Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[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.

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?

[NewLiberty]

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?

  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.

[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.

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]

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]

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?

  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?

[NewLiberty]

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.

[Odalv]

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]

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]

My goal is not to support sidechains or Blockstream.

Then carry on as you were.

[cypherdoc]

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.

Wtf does brg444 know? Its crystal clear that SPVProof is where the real money is. 

[tvbcof]

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

I'm cool with being forced temporarily into a federated model because it will provoke developments and relationships needed to make it a credible defense mechanism.  As such, it has the realistic potential to thwart various kinds of superior resources attacks (specifically 51% types and global network attack forms) as well as judicial ones.

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.

As best I can tell lack of SPVProof will impact Blockstream's 'business model' only in a minor way even if it were realistic to hope for that.  Probably it is not a realistic hope since there is very little reason for people not to accept this very rational soft-fork and all but some obviously self-interested and/or a handful of corner-case wankers seem all for it.  The main threat I see is if somehow one could not retain a state-sponsored 'bitcoin licence' if they choose to run SPVProof enabled code.

[brg444]

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.

Not true, unless someone want to correct me, I have demonstrated why I'm under the impression that Blockstream's business model can very well thrive under the federated peg model.

Others here have insisted that the federated server model is not necessarily highly centralized and it is my understanding that if you trust the oracles or whatever scheme is supporting the verification of the scheme then can be as secure or certainly more secure than only an uncertain majority of miners MM the sidechain.

Sidechains is not their business model. They have built a business model on top of the sidechains technology. Anyone is free to do the same.

Open source

[Odalv]

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.

Wtf does brg444 know? Its crystal clear that SPVProof is where the real money is. 

Its crystal clear you have no clue. b/c you can use SPVProof as much as Blockstream can.

[brg444]

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.

Competition can switch will adapt to the new, better technology. If their previous scheme loses you think they will abandon coding and go work at Walmart?

Blockstream cannot block that and so Blockstream can not assure dominance over sidechains creation.

Open source

[brg444]

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.

Wtf does brg444 know? Its crystal clear that SPVProof is where the real money is. 

 

Explain?

Or provide an argument against this :

Government or corporations willing to exercise complete control over their sidechain and guarantee the security of it will avoid the uncertainty of MM and use the federated model.

SVProof is a protocol change for improve decentralization and inclusion of the sidechains into the mainchain. It is neutral opensource code. It is not a profit scheme or "where the real money is"

[Odalv]

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).   

You are right, but SPV proofs can be combined using multi-signatures and oracles. => SPV proof and/or oracle/authority signature are valid transactions too.

[cypherdoc]

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.

Wtf does brg444 know? Its crystal clear that SPVProof is where the real money is. 

Its crystal clear you have no clue. b/c you can use SPVProof as much as Blockstream can.

And that is exactly what Bitcoin is going to have to deal with add a result : thousands of not billions of entities using the SPVProof to siphon bitcoin away from MC thus destroying is Sound Money function by providing an off ramp to new assets be they speculative, nom speculative, or even altcoins as in TC

[brg444]

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

I'm cool with being forced temporarily into a federated model because it will provoke developments and relationships needed to make it a credible defense mechanism.  As such, it has the realistic potential to thwart various kinds of superior resources attacks (specifically 51% types and global network attack forms) as well as judicial ones.

Which is exactly why it is likely that Blockstream clients will prefer this model over MM unless they believe they create such a valuable utility that it should and will be supported by the whole network.

[cypherdoc]

Back to the bike!

[brg444]

And that is exactly what Bitcoin is going to have to deal with add a result : thousands of not billions of entities using the federated peg to siphon bitcoin away from MC thus destroying is Sound Money function by providing an off ramp to new assets be they speculative, nom speculative, or even altcoins as in TC

FTFY

Also, I'm sure people can't wait to gamble their wealth into these BILLIONS of SC  

Store of value? What the hell, who needs this, right !