Bitcoin Forum
December 13, 2017, 12:53:29 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 [841] 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2022400 times)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 06:27:10 PM
 #16801

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.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1513126409
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513126409

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513126409
Reply with quote  #2

1513126409
Report to moderator
1513126409
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1513126409

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1513126409
Reply with quote  #2

1513126409
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 06:29:08 PM
 #16802

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.
Quote

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 06:31:05 PM
 #16803

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 06:41:43 PM
 #16804

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

 Cheesy 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.


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 06:45:00 PM
 #16805

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.

 Cheesy

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?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 06:51:40 PM
 #16806

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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

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?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 06:56:59 PM
 #16807



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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 06:59:54 PM
 #16808

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

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

back at you bro
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote

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.
Quote
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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 07:02:54 PM
 #16809

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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 07:09:59 PM
 #16810



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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 07:19:48 PM
 #16811



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
Quote
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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 07:28:01 PM
 #16812

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.

Not true. The SC concept is native to Bitcoin. Try again. The SPVproof is merely an upgrade.

The federated server model will infact be the go-to model for most sidechains for the simple fact that, as we've agreed, most sidechains creators will not be able to guarantee the MM of their chains and the federated server model removes this uncertainty.

There is no argument you can come up with that will demonstrate the SPVproof is a conflict of interest. The SPVproof is opensource code. It is neutral to anyone willing to use it.

In fact, let me demonstrate to you why you are so clearly wrong. You have said that without the SPVproof the Blockstream business model is not viable.

Well quite to the contrary, I would venture to say that MOST of the sidechains created by Blockstream for corporate entities will be supported by the federated server model. This is a very intuitive proposition considering that as we have discussed, it is farfetched and even impossible for ALL sidechains to gain the level of security necessary through MM.

Because of this uncertainty, corporations, or government will prefer the use of more centralized federated server which they control. This actually supports my original point that only a number of utility sidechains will be MM 100% by miners. It is likely these sidechains will be the one used for the common good and supporting the money function of BTC.

For that reason, the majority of sidechains that will be created will be supported by the federated server model and so will be the majority of sidechains created by Blockstream for private clients.

So in effect, the SPVproof proposition is merely a proposal to enable those chains that require the same decentralization that BTC does. Blockstream's business model can very well succeed within the confines of the federated server model.

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.

I repeat, sell your Bitcoins right now because Blockstream will do that whether or not there is implementation of the SPVproof.

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.

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.

Yes you have a problem with that, don't you remember that detaching BTC from the mainchain will destroy Bitcoin?


"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 07:29:50 PM
 #16813

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.

 Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

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.

No, in fact you are unable to answer them because they clearly demonstrate that all of your delusions are false.

But please, for the sake of entertainment. Please make an attempt at this one :

Quote
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?

or this one

Quote
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?

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
notme
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1848


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 07:34:49 PM
 #16814



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
Quote
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.

+1

Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs.  If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid.  If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable.  Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.

https://www.bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
While no idea is perfect, some ideas are useful.
12jh3odyAAaR2XedPKZNCR4X4sebuotQzN
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 07:53:08 PM
 #16815

this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC).  that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.

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

 Cheesy

I mean... you can't even make this stuff up  Cheesy

Remember when I said you should make more use of rationality and honesty in your arguments cypher? Well it is exactly because of that.

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
ssmc2
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 07:59:42 PM
 #16816

Gold UP
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 08:23:36 PM
 #16817



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
Quote
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.

+1

Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs.  If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid.  If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable.  Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.

+1

So if SPV proof will kill bitcoin then bitcoin is already dead. (b/c it supports SPV proof by default as valid transaction)
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 08:26:48 PM
 #16818



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
Quote
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.

+1

Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs.  If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid.  If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable.  Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.

+1

So if SPV proof will kill bitcoin then bitcoin is already dead. (b/c it supports SPV proof by default as valid transaction)

stop making so much sense guys, cypher is never going to come back to his thread  Grin

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 840


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 08:51:25 PM
 #16819

Bitcoin is money - I am with cypher on this one.

Speaking of currencies, this good article suggests the yen is the first to go, of the big currencies. I see no flaws in this article:

http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/bojs-yen-trashing-will-ignite-a-tital-wave-of-asian-devaluation-and-deflation/

I haven't even clicked the link and I see a flaw in the title, or should I say 'tital'.

Smart, you, there, but that error is not in the article, it is in the resource identifier.

Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:01:05 PM
 #16820

Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs.  If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid.  If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable.  Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.

Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.

Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork).  My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid).  What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.

As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof.  All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A).  The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B).  So we get a forked blockchain…

Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain.  When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B.  Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain. 

However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.   


TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision.  It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).   

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
Pages: « 1 ... 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 [841] 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!