Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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

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

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

[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  

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.

So then you concede that the goal of using side chains is to effectively divert users to a less secure block chain to increase capacity?

I highly doubt 100% of miners would merge-mine the side chain.

From your knowledge how are they proposing to improve privacy for example?

[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.

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.

Oh really   So you've missed the dozens of reddit threads and hundreds of pages discussing this very issue here?

That profit does depend on side chains becoming a reality but that's kind of backwards since sidechains ARE a reality, just not under the optimal security models they'd like to attain (SPV Proof). As gavinFanClub mentioned sidechains can be operated as we speak using federated servers which is perfectly fine for a private, corporate sidechain for example.

As for your repeated insistence on their reliance on a small block size. Maybe read this a couple times until it sinks in:

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.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

[brg444]

So then you concede that the goal of using side chains is to effectively divert users to a less secure block chain to increase capacity?

I highly doubt 100% of miners would merge-mine the side chain.

From your knowledge how are they proposing to improve privacy for example?

You can't be that dense  

I've spent the last couple posts explaining that sidechains are not exactly about "increasing capacity" (scaling)...

The fact that you "highly doubt" something brings no value or argument to the discussion.

As for improved privacy, more on the subject here: https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io/blob/master/confidential_values.md

[brg444]

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

That profit does depend on side chains becoming a reality but that's kind of backwards since sidechains ARE a reality, just not under the optimal security models they'd like to attain (SPV Proof). As gavinFanClub mentioned sidechains can be operated as we speak using federated servers which is perfectly fine for a private, corporate sidechain for example.

If you are going to rely on federated servers, why not just use the Factom model? Factom uses federated servers in a similar, but much more elegant design.

One that works with bitcoin as it currently is.

[smooth]

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?

I don't think it does necessarily if you accept that they aren't sure where they are going to make money other than providing enterprise services in the Bitcoin marketplace. That may be sidechains, or lightning (apparently not part of the original plan but now it is), or it could be something else. Sidechains, in particular, might have nothing whatsoever to do with the block size (other than perhaps benefiting from a larger one), if they add value by adding features or being a private (in house) or consortium application.

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

Agree.

[brg444]

That profit does depend on side chains becoming a reality but that's kind of backwards since sidechains ARE a reality, just not under the optimal security models they'd like to attain (SPV Proof). As gavinFanClub mentioned sidechains can be operated as we speak using federated servers which is perfectly fine for a private, corporate sidechain for example.

If you are going to rely on federated servers, why not just use the Factom model? Factom uses federated servers in a similar, but much more elegant design.

One that works with bitcoin as it currently is.

...because what Factom is attempting to do (data layer on top of Bitcoin) is not in any way similar to what sidechains can achieve (inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcity from main Bitcoin blockchain)

maybe worth it to watch the video here to be better informed : http://www.blockstream.com/developers/

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..

So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??"  

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one.  

[brg444]

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..

So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??"  

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one.  

Nop.

The argument is there is nothing wrong with conflict-of-interest per say when stated. They do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.

More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain

ftfy. Finally you get it.

[smooth]

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..

So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??"  

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one.  

Nop.

The argument is there is nothing wrong with conflict-of-interest per say when stated. They do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.

Are you stating you don't have any?

More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

How is that? You said Mike is on Circle's board (I don't know what else he does for work, I'm going to guess you probably do though). That's a pretty obvious affiliation and transparent potential COI. Gavin works for a non-profit research institution. You can read out of that whatever you like, but in any case it's not hidden at all.

[brg444]

Are you stating you don't have any?

More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

How is that? You said Mike is on Circle's board (I don't know what else he does for work, I'm going to guess you probably do though). That's a pretty obvious affiliation and transparent potential COI. Gavin works for a non-profit research institution. You can read out of that whatever you like, but in any case it's not hidden at all.

 

The often repeated suggestion here that I am somehow a company shill or industry insiders or w/e is so outrageously funny to me. I consider myself the exact opposite of someone you'd expect to be interested in cryptocurrency. I have no technical background, barely any formal economic education. None of my friends give a rats ass about it and there is absolutely no local community where I live. I've said before the closest ties you can stick on me about Blockstream is that I live about 2 hours away from their corporate office. Other than that I'm just any regular 25 year old college dropout, if you care to know 

Anyway...Yes I'm stating I have no such thing as a conflict of interest. I am not professionally involved in anything resembling crypto and have never had contact with any industry person other than twitter, reddit and this forum.

As for your other question. The reason I stated we know more about Blockstream's potential conflict-of-interest is that the community pitchfork forced their hands into divulging non-negligible aspects of their financial remuneration and general contractual arrangements. I have no such details about Gavin & Mike's financial ties.

[brg444]

 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain

ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.

[sAt0sHiFanClub]

 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain

ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.

No disagreement from me on those points.

But I dont see the point of supporting the deliberate ongoing hobbling of bitcoin with an arbitrary limit, while at the same time advocating a different solution that itself will require a more far reaching change in bitcoin to work correctly.

[brg444]

 sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcityvalue from main Bitcoin blockchain

ftfy. Finally you get it.

It is up to the user to decide on what to do with his bitcoins. If a sidechain succeeds at attracting trust out of the mainchain it will surely be because it offers a valuable service. I don't see what is wrong with this seeing as they intend to build these systems in the most secure and trustless way achievable.

Of course stupid people will do stupid things. Buyers beware and all that but ultimately it is my opinion that sidechains will do fantastic things for the ecosystem.

No disagreement from me on those points.

But I dont see the point of supporting the deliberate ongoing hobbling of bitcoin with an arbitrary limit, while at the same time advocating a different solution that itself will require a more far reaching change in bitcoin to work correctly.

Part of my position is that I don't consider Bitcoin to be hobbled in anyway as it stands. Blocks are averaging at most half of the actual limit absent of spam attacks. I also happen to not trust Gavin or Hearn at all and consider their proposition as divisive and absolutely counter-productive.

I would also disagree that the changes required to make sidechains operate within Bitcoin are "far reaching". I understand that merged-mining is a source of debate but the script code in itself is not the source of any potential harm to the system AFAIK.

[cypherdoc]

Like I said, it's about to get unbearable for larger miners:

https://m.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz/posts/846144602138294

[brg444]

Like I said, it's about to get unbearable for larger miners:

https://m.facebook.com/MiningBitcoinCz/posts/846144602138294

Good morning doc!

Would you please do us the service to explain your hyperbole?

A pool with 2% of the hashrate will make it "unbearable" for who? how?

[Wexlike]

Its funny that litecoin has a maximum blocksize of 4MB per 10 minutes, dogecoin has a maximum of 10MB per 10 minutes. But for bitcoin a blocksize of 8MB means absolute destruction and centralisation.