Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[_mr_e]

btw, since everyone around here seems to not mind for-profits changing the source code to their own advantage, why don't we increase OP_return back up to 80 bytes, from 40 bytes, so that Counterparty can fit back in their tx proofs for their share issuance that they were so badly depending on, so as to further their profit model?

I honestly don't know if sc is the right way to go or not. But I do know that the network runs on consensus. If it agrees to allow sc while denying the 80 bytes, then that is what the consensus has decided. It isn't something that can be argued or reasoned with.

the question then becomes, the consensus of who?

those who participate in this thread or those who participate in the dev email lists and IRC channels?  or the consensus of the community at large?

The people running the nodes, the miners, and the companies that are deciding to use a particular fork.

[1713528708]

1713528708

[cypherdoc]

we don't know.  but we do know that it will have to be Blockstreams mandate to make it so.  otherwise, they don't make money constructing SC's.

 

This is not true at all.

As if Blockstream is guaranteeing to clients the success and adoption of their chains.... This is nonsense. Their service is to create decentralized infrastructure for whoever is willing to pay them. It is up to that client to generate enough interest and utility in their sidechain that users will be attracted to it.

you have to be a Blockstream plant.  absolutely no other way to explain your behavior.  whatever...

we as a community should not even let the situation get that far by letting them alter the rules of Bitcoin by changing the protocol in such a disingenuous, conflicted way.  let Blockstream compete head to head with all the other for profit companies trying to make money off Bitcoin who don't rely on a source code change.

[cypherdoc]

btw, since everyone around here seems to not mind for-profits changing the source code to their own advantage, why don't we increase OP_return back up to 80 bytes, from 40 bytes, so that Counterparty can fit back in their tx proofs for their share issuance that they were so badly depending on, so as to further their profit model?

I honestly don't know if sc is the right way to go or not. But I do know that the network runs on consensus. If it agrees to allow sc while denying the 80 bytes, then that is what the consensus has decided. It isn't something that can be argued or reasoned with.

the question then becomes, the consensus of who?

those who participate in this thread or those who participate in the dev email lists and IRC channels?  or the consensus of the community at large?

The people running the nodes, the miners, and the companies that are deciding to use a particular fork.

the consenus includes EVERYONE participating in Bitcoin today. 

[cypherdoc]

Sidechains is a creation for the greater good of the ecosystem. Blockstream do not own sidechains.

They are simply a group of competent enough developers that have the skills to build on top of it.

Blockstream is way more than this.  they include 40% of core devs in addition to 3 of the top committers.  they are in a position to influence all future decisions regarding upgrades to Bitcoin, and that includes blocking competition that could make SC's obsolete.

their incentive being to sell as many SC's to any willing buyer.  that is what a for-profit does.

[brg444]

that would be true.

i don't have any problem with SC's being implemented thru federated servers as they don't involve changing source code.  but as soon as you do change source, as with SPVproofs, all sorts of unpredictable things start happening as i've outlined.

currently, when BTC gets "exchanged" for assets, those BTC just change hands and still exist on the MC and remain secure and can continue to circulate.  SC's introduce another dynamic completely.  BTC's get siphoned off MC to speculative SC's created by Blockstream for insecure, potentially dishonest entities.  it's conceivable these entities will be gvts as Austin has said.  in this case, BTC's essentially get converted into whatever asset the SC is offering.  this destroys Bitoin's Sound Money principles.  the key to this dynamic is the SPV proof.

 

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

So which is it? Sidechains are bad or not? Because in reality, changing the source code has no impact on their existence. Implementing SPV proof through a change in the source code is merely an improved feature that allows for more decentralization of the sidechains.

SPVproof does not enable "unpredictable things" to happen. All of these things are possible through the federated model.  

scBTC that represent assets are also merely changing hands and can still return to the MC. I expect that a sidechain for decentralized asset exchange (stock market for example) to be effectively as secure as the BTC mainchain because they are in effect, a utility chain that will generate a considerable amount of transaction from which miners can pull revenue.

I'm truly sick of your malicious portrayal of the Blockstream developers.

in this case, BTC's essentially get converted into whatever asset the SC is offering.  this destroys Bitoin's Sound Money principles.  the key to this dynamic is the SPV proof.

That's simply not true. Again, The SPV proof is a feature of sidechains. Sidechains can exist without it. And so Gvts can create sidechains using the federated model RIGHT NOW.

Considering this, I suggest you sell all of your bitcoins as soon as possible because from you logic we can deduct that Bitcoin is broken because it natively enables sidechains which, by you own statement, "destroys" Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.

[Melbustus]

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?

Edit:
<snip>
Post retracted until the sidechains stuff dies down a little. Will repost in 50 pages or so.

[brg444]

oh brother.  never mind the fact that by Blockstream changing the source code, all other competing entities like CP, Bitshares, Ethereum, and all altcoins get put at a competitive disadvantage.  which is one of the stated objectives to begin with if you are paying attention. 

you and several others have already stated in the course of arguments that Blockstream is a way for devs to get paid.  and you said they would deserve to make millions off Blockstream as it would somehow bring along value to Bitcoin itself.  i don't see it.  it's a conflicted model with a false core assumption:  that being that BTC units can be separated from its blockchain (MC) and still preserve the Sound Money function.

All the competing entities previously using a different scheme can turn to sidechains and offer the same services that Blockstream do. What's to stop Vitalik and the gang from creating Blockstream2?

If it shows to be the more promising technology/implementation, why would they not use their employable skills to build on top of it?

As for your last comment :

Considering this, I suggest you sell all of your bitcoins as soon as possible because from you logic we can deduct that Bitcoin is broken because it natively enables sidechains which, by you own statement, "destroys" Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.

[brg444]

you have to be a Blockstream plant.  absolutely no other way to explain your behavior.  whatever...

we as a community should not even let the situation get that far by letting them alter the rules of Bitcoin by changing the protocol in such a disingenuous, conflicted way.  let Blockstream compete head to head with all the other for profit companies trying to make money off Bitcoin who don't rely on a source code change.

You are the only evidently dinsingenuous person in this whole debate.

What you fail to realise is that if somehow you stop Blockstream from implementing the SPVproof in the source code than they are simply going to adapt their model to the federated model. 

You blind grudge against Blockstream disables you from understanding that their proposition is for the greater good of the community. Their conclusion is that sidechains are possible NOW but are potentially much more secure and efficient through the implementation of the SPV proof.

[cypherdoc]

that would be true.

i don't have any problem with SC's being implemented thru federated servers as they don't involve changing source code.  but as soon as you do change source, as with SPVproofs, all sorts of unpredictable things start happening as i've outlined.

currently, when BTC gets "exchanged" for assets, those BTC just change hands and still exist on the MC and remain secure and can continue to circulate.  SC's introduce another dynamic completely.  BTC's get siphoned off MC to speculative SC's created by Blockstream for insecure, potentially dishonest entities.  it's conceivable these entities will be gvts as Austin has said.  in this case, BTC's essentially get converted into whatever asset the SC is offering.  this destroys Bitoin's Sound Money principles.  the key to this dynamic is the SPV proof.

 

that's all you got to say on this?

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

So which is it? Sidechains are bad or not? Because in reality, changing the source code has no impact on their existence. Implementing SPV proof through a change in the source code is merely an improved feature that allows for more decentralization of the sidechains.

SC's are bad if implemented thru the SPVproof.  how many times do i have to say this before you hear it?

SPVproof does not enable "unpredictable things" to happen. All of these things are possible through the federated model.  

they are not.  you yourself have said that SC's "need" to move from federated server model to a source code change b/c that will enable security and decentralization.  the differences are profound.

scBTC that represent assets are also merely changing hands and can still return to the MC. I expect that a sidechain for decentralized asset exchange (stock market for example) to be effectively as secure as the BTC mainchain because they are in effect, a utility chain that will generate a considerable amount of transaction from which miners can pull revenue.

backpedaling again?  you said several times earlier that MM would only apply to utility chains that enhance Bitcoins Sound Money principles.  now, you're trying to imply that all these Blockstream enabled speculative SC's WILL be MM'd so as to give Blockstream an excuse to develop them for profit since they are somehow now secure.  so which is it?

I'm truly sick of your malicious portrayal of the Blockstream developers.

that's b/c you're probably a Blockstream plant.

in this case, BTC's essentially get converted into whatever asset the SC is offering.  this destroys Bitoin's Sound Money principles.  the key to this dynamic is the SPV proof.

That's simply not true. Again, The SPV proof is a feature of sidechains. Sidechains can exist without it. And so Gvts can create sidechains using the federated model RIGHT NOW.

Considering this, I suggest you sell all of your bitcoins as soon as possible because from you logic we can deduct that Bitcoin is broken because it natively enables sidechains which, by you own statement, "destroys" Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.

wrong.  the SPVproof is critical to SC's.  if it doesn't get implemented, Blockstream as a for profit fails.

[brg444]

Blockstream is way more than this.  they include 40% of core devs in addition to 3 of the top committers.  they are in a position to influence all future decisions regarding upgrades to Bitcoin, and that includes blocking competition that could make SC's obsolete.

their incentive being to sell as many SC's to any willing buyer.  that is what a for-profit does.

Sidechain is better tech than what competition as to offer at the moment.

To be quite honest, I can hardly see how something could compete with the sidechain model the way it could be implemented right now.

Sidechains are a very natural extension to the Bitcoin blockchain. They are the most fitting application layer on top of Bitcoin's TCP/IP.

[cypherdoc]

oh brother.  never mind the fact that by Blockstream changing the source code, all other competing entities like CP, Bitshares, Ethereum, and all altcoins get put at a competitive disadvantage.  which is one of the stated objectives to begin with if you are paying attention.  

you and several others have already stated in the course of arguments that Blockstream is a way for devs to get paid.  and you said they would deserve to make millions off Blockstream as it would somehow bring along value to Bitcoin itself.  i don't see it.  it's a conflicted model with a false core assumption:  that being that BTC units can be separated from its blockchain (MC) and still preserve the Sound Money function.

All the competing entities previously using a different scheme can turn to sidechains and offer the same services that Blockstream do. What's to stop Vitalik and the gang from creating Blockstream2?

if we can see ahead of time a conflict or a flawed assumption, which i certainly do in this case, we as a community should avoid adopting it. it's stupid to say, "lets just let them go ahead and make changes to the source and we'll let everyone scramble to adjust".  lot of ppl will get hurt in that scenario.

If it shows to be the more promising technology/implementation, why would they not use their employable skills to build on top of it?

the reason Blockstream went out and employed 40% of core devs and 3 of the top committers to Bitcoin was to eliminate this type of competition from the likes of Vitalik.

[cypherdoc]

Blockstream is way more than this.  they include 40% of core devs in addition to 3 of the top committers.  they are in a position to influence all future decisions regarding upgrades to Bitcoin, and that includes blocking competition that could make SC's obsolete.

their incentive being to sell as many SC's to any willing buyer.  that is what a for-profit does.

Sidechain is better tech than what competition as to offer at the moment.

To be quite honest, I can hardly see how something could compete with the sidechain model the way it could be implemented right now.

Sidechains are a very natural extension to the Bitcoin blockchain. They are the most fitting application layer on top of Bitcoin's TCP/IP.

then by all means, implement it as a federated server model.  I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.

[brg444]

SC's are bad if implemented thru the SPVproof.  how many times do i have to say this before you hear it?

  You're some special kind of stupid aren't you?

The basis for your argument is that sidechains enable the BTC asset to be seperated from the BTC blockchain. This, you suggest, breaks "BTC Sound Money principle".

Now would you explain to me how federated server model is not doing exactly that? What difference does it make that they use federated model other than less decentralization?

Sure, decentralization is important and that is why Blockstream propose to implement SPVproof to make the model more efficient. But what is stopping anyone, right now, to seperate the BTC asset from the BTC blockchain through the federated server model?

What are you gonna do to stop it and how does this not result exactly in your biggest concern?

they are not.  you yourself have said that SC's "need" to move from federated server model to a source code change b/c that will enable security and decentralization.  the differences are profound.

Of course they are. Every possible scheme implemented on a sidechain supported by SPV proof can be replicated on a federated server model.

Decentralization is merely an adoption incentive. As you've been persistent in saying, some people will not care about lesser decentralization if they find considerable utility or speculative value in the sidechain. Furthermore, as some people were quick to show me, federated server can be considerably trustable and efficient.

Security is relative then if you accept and trust the federated server because they can be considered more secure than MM sidechains.

backpedaling again?  you said several times earlier that MM would only apply to utility chains that enhance Bitcoins Sound Money principles.  now, you're trying to imply that all these Blockstream enabled speculative SC's WILL be MM'd so as to give Blockstream an excuse to develop them for profit since they are somehow now secure.  so which is it?

No, my point, which you are evidently too dense to understand, is that Blockstream will mostly not be building speculative SC's booted on top of malicious schemes. There are limitless possibilities of applications sidechains that can be built that are not speculative. This is what Blockstream will be doing.

You're acting as if any scammer off the street will be able to hire Blockstream to develop their scammy sidechains. Hopefully you don't really believe that. Blockstream will deal will large corporations that have a desire to decentralized certain infrastructure of their business so as to make them more efficient or create additional value.

What you fail to consider is that Blockstream will likely be responsible for only a minority of the sidechains that will be created

wrong.  the SPVproof is critical to SC's.  if it doesn't get implemented, Blockstream as a for profit fails.

Prove it. Explain to me how they can not adapt their service to a federated model when in fact they have considered it and suggested the federated model could be good enough if properly implemented.

[brg444]

if we can see ahead of time a conflict or a flawed assumption, which i certainly do in this case, we as a community should avoid adopting it. it's stupid to say, "lets just let them go ahead and make changes to the source and we'll let everyone scramble to adjust".  lot of ppl will get hurt in that scenario.

You clearly don't understand or conveniently ignore my point.

the reason Blockstream went out and employed 40% of core devs and 3 of the top committers to Bitcoin was to eliminate this type of competition from the likes of Vitalik.

 

You are so dense.

Again, please answer this : what's to stop Vitalik and the gang to create Blockstream2. Are you suggesting they are not competent enough to build sidechains?

[brg444]

then by all means, implement it as a federated server model.  I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.

 

So you basically admit you were wrong the whole time?

How can you say you have no problem with that when sidechains running on a federated server model enable this detachment of the BTC asset from the mainchain you so clearly oppose?

Fact: Sidechains are enabled natively and can be created right now.

Can you get through your head that the proposition to change the source code is merely a proposal to improve the current sidechains technology?

Do you recognize that Blockstream do not have monopoly over the creation of sidechains and therefore the change to the source code benefits not only them but ANYONE willing to build on top of sidechains?

Do you understand that it is likely competitors to Blockstream will arise built on the same exact business model that will also benefit from more efficient SPVproof sidechains?

[Odalv]

then by all means, implement it as a federated server model.  I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.

Open source -> everybody can download and change this code.
Everybody is free do not use any changes in code.
They(anybody, you too) can create your own bitcoin (and there are plenty of alts, already).

[cypherdoc]

SC's are bad if implemented thru the SPVproof.  how many times do i have to say this before you hear it?

  You're some special kind of stupid aren't you?

back at you bro

The basis for your argument is that sidechains enable the BTC asset to be seperated from the BTC blockchain. This, you suggest, breaks "BTC Sound Money principle".

Now would you explain to me how federated server model is not doing exactly that? What difference does it make that they use federated model other than less decentralization?

Sure, decentralization is important and that is why Blockstream propose to implement SPVproof to make the model more efficient. But what is stopping anyone, right now, to seperate the BTC asset from the BTC blockchain through the federated server model?

What are you gonna do to stop it and how does this not result exactly in your biggest concern?

very simple.  the SPVproof institutionalizes or systematizes the SC concept and the risks it brings and is a stamp of approval type change at the level of the source code which forces "everyone" to scramble to adjust to its implications.  clearly, the federated server model is a choice made by a highly concentrated, small group of ppl that the community won't even know about, as you and Odalv have been so quick to point out.  this doesn't hurt the entire community as would the conflicted interest model that for-profit Blockstream brings to the table.

they are not.  you yourself have said that SC's "need" to move from federated server model to a source code change b/c that will enable security and decentralization.  the differences are profound.

Of course they are. Every possible scheme implemented on a sidechain supported by SPV proof can be replicated on a federated server model.

Decentralization is merely an adoption incentive. As you've been persistent in saying, some people will not care about lesser decentralization if they find considerable utility or speculative value in the sidechain. Furthermore, as some people were quick to show me, federated server can be considerably trustable and efficient.

Security is relative then if you accept and trust the federated server because they can be considered more secure than MM sidechains.

backpedaling again?  you said several times earlier that MM would only apply to utility chains that enhance Bitcoins Sound Money principles.  now, you're trying to imply that all these Blockstream enabled speculative SC's WILL be MM'd so as to give Blockstream an excuse to develop them for profit since they are somehow now secure.  so which is it?

No, my point, which you are evidently too dense to understand, is that Blockstream will mostly not be building speculative SC's booted on top of malicious schemes. There are limitless possibilities of applications sidechains that can be built that are not speculative. This is what Blockstream will be doing.

You're acting as if any scammer off the street will be able to hire Blockstream to develop their scammy sidechains. Hopefully you don't really believe that. Blockstream will deal will large corporations that have a desire to decentralized certain infrastructure of their business so as to make them more efficient or create additional value.

it matters not who they deal with.  the point, which you love to ignore, is that their biz model depends on siphoning off BTC into the SC ledger of whatever entity decides to implement SC's.  this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC).  that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.

What you fail to consider is that Blockstream will likely be responsible for only a minority of the sidechains that will be considered.

i highly doubt that.  with 40% of core devs and 3 of the top committers along with the fact that they refuse to step down, they have constructed a scheme which virtually assures they will dominate.

wrong.  the SPVproof is critical to SC's.  if it doesn't get implemented, Blockstream as a for profit fails.

Prove it. Explain to me how they can not adapt their service to a federated model when in fact they have considered it and suggested the federated model could be good enough if properly implemented.

then that's what they should do; use the federated model.  I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

it's so obvious to any lame brain around here that the SPVproof would be a force multiplier to their for profit model via systematizing the entire SC concept.

[cypherdoc]

then by all means, implement it as a federated server model.  I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.

 

So you basically admit you were wrong the whole time?

How can you say you have no problem with that when sidechains running on a federated server model enable this detachment of the BTC asset from the mainchain you so clearly oppose?

Fact: Sidechains are enabled natively and can be created right now.

Can you get through your head that the proposition to change the source code is merely a proposal to improve the current sidechains technology?

Do you recognize that Blockstream do not have monopoly over the creation of sidechains and therefore the change to the source code benefits not only them but ANYONE willing to build on top of sidechains?

Do you understand that it is likely competitors to Blockstream will arise built on the same exact business model that will also benefit from more efficient SPVproof sidechains?

all your questions and points have been answered by me, multiple times, yet you persist in screaming in desperation that i have not answered them.  

your employer is going to be sorely disappointed in your performance.

[cypherdoc]

then by all means, implement it as a federated server model.  I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.

Open source -> everybody can download and change this code.
Everybody is free do not use any changes in code.
They(anybody, you too) can create your own bitcoin (and there are plenty of alts, already).

as a separate topic, i see this free for all mentality as inconsistent with the consensus model both of which are supposed to be principles of open source.  by your argument above, you suggest that someone should just fork code w/o bothering to gain consensus.  that's weird.  how is that consistent with the consensus model that supposedly our core devs engage in with Bitcoin?  shouldn't we all, as a community, strive to figure out ahead of time what our path should be so as to attempt to minimize mis-steps as long as force is not applied?

[Odalv]

then by all means, implement it as a federated server model.  I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.

Open source -> everybody can download and change this code.
Everybody is free do not use any changes in code.
They(anybody, you too) can create your own bitcoin (and there are plenty of alts, already).

as a separate topic, i see this free for all mentality as inconsistent with the consensus model both of which are supposed to be principles of open source.  by your argument above, you suggest that someone should just fork code w/o bothering to gain consensus.  that's weird.  how is that consistent with the consensus model that supposedly our core devs engage in with Bitcoin?  shouldn't we all, as a community, strive to figure out ahead of time what our path should be so as to attempt to minimize mis-steps as long as force is not applied?

If you do not like open source then do not use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

Open-source software (OSS) is computer software with its source code made available with a license in which the copyright holder provides the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. Open-source software is very often developed in a public, collaborative manner. Open-source software is the most prominent example of open-source development and often compared to (technically defined) user-generated content or (legally defined) open-content movements.