Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?  

plus, i think you're scared to run that test.  or just plain ignorant to what i think would be the result. 

sound money would win b/c that is the fundamental problem in the world today.  we don't need more speculation via SC's.

[cypherdoc]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?  

by lifting the cap while simultaneously inserting the spvp, if too many tx's were happening on MC to cause delays or unconf tx's, SC's could automatically assume the load.  or vice versa.  they would be automatic stabilizers for each other.  

i think it's a good idea and nothing for you to be scared of.

unless, of course, you have some other agenda.

[iCEBREAKER]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?  

what do you expect being in a Blockstream thread with all it's supporters cheerleading? 

why don't you answer the questions i posed since no one else seems to be able to?

Likewise, what do you expect except upvotes when you post on GavinCoin cheerleading threads?   

Nobody except Adrian and Justus cares about your shopworn sidechain FUD.

It's been debunked over and over, just like you exaggerating Gavinistas' failed "capacity cliff/hard impact/choking/strangling" scare tactics.

We aren't going to use sidechains to pull your GavinCoin wagon.  What part of ""completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate" do you not understand?

[cypherdoc]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

No deal.  Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."

Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?  

what do you expect being in a Blockstream thread with all it's supporters cheerleading?  

why don't you answer the questions i posed since no one else seems to be able to?

Likewise, what do you expect except upvotes when you post on GavinCoin cheerleading threads?  

Nobody except Adrian and Justus cares about your shopworn sidechain FUD.

It's been debunked over and over, just like you exaggerating Gavinistas' failed "capacity cliff/hard impact/choking/strangling" scare tactics.

We aren't going to use sidechains to pull your GavinCoin wagon.  What part of ""completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate" do you not understand?

why don't you try debating the technical feasibilities instead of slinging arrows?  you forget that pwiulle large miner large block attack has been debunked so he's not flawless.  plus, on reddit we're simply talking about the press release which still hasn't issued any retraction.  nothing important like the technical merits of SC's.

[cypherdoc]

iCELatte, have you dumped your XMR, btw?  the federated SC of Monero will make them worthless.

[klee]

iCELatte, have you dumped your XMR, btw?  the federated SC of Monero will make them worthless.

Hard dumping at the moment

[cypherdoc]

while i wish every success to the federated SC model, please don't forget this from nullc slide presentation:

Federated Consensus
• Replace mining DMMS with a plain multiparty-signature:
Yields a centralized security model

[cypherdoc]

iCELatte, have you dumped your XMR, btw?  the federated SC of Monero will make them worthless.

Hard dumping at the moment

so sorry iCELatte.  

as i said, most ppl are going to continue losing money in crypto from foolish investments.  as a pure Bitcoiner holding BTC, i'm doing great  

[Natalia_AnatolioPAMM]

https://www.braintreepayments.com/features/paypal

Anyone know anything bout em? I was in new York and saw their building. Apparently accepting Bitcoin.

I bet they do accept it

[Mixles]

https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txt

I remember watching Adam Back's talk about this concept when he was in Israel at a meeting I think sponsored by Meni Rosenfeld.

Request for comments

http://voxelsoft.com/dev/sumcoin.pdf

CT and Anon MiniChain in one coin?  Impressive tech and elegant implementation!  Do want.  

Any thoughts on which PoW is a good fit?  My favorite ATM is BBR's Wild Keccak (http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf).

I see Coloured Coins aren't compatible.  If implemented independently, are there more trade-offs with other trendy functions like CIYAM's AT, OP_RETURN, or CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY?  What about proof of stake?

If the Monero folk decide to put Sumcoin under their hood, would you help the core devs with integration?

Sumcoin is work/stake agnostic (stake may require disclosure), and does not break the core scripting language; so the opcodes remain possible.

It is early yet, want to get this out for review to the people who can - very possible I've made some mistakes.
Off-top-my-head, Monero seems like the easiest fit because it already has a view key, but I have not looked in detail.

Thanks for WK. Long term, it might be possible to auto-generate equivalent-difficulty hash functions. A new hash function for every block. That would fix things back down to FPGA technology level, and contribute better to generic hardware development.

[iCEBREAKER]

why don't you try debating the technical feasibilities instead of slinging arrows?

Because your sidestream FUD has already been repeatedly debunked.

If you didn't understand then, you won't understand now.

No amount of facts and logic are capable of disabusing you of your paranoid fear of and animosity towards Blockstream.

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."   

Monero is bouncing right back up.  Even if it wasn't, you still be guilty of making the same invalid, cherrypicked "zomg BTC crashed from ATH wat a worthless failure AMIRIT" argument as Buttcoiners.  As others have said, you of all people know better.

[cypherdoc]

why don't you try debating the technical feasibilities instead of slinging arrows?

Because your sidestream FUD has already been repeatedly debunked.

If you didn't understand then, you won't understand now.

No amount of facts and logic are capable of disabusing you of your paranoid fear of and animosity towards Blockstream.

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."  

Monero is bouncing right back up.  Even if it wasn't, you still be guilty of making the same invalid, cherrypicked "zomg BTC crashed from ATH wat a worthless failure AMIRIT" argument as Buttcoiners.  As others have said, you of all people know better.

no, it's b/c i haven't ever gotten satisfactory answers of which you clearly can't provide any.

here's a simple example for you.  with Trezor, many of us have been unhappy that we've had to use myTrezor.com, a SatoshiLab-based server, to complete our tx's.  altho they have promised us they do not log or track our tx's, many of us complained.  their responsible response?  they built a Chrome extension that allows us to connect our Trezor to directly which now allows us to construct our tx's on our laptops w/o involving their "trusted" server.

now compare that to Blockstream's federated server model proposed just now.  i just snipped a quote from gmax slide admitting that it requires us to trust that any tx's aren't tracked.  why should we trust that model at all?  here's the whole slide:

Federated Consensus
• Replace mining DMMS with a plain multiparty-signature:
Yields a centralized security model
• But (arbitrarily) better than “trust one party”
– Real-time audited by all participants
– Most dishonest behavior machine decidable
– Arbitrary multisig policy (A & 5-of-8) | (8-of-8)
• No human discretion required: can implement on tamperresistant
hardware
• Some applications need trust: if you have it, why not use it?

i know i'm stressing your brain cells but do try to concentrate.

[cypherdoc]

this last slide is really interesting:

Future Direction
• I'm looking forward to watching alpha network explode in
interesting ways
– Testnet itself has been under some interesting attacks lately...


who's paranoid now, iCELatte?  actually, he should be.  b/c i don't see why miners will complicate their lives by having to write 1000's of new miner software versions to support all these different SC's which also encourage tx's to move off MC which undercuts their long term viability.  maybe they are the one's attacking the SC testnet?

[tvbcof]

i would like to propose a compromise.

let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit accordiing to Satoshi's original vision. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.

the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.

I projected that compromise 6 months ago or so.

The thing about Bitcoin that most people don't really appreciate is that it does not work on trust, circle-jerks, quid-pro-quo, go-along-to-get-along, etc.  It works on straight up power.  That is one of the reasons I favor a policy of antagonism to those who would apply mainstream legal systems to Bitcoin.  Ironically, I probably have less malice personally toward mainstream legal systems than most here, but I recognize the principles which are necessary to make Bitcoin into a long term and reliable system.

My personal reaction to those proposing a trade allowing the bloat attack is now as it was then:  Go fuck yourself.

The strategists on the bloat-it side would have been wise to hurry the SPV proof opcode in and thus avoid development effort of a federated option.  Now they are probably going to see both eventually, and perhaps in the not-to-distant future.

[iCEBREAKER]

Thanks for WK. Long term, it might be possible to auto-generate equivalent-difficulty hash functions. A new hash function for every block. That would fix things back down to FPGA technology level, and contribute better to generic hardware development.

Inspired by the new private-minichain paper, I was trying my hand at designing an altcoin around it.

The ASIC-hard POW I came up with isn't even remotely as elegant as the holy grail of auto-generated equivalent-difficulty hash functions, but has the advantage of using proven off-the-shelf code to achieve much of the same effect.

PM about M8++ and iCEPACK sent.  

[79b79aa8d5047da6d3XX]

Lightning Network in particular looks like it was tailor made to sell Bitcoin to banks.

It has the features they'd like, such as the moat of requiring large amounts of idle capital to start, and it allows deep-pocketed entities to earn passive income by virtue of having idle capital.

It reduces the number of players who can access the blockchain directly and connects them through a BGP-style routing network that would be amenible to US-style viral regulation enforcement (participants can only route payments through peers who agree to enforce extraterritorial laws, and who require all their peers to do the same). Think of that routing network as bringing Ripple-style centralized UNLs to Bitcoin.

So when I talk about selling Bitcoin to the banks I mean "sell" both in the sense of "convince them to adopt" and also "hand over the keys to".

Part of convincing the banks to adopt LN would be promising them that Bitcoin users won't have a choice in the matter - they'll have to use LN because the block size limit will stay in place (or be lowered!) and so they won't have an escape route.

It does not seem that the people developing LN want to sell anything to banks. They aim to replace the banks. In particular, Mirror, formerly Vaurum, is funded by Draper Associates, who hold 30,000+ BTC and are looking to put them to use.

If you do not think off-chain micro-transaction payment channels are part of what is going to help bitcoin scale, then what is? As you know, a megabloated blockchain poses its own set of difficulties.

[justusranvier]

So Alan Reiner proposes this in April 2013: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=181734.0

His proposal gets the pocket veto treatment.

Now that feature is being advertised as a feature of a sidechain, with no reference to the original author.

http://elementsproject.org/

Signature Covers Value

Principal Investigator: Glenn Willen

The signatures verified by the CHECKSIG operators now cover the output value of spent inputs. This avoids the need for hardware signing devices to know the full previous transactions whose outputs are spent; if they are being lied to, the resulting signature is invalid anyway.

A side effect of this change is that signing now needs to know the values (blinded or not) consumed by the transaction’s inputs.

[cypherdoc]

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.

hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

[cypherdoc]

gmax:

So I invented a generalization for a cryptographic ring signatures and a number of other optimizations in order to make range proofs which are more efficient.

http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/gmaxwell-sidechains-elements/

ok, just a warning.  it's a general principle in cryptography to use established existing cryptographic systems that have been long tested, analyzed, and peer reviewed.  and DON'T invent your own.  that's the way it is.

sure, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer, we all know that.  but what are the odds he can invent a new bullet proof system as he claims?

[iCEBREAKER]

gmax, the Bitcoin Bear:

The next element I would like to talk about is federated consensus. Bitcoin uses decentralized consensus, which is absolutely essential for holding Bitcoin's values and ethos in the wider world. It's what makes the system resistant to outside influence, political meddling and it's what makes it trustworthy. We're not even sure if it works in bitcoin, though. So it's hard to apply it to another network that is parallel to Bitcoin, but maybe the consnesus system of bitcoin doesn't work. What does decentralized consensus mean for a private network? It's not clear whether it's even possible to use decentralized consensus in a small low-value private network. Even if you were trying to use decentralized consensus in a small network, then how do you bootstrap it? .. because decentralized consensus is only secure if you have economic incentives in place. There are many other mechanisms for consensus that others have proposed. In the sidechains whitepaper, we formalized bitcoin consensus by calling it a dynamic membership multi-party signature (DMMS). The idea here is to say that the blocks are on the network are valid only if a threshold number of parties have signed it, and which group well it's dynamic. So what if you take that idea of DMMS and replace it with a static plain signature, and the result is a centralized system which is better than just trusting a single server. It's a system where you can have real-time auditing by most participants, and where dishonesty is machine detectable. Censorship is not machine-detectable in this system. You can build this with an arbitrary multisig policy, you could have a rule that says if an auditor or 5-of-8 sign on it, or 8-of-8 sign off on it. This approach does not require any human discretion, we could potentially implement it on tamper-resistant hardware to make it more secure, and some applications need trust. Trust is inherently a bit of centralization, but if you are trading around a digital proxy of gold, which requires someone to eventually redeem those tokens for gold, and if you have trust then why not make use of it. This has been mostly the work of Jorge Timon.

hmmm, i hope he doesn't view Bitcoin as simply a digital proxy for physical gold.  i hope that here he is just referring to a specific SC implementation of bitcoins for physical gold. imo, Bitcoin is digital gold at it's most basic level.  i sure hope gmax thinks the same way.  the whole point of Bitcoin is to REPLACE physical gold, not eventually redeem those tokens for gold!

We get it.  You don't like Blockstream.  If they're for something, you're against it.

Sidechains are here now.  As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."