Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

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.

 

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:

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.

[1713244712]

1713244712

[1713244712]

1713244712

[brg444]

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? 

[Zarathustra]

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? 

I am not a cheerleader of the censors over there. I only asked.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.

 

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:

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.

[smoothie]

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

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.

 

[brg444]

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

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

 

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?

[smoothie]

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?

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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

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

 

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.

[smoothie]

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.

 

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:

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.

[brg444]

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.

[brg444]

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

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

 

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

[brg444]

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.

 

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".

[smoothie]

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?

[smoothie]

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.

 

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 

[hdbuck]

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.

 

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:

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

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

I honestly don't know.

fuck you gavin.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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.  

[brg444]

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?

It's been repeated ad nauseum that their business model is similar to RedHat or any other companies that built entreprise class software on top of open source platforms and offer a variety of consulting services.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

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

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

 

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'm sorry, but what part of that cosy exchange with Rusty would lead me to believe you are not a blockstream cheerleader?  


edit:  cheerfully withdraw the shill remark. you are entitled to give their side of things.

[brg444]

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.

 

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 

No one claimed it can be as equally secure as Bitcoin but it can get pretty darn close. The beautiful thing about sidechains is they offer a wide range of security models that can be leveraged for various degrees of decentralization and trustlessness.

About the hashing power, if merged mining is implemented then miners will have financial incentive to process and secure transactions occurring on a sidechain. It isn't a stretch to believe that a particularly popular and useful sidechain (improve privacy for example) could see close to 100% of the miners merge-mine the chain.

[smoothie]

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?

It's been repeated ad nauseum that their business model is similar to RedHat or any other companies that built entreprise class software on top of open source platforms and offer a variety of consulting services.

but does that profit depend upon side chains becoming a reality and/or the max block size staying relatively small or at 1MB?

ad nauseum where? lol I haven;t seen any recent discussion of their business model in depth.