Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

but of course, my question doesn't apply to your "utility" chains where there is no new asset/coin generated.

but just to finalize and be clear, by "blockchain", you mean SC.

Sorry, yes.

[1713284678]

1713284678

[1713284678]

1713284678

[1713284678]

1713284678

[1713284678]

1713284678

[cypherdoc]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

[brg444]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

[cypherdoc]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

[brg444]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

[cypherdoc]

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme.  looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

[brg444]

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme.  looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.
 
Man these articles are irritating, these people really don't have a clue what is coming.



It's a good thing we are at that point though. At least they're starting to admit defeat and recognizing the technology is useful is their first step of "acceptance".

Justus put it in a nice way on twitter "it's the bargaining part of grief for people who did not buy Bitcoin earlier"

[cypherdoc]

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme.  looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.

you'd have to assume he would not be privy to the title of the article.  he must have said enough to give the author that impression.

[cypherdoc]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

which make them all that more dangerous

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

in the world of money where the competition will latch onto every inconsistency in Bitcoin philosophy, i foresee this one becoming a headline.

[brg444]

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme.  looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.

you'd have to assume he would not be privy to the title of the article.  he must have said enough to give the author that impression.

 

Cause it would be the first time journalists use quotes out of context or fit them to their narrative right?

[brg444]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

which make them all that more dangerous

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

in the world of money where the competition will latch onto every inconsistency in Bitcoin philosophy, i foresee this one becoming a headline.

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

[cypherdoc]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

which make them all that more dangerous

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

in the world of money where the competition will latch onto every inconsistency in Bitcoin philosophy, i foresee this one becoming a headline.

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

well then, why not make it a non-profit?

[HeliKopterBen]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized?  Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described.  This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

[brg444]

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

[brg444]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

which make them all that more dangerous

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

in the world of money where the competition will latch onto every inconsistency in Bitcoin philosophy, i foresee this one becoming a headline.

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

well then, why not make it a non-profit?

because development comes before success and development needs money.

[cypherdoc]

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

[brg444]

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized?  Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described.  This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

[brg444]

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

Of course they have an interest in profiting from Blockstream. I'm not so naive.

The point is hurting Bitcoin has a direct impact on the core of their business model.

Additionally, as we seem to have agreed, most of Blockstream's creations will not compete with Bitcoin's money function so I can hardly see how one of their sidechain could be a menace to Bitcoin.

[cypherdoc]

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

Of course they have an interest in profiting from Blockstream. I'm not so naive.

The point is hurting Bitcoin has a direct impact on the core of their business model.

Additionally, as we seem to have agreed, most of Blockstream's creations will not compete with Bitcoin's money function so I can hardly see how one of their sidechain could be a menace to Bitcoin.

i just get confused when you go down one path, i follow, only to be diverted to another path:

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

[cypherdoc]

here we go again:

Bitcoin Is a Payment System, Not an Investment: Woo

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-is-a-payment-system-not-an-investment-woo-vkLZekoCRc2yZu4Pr~2Ptw.html