Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

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?

[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?

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 :

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

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?

[notme]

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.

+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.

[brg444]

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

 

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

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

[ssmc2]

Gold UP

[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.

+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]

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.

+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 

[Erdogan]

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]

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).   

[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?

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.

+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 

I'm riding my bike!

[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?

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.

So putting words in my mouth. I  think open source is great.  There just send to be an inconsistency btwn just do it and come to consensus.

[cypherdoc]

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?

Like i said a billion times, I have no problem with the federated server model and if Blockstream can make money off that fine. Just don't change the source code asiI see that as a conflict of interest meant to drive their profits at the expense of bitcoin

[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?

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.

+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.

I know that anyone can do what they want and that includes me. I'm free to voice my opinion which is what I'm doing.  So what.

[cypherdoc]

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).   

SPVProof are alsoa  political" act" as it favors Blockstream for profit business model.

[brg444]

SPVProof are alsoa  political" act" as it favors Blockstream for profit business model.

Wrong.

It favors any entity willing to build on top of more decentralized sidechains.

Blockstream does not have monopoly over that business model.

Additionally, as I have mentioned in my previous post, it is very likely most of Blockstream's creations for private/corporate entities will use the federated peg for security reasons.

[brg444]

I know that anyone can do what they want and that includes me. I'm free to voice my opinion which is what I'm doing.  So what.

And we are free to call you out on your disingenuous FUD.

[Odalv]

I know that anyone can do what they want and that includes me. I'm free to voice my opinion which is what I'm doing.  So what.

You are permanently attacking on bitcoin developers while You  are still using software developed by those developers.

...  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.

 - how to step down ?  => you have the rights to use it or do not use.
 - how open-source scheme can be constructed to assure Blockstream will dominate.

[brg444]

Like i said a billion times, I have no problem with the federated server model and if Blockstream can make money off that fine. Just don't change the source code asiI see that as a conflict of interest meant to drive their profits at the expense of bitcoin

So how do you explain this

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

You have no problem with a federated model that "breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain" and will "destroy Bitcoin"?

As long as Blockstream is not profiting from it, right ?

[cypherdoc]

I know that anyone can do what they want and that includes me. I'm free to voice my opinion which is what I'm doing.  So what.

You are permanently attacking on bitcoin developers while You  are still using software developed by those developers.

...  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.

 - how to step down ?  => you have the rights to use it or do not use.
 - how open-source scheme can be constructed to assure Blockstream will dominate.

That shows the attitude of the devs here. They think it's "their" cod,  not something Satoshi created. Furthermore, I could make the argument that it's "my" code since I helped pay for it as an investor. See how ridiculous you are?

[cypherdoc]

SPVProof are alsoa  political" act" as it favors Blockstream for profit business model.

Wrong.

It favors any entity willing to build on top of more decentralized sidechains.

Blockstream does not have monopoly over that business model.

Additionally, as I have mentioned in my previous post, it is very likely most of Blockstream's creations for private/corporate entities will use the federated peg for security reasons.

First you make the argument that Blockstream won't make any money because the only SC's that will exist are utility chains for the public goo.  Then you admit that maybe they'll make money off nasdaq stock SC through SPVProof. Now you say them make most of their money through federated server model. Bottom line, you're here to make any and every excuse possible for Blockstream.