Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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).

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

Again, how is the federated model centralized?

To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model.  Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security. 

[1715368048]

1715368048

[1715368048]

1715368048

[1715368048]

1715368048

[Adrian-x]

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

I think experience helps. Look again when you have an additional 20 years. It also helps to consider every one is correct when judging others views.

[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?

Again, how is the federated model centralized?

To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model.  Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security. 

I did not say it was centralized. But we have the opportunity to make every platform as decentralized (or close to) as Bitcoin is, why not look into it?

[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.

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?

Again, how is the federated model centralized?

To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model.  Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security. 

I did not say it was centralized. But we have the opportunity to make every platform as decentralized (or close to) as Bitcoin is, why not look into it?

i'm confused yet again.  there's that path diversion...

[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?

Again, how is the federated model centralized?

To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model.  Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security. 

I did not say it was centralized. But we have the opportunity to make every platform as decentralized (or close to) as Bitcoin is, why not look into it?

i'm confused yet again.  there's that path diversion...

 

You know exactly what I mean

[Adrian-x]

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?

Gavin's got it right, semi-trusted oracles dont make money, that's why we have PoW, PoW is designed to scale to the value of the money not the assets used to store the money, semi-trusted oracles are just decentralized conduits, and can be made trustless.

[Adrian-x]

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.

keep in mind Bitcoin has a market cap of about $5Billion. Blockstream hold the belief that if this protocol change is made, it will be possible to separate BTC Asset (by keep your private ket 100% safe for you), using there blockchain technology, from the value locked in the Bitcoin blockchain. If that comes to pass there is a lot of wealth to siphon out regardless of the ultimate Bitcoin outcome.

[cypherdoc]

take a look at the @Truthcoin perspective.  note how he wants to "share" our value:

https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/532538170030948354

[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).

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

Gavin's got it right, semi-trusted oracles dont make money, that's why we have PoW, PoW is designed to scale to the value of the money not the assets used to store the money, semi-trusted oracles are just decentralized conduits, and can be made trustless.

Either way, the blockstream devs say they will test the federated peg first.  We may find that model is good enough and no changes are needed to the core protocol.

[cypherdoc]

good news for goldbugs!  looks who's backing their new currency with gold?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-13/isis-unveils-its-new-gold-backed-currency-remove-itself-oppressors-money-system

but i thought Bitcoin was their preferred currency?

[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.

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?

Gavin's got it right, semi-trusted oracles dont make money, that's why we have PoW, PoW is designed to scale to the value of the money not the assets used to store the money, semi-trusted oracles are just decentralized conduits, and can be made trustless.

Either way, the blockstream devs say they will test the federated peg first.  We may find that model is good enough and no changes are needed to the core protocol.

i can only hope.

[cypherdoc]

over and over and over.  sheesh:

“Bitcoin is two things, right? Bitcoin is a currency and it is a way to create a network. And the two today aren’t associated. People (ask): ‘Are you going to accept the coin?’ And the answer is, we’ll think about it when our clients actually want to use it. So when we have banks and merchants saying ‘Hey, our clients really want to pay in Bitcoin,’ then it becomes a meaningful question for us to answer. Until then, it is just theoretical would we do it, and we have – I forget a couple of hundred currencies or 170 currencies that we do business in. If we chose another one, we can certainly do that.”

http://www.pymnts.com/news/2014/visa-ceo-confirms-tokens-as-new-network-revenue-stream/#.VGS1MlVn3qc

read the article.  it talks extensively about "tokens".

[cypherdoc]

take a look at the @Truthcoin perspective.  note how he wants to "share" our value:

https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/532538170030948354

when you're swapping BTC for CC through the 2wp aren't you effectively "shorting" BTC and going "long" CC?

[Adrian-x]

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?

Gavin's got it right, semi-trusted oracles dont make money, that's why we have PoW, PoW is designed to scale to the value of the money not the assets used to store the money, semi-trusted oracles are just decentralized conduits, and can be made trustless.

Either way, the blockstream devs say they will test the federated peg first.  We may find that model is good enough and no changes are needed to the core protocol.

Woot! I missed that memo  I'm holding again.

[Adrian-x]

take a look at the @Truthcoin perspective.  note how he wants to "share" our value:

https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/532538170030948354

when you're swapping BTC for CC through the 2wp aren't you effectively "shorting" BTC and going "long" CC?

No it's all Bitcoin if I understand the counter argument, you can change back 1:1 any time (or 1:10 and 10:1)

Yes if you see value in CC. But as one SC proponent points out there won't be value there at least not with TC - apparently one should consider it a scam even it it does everything it says on the box, so it's not a good test case for SC.

[cypherdoc]

take a look at the @Truthcoin perspective.  note how he wants to "share" our value:

https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/532538170030948354

when you're swapping BTC for CC through the 2wp aren't you effectively "shorting" BTC and going "long" CC?

No it's all Bitcoin if I understand the counter argument, you can change back 1:1 any time (or 1:10 and 10:1)

Yes if you see value in CC. But as one SC proponent points out there won't be value there at least not with TC - apparently one should consider it a scam even it it does everything it says on the box, so it's not a good test case for SC.

every time you trade your USD for BTC, you're effectively shorting USD and going long BTC.  seems like the same here.

seems like the peg only guarantees value for BTC<-->scBTC

[Melbustus]

over and over and over.  sheesh:

“Bitcoin is two things, right? Bitcoin is a currency and it is a way to create a network. And the two today aren’t associated. People (ask): ‘Are you going to accept the coin?’ And the answer is, we’ll think about it when our clients actually want to use it. So when we have banks and merchants saying ‘Hey, our clients really want to pay in Bitcoin,’ then it becomes a meaningful question for us to answer. Until then, it is just theoretical would we do it, and we have – I forget a couple of hundred currencies or 170 currencies that we do business in. If we chose another one, we can certainly do that.”

The VISA CEO's willful ignorance aside, I'm seeing more people come out in defense of blockchain/currency inseparability lately, and some people who previously thought incorrectly on this issue are turning around. Hopefully that trend continues.

http://www.pymnts.com/news/2014/visa-ceo-confirms-tokens-as-new-network-revenue-stream/#.VGS1MlVn3qc

read the article.  it talks extensively about "tokens".

Granted in a different context, but I'm reminded of the Hive-wallet Founder/CEO's insufferable insistence on using the term "token" instead of money or coin. He has a backwards and obnoxious philosophical position on the nature of crypto money, and it influences their business decisions. I, for one, will never touch HiveWallet, as that company's existence, given their philosophy, is a net negative to the bitcoin ecosystem.


Reminder for those who missed it the first time around:

We at Hive agree that so-called crypto-currency is not money
...
We of Earth love our novelty, and I in particular find the idea of artificial digital scarcity so painfully fucking boring that I'm going to spend my time making your world view more difficult to sustain, as both a career and a hobby.

[Odalv]

...  I'm seeing more people come out in defense of blockchain/currency inseparability lately, and some people who previously thought incorrectly on this issue are turning around ...

and some people(I do not mean you) cannot understand, that the same ledger (with same information) can be written in many languages on many different medias and can use many different formats. ... but in the end the information is the same ( who owns BTC and how many )   => I do not see it as  blockchain/currency separation

[NewLiberty]

take a look at the @Truthcoin perspective.  note how he wants to "share" our value:

https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/532538170030948354

I LOL'd at that one too.
Share the same Market Cap?

So kind of them to share that, lol.

[Odalv]

brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?

If you are able to see "Silk Road SC" then it was not done right.