Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2017, 10:16:42 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 ... 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] 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2021899 times)
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:02:39 PM
 #16821



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'm riding my bike!
1512987402
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512987402

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512987402
Reply with quote  #2

1512987402
Report to moderator
1512987402
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512987402

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512987402
Reply with quote  #2

1512987402
Report to moderator
1512987402
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1512987402

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1512987402
Reply with quote  #2

1512987402
Report to moderator
FORTUNEJACK.COM[
                            
9 BTC WELCOME PACK FOR 1ST 5 DEPOSITS
FREE 1,000 mBTC daily for LuckyJack winners
[
          
]
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:07:27 PM
 #16822



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.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:12:43 PM
 #16823

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:15:12 PM
 #16824



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.

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:20:20 PM
 #16825

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:27:05 PM
 #16826

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.


"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, 09:27:50 PM
 #16827

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.


"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, 09:27:53 PM
 #16828


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:30:06 PM
 #16829

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 ?


"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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:35:54 PM
 #16830


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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:39:43 PM
 #16831

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.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:40:40 PM
 #16832


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?

You did not answer the question.

How can open-source code be constructed to assure domination of one entity?

"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
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2014, 09:40:53 PM
 #16833

You are REALLY making me start to hate side chains and Blockstream with this.
Almost every point you make here is flatly wrong.  You should stop posting entirely if your goal is to support side chains and Blockstream.


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.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:43:19 PM
 #16834


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?

I'm not bitcoin(not Blockstream) developer. I did not write 1 line, but "the Bitcoin developers provide the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose". Satoshi provided idea. Blockstream provided idea.

Yes sidechain is GREAT idea too. "the Blockstream developers provide the rights to study, change and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose"
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:45:45 PM
 #16835

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 ?



Federated server model will see limited use only as a testing tool because of centralization and insecurity.

Blockstream desperately needs SPVProof for their business model to thrive. If they are successful it "implies" the community at large and especially the mining community endorses or approves of the conflict of interest business model they are attempting to push through. Yes, I'd have to live with that if I don't sell all my coins first. And I'll continue to voice my objections to that conflicted model.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:48:40 PM
 #16836

You are REALLY making me start to hate side chains and Blockstream with this.
Almost every point you make here is flatly wrong.  You should stop posting entirely if your goal is to support side chains and Blockstream.


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.

Explain. My goal is not to support sidechains or Blockstream. I couldn't careless whether they suceed or not although I believe sidechains can add value to the ecosystem.

Now what point is "flatly" wrong?

Is it not true that the federated peg seperates the BTC asset from the BTC sidechain in the same way that SPVproof would? If not I will gladly accept your explanations?

Is it wrong to say that any schemes created on a SPVproof sidechain can be replicated on a federated peg model?

Should I not assume that because sidechains are opensource then Blockchain cannot assert any kind of dominance or majority in the creation and maintenance of them?

"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
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2014, 09:50:44 PM
 #16837

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).   

This raises another risk that I wanted to get to eventually.

SPV raises the value of a successful 51% attack to where it may be economical to attempt them more frequently, thus making the Bitcoin block chain less secure.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:51:11 PM
 #16838

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 ?



Federated server model will see limited use only as a testing tool because of centralization and insecurity.

Blockstream desperately needs SPVProof for their business model to thrive. If they are successful it "implies" the community at large and especially the mining community endorses or approves of the conflict of interest business model they are attempting to push through. Yes, I'd have to live with that if I don't sell all my coins first. And I'll continue to voice my objections to that conflicted model.

brg444 did tell you 1000 times that building CENTRALIZED (FEDERATED) 2wp for GOVERMENT and LARGE COMPANIES is much more PROFITABLE than create SPV proof for free.
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:52:10 PM
 #16839


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?

You did not answer the question.

How can open-source code be constructed to assure domination of one entity?

You're a troll who can't hear. I've explained a thousand  times. By using their 40% core dev plus 3 top committers to jam through a source code rule set change that specifically favors their business model over that if others who already committed millions to alternative plans and so will lose as a  result,  then setting up a for profit to benefit from said rule chang,  and then on top of all that refusing to step down from their conflicted position so that they can block any future competition.

NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2014, 09:53:38 PM
 #16840

My goal is not to support sidechains or Blockstream.
Then carry on as you were.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 ... 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!