars doesnt mean doge stamped bars are more valuable, once the fad wears off, someone will realise they are being ripped off for gold or buy their own doge stamping machine and buy basic gold.

Adam


hmm, it took me until about 2013 when i first heard about SC's to realize that one of the beauties of Bitcoin is its simplicity.  Tongue

i mean, look, we have unencumbered BTC units traveling freely on an ultra secure blockchain whose value involves no counterparty and no other asset.

now, you're asking us to accept an unprecedented change to the protocol which will allow BTC units to intermingle with all sorts of assets limited only by our imaginations all while traveling on a less secure SC.  

serious question.  what kind of revolutionary tech, ie spvp, relies on "convincing" an entire industry called "mining" to support and secure itself?  b/c in the absence of close to 100% MM'ing support, i see SC's failing miserably from attacks.  there is no way you'll get 100% of miners to MM one, let alone dozens of SC's.  that's a huge risk to the entire Bitcoin system.
adam3us
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 400


in bitcoin we trust


View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 02:45:00 AM
 #19277

ps the correct response
Is that you're still not off the hook.

You've acknowledged that Blockstream is trying to change the protocol.

You've acknowledged that other companies which are not trying to change the protocol aren't subject to the same levels of legitimate scrutiny as those which are.

Agreed.  But you're also not completely off the hook.  There are also economic implications from offchain and voting-pools version of offchain.  People also have a right to ask about that similarly.  There are actually economic implications.  If OpenTransactions sucks a bunch of transactions off-chain that deprives bitcoin of transaction fees, and so it lowers bitcoin security.  I am not saying this is a bad tradeoff, just point out that nothing is free of implications.

Quote from: justusranvier
You haven't given a better answer than "trust us to to the right thing" for why Bitcoin users shouldn't be concerned about your plans for the protocol.

You did see this reply?  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9997546#msg9997546

Quote
Which basically means we're at the same point today we were this morning, and at the months leading up to today, and where I expect things will remain for the foreseeable future.

Was that really called for?  I am trying to be responsive here...

I said its a very valid question.  I tried several times to answer.  Feel free to pick apart the answer but dont just say I didnt answer, or I cant really reply short of reiterating as I wont know what it is you found unclear or unconvincing about the argument.

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
January 01, 2015, 02:50:43 AM
 #19278

now, you're asking us to accept an unprecedented change to the protocol which will allow BTC units to intermingle with all sorts of assets limited only by our imaginations all while traveling on a less secure SC.  

serious question.  what kind of revolutionary tech, ie spvp, relies on "convincing" an entire industry called "mining" to support and secure itself?  b/c in the absence of close to 100% MM'ing support, i see SC's failing miserably from attacks.  there is no way you'll get 100% of miners to MM one, let alone dozens of SC's.  that's a huge risk.

Well there is the federated peg that doesnt need miner support.  There is the one way peg that also doesnt (but is more limited than 2wp).  And also most of the miners we've talked to informally seemed pretty keen on the idea.

I mean for example namecoin gets a pretty high Merge Mine rate and thats not really actively used even.  Mining profits are quite thin right now with difficulty reaching equilibrium for the price range so another percent or two makes all the difference.  I got the idea they were also interested in future potential for more transactions and more types of transactions as they considered this a source of bitcoin price upside, and they are mining bitcoins and living off the margin.

Plus a price uptick is a big deal to current miners, its a kind of derivative on bitcoin price.  They get to cash in for 3months at a higher price with too low difficulty until the manufacturers can ramp new manufacturing pipelines and get lots of new equipment to market.

I think the bigger picture though is its premature - we have not yet released code, nor BIP draft for community discussion and picking apart and redesigning etc before there is something to merge mine.  Its also useful (maybe you said it yourself also I think) for a federated peg to operate for a while in parallel with that open design discussion for people to see how it works.  You can view the federated peg as a protocol adaptor - there can still be mining occuring on the sidechain with the federated peg, just the return peg is translated into a multisig for bitcoin by the federation servers.

After that if the community can settle on a op-code for extensibility everyone is happy with people including us can try to stand up a few sidechains.  If no one likes them then they wont get mined.  So as you can see sidechains and the op_spv really depend on community and economic majority approval, and thats a good thing.

Adam

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

Activity: 1400



View Profile WWW
January 01, 2015, 02:57:26 AM
 #19279

Agreed.  But you're also not completely off the hook.  There are also economic implications from offchain and voting-pools version of offchain.  People also have a right to ask about that similarly.  There are actually economic implications.  If OpenTransactions sucks a bunch of transactions off-chain that deprives bitcoin of transaction fees, and so it lowers bitcoin security.  I am not saying this is a bad tradeoff, just point out that nothing is free of implications.
Fair enough.

It is true that if Open-Transactions could be use to transact in Bitcoin substitutes, and that would suck fee revenue away from Bitcoin.

It is also true that outcome is 100% avoidable.

The only reason OT would suck transaction fee revenue away from Bitcoin is if the Bitcoin blockchain is forbidden for processing those transaction.

If Bitcoin won't process the transactions, they'll be processed somewhere else.

It's up to the core developers and Bitcoin community at large whether or not OT ends up sucking fee revenue away from Bitcoin mining.

I'm not a core developer, so I can't stop them from making changes to Bitcoin that would increase the blockchain's transaction processing capability.

In fact, it would be extremely out of character for me to even argue against such a change given that I've spent three years arguing for more transactions to happen on chain, to the point of saying that's the only way Bitcoin can economically survive in the long term.

It's also a perfectly viable future for OT to handle financial instrument contracts (BTC-denominated and otherwise) that aren't appropriate for the blockchain anyway while leaving all monetary transactions to the blockchain. It might even be the case that a high percentage of OT transactions end up causing a blockchain transaction anyway so that OT transaction volume helps drives Bitcoin transaction volume.

But if real monetary transactions aren't allowed to happen on the Bitcoin blockchain, then Bitcoin substitutes will trade in OT.



As far as the voting pool concept itself goes, I've always thought (and said many times) that people shouldn't leave their Bitcoins in the custody of a third party such as an exchange.

However, since they're going to do it anyway no matter how many times I say that you don't own Bitcoins if you don't control the private key, and since I'm tired of seeing people lose money to incompetent and/or corrupt exchanges, I guess I have to fix the exchanges.
davec
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 39


View Profile
January 01, 2015, 03:34:48 AM
 #19280

Oh boy, thats another can of worms.  You dont happen to work for conformal do you btw?

So (it a long story) but a) no one knows who's funding them; b) most of them seem to have ex-defence contractor profiles; c) no one knows why they are coding it; d) if there is one off by even a single bit interpretation bug in it it breaks consensus and forks bitcoin, which can likely be systematically abused, to create a massive accounting/double-spend mess that will be too expensive to repair as last time - that could create a mega fork worse than the leveldb bug, and kill bitcoin or force some really harsh choices to best effort cleanup where there are innocent losers; e) it apparently took a lot of effort by the core devs to persuade them that this was a problem; f) it still has that problem.

I think that about covers it.

Adam

Thanks for your response.  Yes, I'm the lead dev on btcd.

a and b) First, both of these are completely irrelevant.  No one knows who Satoshi was/is, yet that isn't a problem for Bitcoin Core.  So, even if every single contributor were unknown (they're not as you can find the names of every contributor on github), why would it be a problem for btcd when it isn't for Bitcoin Core?  Second, the defense bit is not true, but even if it were though, I'd venture to say with the number of contributors on Bitcoin Core, at least one or more have affiliations in one way or another with some organization that you, or somebody else, doesn't like.  The code is completely open for all to see, so it would be obvious to see if something nefarious were going on as you are implying.

c) It has been publicly stated many, many times that it is being coded because the ecosystem severely needs multiple diverse implementations if Bitcoin is ever going to truly flourish to the level we all want it to.  Thinking that a single implementation controlled by a handful of people is a good scheme for a system that is supposed to take over the World's monetary supply is just not very forward thinking.  This has been covered ad naseum.

d) This is a complete red herring and exists just as much with Bitcoin Core as it does with anything else.  The exact same thing can easily happen (and already has as you've noted) with Bitcoin Core.  This is a real problem with the technology that needs to be solved independent of the number of implementations on the network.  In fact, working toward solutions which address this fundamental issue is necessary for Bitcoin Core too since it means mistakes there don't lead to undesirable consequences either.  The current approach is "well let's just hope it doesn't happen!" and frankly, that just isn't good enough.

e) You've been misinformed.  Here is a blog post I made on the very first package we released back in May of 2013 which was only the wire protocol that clearly states "Here at Conformal, we are keenly aware of how important it is that any full-node implementations agree on the exact same set of rules for what blocks get included into the block chain as minor differences can lead to chain forks and double-spends." (https://blog.conformal.com/btcwire-the-bitcoin-wire-protocol-package-from-btcd/).  The Bitcoin Core devs weren't even aware we were working on the project at that point in time.  There was no "convincing" needed or involved.

f) This is referring to d and e, see those.
Pages: « 1 ... 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 1011 1012 1013 1014 ... 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!