Bitcoin Forum
September 22, 2017, 06:15:20 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 [1554] 1555 1556 1557 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1978695 times)
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1540



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:48:16 AM
 #31061

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.
1506060920
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506060920

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506060920
Reply with quote  #2

1506060920
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506060920
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506060920

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506060920
Reply with quote  #2

1506060920
Report to moderator
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 07:52:23 AM
 #31062

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 08:05:50 AM
 #31063


From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.

IOW, their value proposition is based on the limits of bitcoin.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:09:34 AM
 #31064

You - brg444 - captured this thread with 18 (!) posts this morning alone. Not funny. Do you really think it's necessary that you comment everything?
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:10:52 AM
 #31065


From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.


 Huh

I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper?

Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper:

Quote
We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered.

That sounds like scaling features to me.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:11:38 AM
 #31066

You - brg444 - captured this thread with 18 (!) posts this morning alone. Not funny. Do you really think it's necessary that you comment everything?

You wouldn't be trying to censor me would you?  Angry

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:18:05 AM
 #31067

You - brg444 - captured this thread with 18 (!) posts this morning alone. Not funny. Do you really think it's necessary that you comment everything?

You wouldn't be trying to censor me would you?  Angry

I am not a cheerleader of the censors over there. I only asked.
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 08:26:24 AM
 #31068


From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.


 Huh

I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper?

Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper:

Quote
We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered.

That sounds like scaling features to me.

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:29:30 AM
 #31069

Gavin Andresen On Future Blockchain Security: I Dunno LOL!

http://qntra.net/2015/01/gavin-andresen-on-future-blockchain-security-i-dunno-lol/#comment-7830

Quote
So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know.


fuck you gavin.

Oh the butthurt of some users in this thread is strong.

 Roll Eyes

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:31:36 AM
 #31070

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

 Roll Eyes

Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans.

You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:33:51 AM
 #31071

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

But doesn't blockstream have a financial incentive to keep blocks small enough so that users want to use them as a 3rd party intermediary for smaller transactions that would cost more to do on chain rather than with blockstream?

Yes? No?

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 08:35:37 AM
 #31072

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

 Roll Eyes

Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans.

You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen?

So you are a blockstream insider then? Figures.

Why would I be privy to such detail? I don't broadcast the breakdown of the development resources in my business.

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:36:02 AM
 #31073


From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.


 Huh

I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper?

Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper:

Quote
We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered.

That sounds like scaling features to me.

Simply put:

Sidechains will have security issues.

Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.

Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:38:39 AM
 #31074

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

But doesn't blockstream have a financial incentive to keep blocks small enough so that users want to use them as a 3rd party intermediary for smaller transactions that would cost more to do on chain rather than with blockstream?

Yes? No?

No!

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

Read my posts above. Blockstream is first and foremost about extending the features of Bitcoin (asset issuance, improved privacy, segregated witness, safer zero-conf transactions), not scaling.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:43:19 AM
 #31075

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

 Roll Eyes

Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans.

You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen?

So you are a blockstream insider then? Figures.

Why would I be privy to such detail? I don't broadcast the breakdown of the development resources in my business.

Seems you are too since you know so much about their "core focus"

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzwety?context=3

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:48:42 AM
 #31076

Simply put:

Sidechains will have security issues.

Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.

Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.

 Huh

You went from implying conflict of interest and nefarious actions to simply bashing sidechains because according to your reputable technical expertise "they're not secure".



"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:49:02 AM
 #31077

I don't think Blockstream has a deliberate financial agenda to mess up Bitcoin or hold it hostage.

I do think the founders of Blockstream (mostly gmaxwell and adam3us; the perspectives of the others are somewhat less apparent) have (and, importantly, had; see next paragraph) a different vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work. Different, that is, from most of the community and also from satoshi's public writings (including the white paper).

Here's where things get a bit complicated because their vision for how Bitcoin is supposed to work has in part motivated the creation of the business and the requirements to realize that vision are the needs they aim to satisfy with their business plan.

But claiming they want to do such and such to Bitcoin because it makes their business succeed is reversing the actual casualty.

I may be completely wrong, but probably not.

Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

The word scaling did not appear in my post. Nor did I claim they propose to profit (undue or otherwise) by restricting block growth.

Read it again, slowly and carefully, if you are in fact not a paid or brainwashed shill and and want to understand what is going on. From my perspective that is around 50/50.

By difference in their vision for how Bitcoin work are you referring to their opinion that the network cannot possibly scale to accommodate the infinite demand for transactions without irreparably damaging its decentralized nature?

Yes, in part.

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

But doesn't blockstream have a financial incentive to keep blocks small enough so that users want to use them as a 3rd party intermediary for smaller transactions that would cost more to do on chain rather than with blockstream?

Yes? No?

No!

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

Read my posts above. Blockstream is first and foremost about extending the features of Bitcoin (asset issuance, improved privacy, segregated witness, safer zero-conf transactions), not scaling.

Thank you for answering my question.

Now that you said "No!", how do you think their business model will work if they do not have a financial incentive to keep certain users off the block chain?

How do they make their money if they are in fact a for-profit company?

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:50:49 AM
 #31078

Simply put:

Sidechains will have security issues.

Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.

Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.

 Huh

You went from implying conflict of interest and nefarious actions to simply bashing sidechains because according to your reputable technical expertise "they're not secure".




Answer me this:

Where does the additional hashing power come from to secure any side chain to make it equally secure to bitcoin's current security?


And I was merely pointing out how SC's will not be as secure as bitcoin.

BTW please answer my question on how Blockstream makes its money if it is a for-profit company.

Thanks  Grin Grin Grin

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
hdbuck
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274



View Profile
August 18, 2015, 08:50:53 AM
 #31079


From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin,  just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.


 Huh

I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper?

Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper:

Quote
We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market fluctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered.

That sounds like scaling features to me.

Simply put:

Sidechains will have security issues.

Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.

Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.

obviously, but thats why you want bitcoin core to be set in stone.

+ talkin about security..

Gavin Andresen On Future Blockchain Security: I Dunno LOL!

http://qntra.net/2015/01/gavin-andresen-on-future-blockchain-security-i-dunno-lol/#comment-7830

Quote
So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know.


fuck you gavin.
sAt0sHiFanClub
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 490


Warning: Confrmed Gavinista


View Profile WWW
August 18, 2015, 08:51:14 AM
 #31080


Read my posts above. Blockstream is first and foremost about extending the features of Bitcoin, not scaling.

But isn't this the crux of the situation? Blockstream ( and by extension, bitcoin core) have no intention of scaling Bicoin to become a global payment system, but merely a support mechanism for their scalable payment system.  Huh Huh

We must make money worse as a commodity if we wish to make it better as a medium of exchange
Pages: « 1 ... 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 1513 1514 1515 1516 1517 1518 1519 1520 1521 1522 1523 1524 1525 1526 1527 1528 1529 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1537 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 [1554] 1555 1556 1557 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!