Bitcoin Forum
September 24, 2017, 07:10:01 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.0.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   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 ... 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] 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1980601 times)
Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:51:11 PM
 #16841

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.
1506237001
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506237001

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506237001
Reply with quote  #2

1506237001
Report to moderator
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
.
|
.
|
          ▄█████▄
        ▄█████████▄
      ▄████▀   ▀████▄
    ▄████▀   ▄ ▄█▀████▄
  ▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▀████▄
▄████▀   ▄███▀   ▄   ▀████▄
█████   ███▀   ▄███   █████
▀████▄   ▀██▄▄███▀   ▄████▀
  ▀████▄   ▀███▀   ▄████▀
    ▀████▄       ▄████▀
      ▀████▄   ▄████▀
        ▀███  ████▀
          ▀█▄███▀
unthy
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1506237001
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506237001

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506237001
Reply with quote  #2

1506237001
Report to moderator
1506237001
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1506237001

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1506237001
Reply with quote  #2

1506237001
Report to moderator
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:52:10 PM
 #16842


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: 1162


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
November 14, 2014, 09:53:38 PM
 #16843

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
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:54:04 PM
 #16844

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:55:17 PM
 #16845


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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:55:26 PM
 #16846

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

"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: 1204



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:56:13 PM
 #16847

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 09:59:04 PM
 #16848

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

"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, 10:02:41 PM
 #16849

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. 

 Huh

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"

"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: 1204



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 10:04:19 PM
 #16850

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 10:04:44 PM
 #16851

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
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 10:05:17 PM
 #16852


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.

"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, 10:06:32 PM
 #16853

Back to the bike!
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 10:08:35 PM
 #16854

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  Cheesy

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


"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, 10:12:54 PM
 #16855

If SPV proofs make it into the core, and SPV proofs are wonderful additions to the Bitcoin economy, everyone starts using them, some very interesting Side Chains are created, and about 1/10th of all bitcoin is on various side chains.

Transactions on the MC have slowed, more transactions are now on side chains.

Bitcoin MC then gets 51% attacked, by miners not supporting OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.  The attacker pools swiftly verify those 1.3 million bitcoin that are on side chains, unlocking them, and dumping them on every exchange that has a bid of any size.

But there aren't enough bidders on any exchange, bitcoin price drops to $10 and they have only sold half of them so they mix the rest and disappear.

How does Bitcoin recover from this?  

This is a bit worse than your typical 51% enabling a double spend or two.

If SPV proofs make it into the core, and SPV proofs are wonderful additions to the Bitcoin economy, everyone starts using them, some very interesting Side Chains are created, and about 1/10th of all bitcoin is on various side chains.

then miners have every incentive to MM all of the interesting sidechains that support any significant value.

my hunch is the ones that cannot get this support from miners will turn to the federated server model

moreover, I don't see how the likelyhood of gathering 51% of the resources increase with sidechains. maybe I'm missing something?

"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
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 10:14:41 PM
 #16856

Back to the bike!



Keep working on it bro; it'll happen for you.


Odalv
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 10:15:19 PM
 #16857

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

We already explain you
1. SC already exists. => proven
2. SC using SPVProof are possible on current MC => proven
3. SC with FedPeg can be same as SC with SPVProof  => proven  -> only you are not able to show us how siphon works
4. ... "MC thus destroying is Sound Money" -> you are not able to prove ...
Adrian-x
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1372



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:20:49 PM
 #16858

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.  these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors.  these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges.  their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess.  but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it.  they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

mostly all of your arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof.

bitcoins being converted to represent assets is not a new proposition and something that will exist sidechain or not.
no. your still not getting it, all the arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof. There is no point in arguing those.

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains. This is the problem, creating SC with decentralized SPV proofs this changes the instructive that has given Bitcoin its value. this is the issue. 

Calling a federated 1:1 peg using m-of-n bitcoin addresses a SC, which can be done today the same thing as a SC that is decentralized and employes Merged Mining to proses SPV proofs with federated 1:1 peg is muddling the water, they are two separate technologies, one is available and fair, the other is a proposed protocol change that can upset the incentives that make Bitcoin money. 

Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:32:03 PM
 #16859

We already explain you
1. SC already exists. => proven
maybe.  i'll take your word for it.
Quote

2. SC using SPVProof are possible on current MC => proven

not proven.  we have not seen the math and it still is theoretical according to all i've read
Quote

3. SC with FedPeg can be same as SC with SPVProof  => proven  -> only you are not able to show us how siphon works

i don't have to.  i just have to believe that Blockstream has a monetary incentive to ensure that it does in fact happen.  otherwise, they don't make money from structuring these things for SC entities and they should give back the $15M that investors have handed over to them in the belief they can make this happen.
Quote
4. ... "MC thus destroying is Sound Money" -> you are not able to prove ...


i just showed you a viable path for these BTC to flow to SC enabled entities built specifically for this purpose by Blockstream for which they will be paid good money i'm sure to make it happen.  or else.
brg444
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 644

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks


View Profile
November 14, 2014, 11:33:47 PM
 #16860

by breaking the link back to the MC, you've broken Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.  these scBTC you're talking about will exist on inherently less secure SC entities whose ledger integrity will not be guaranteed as they will not be mined by independent, distributed, third party mining auditors.  these SC entities will allow conversion of scBTC to all manner of speculative assets like shares, bonds, contracts, derivatives of all types which will be traded on exchanges.  their value will fluctuate wildly and there will be winners and losers. mostly losers, i would guess.  but those assets will not be the Bitcoin Money as we know it.  they will be transformed.

this transformation must be taken all the way back to its root cause; the SPV proof.

mostly all of your arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof.

bitcoins being converted to represent assets is not a new proposition and something that will exist sidechain or not.
no. your still not getting it, all the arguments are shown to be irrelevant if we consider that sidechains can be implemented today without the SPV proof. There is no point in arguing those.

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains. This is the problem, creating SC with decentralized SPV proofs this changes the instructive that has given Bitcoin its value. this is the issue.  

Calling a federated 1:1 peg using m-of-n bitcoin addresses a SC, which can be done today the same thing as a SC that is decentralized and employes Merged Mining to proses SPV proofs with federated 1:1 peg is muddling the water, they are two separate technologies, one is available and fair, the other is a proposed protocol change that can upset the incentives that make Bitcoin money.  

Or improve them.

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains.

What about the theoretical issue of one moving a largent percent of value into federated peg chains.

Because if we end up with only federated server models then your concerns about miners incentives being removed are much more of a reality.

Whereas if we want to improve on the money functions of Bitcoin (transaction speed, anonymity) without sacrificing decentralization then we absolutely need SPVproofs sidechains.

So either we chose to enable these functions only through a federated server peg and cut miners incentive to process transactions or we give ourselves the option to use the best of both model.

Sidechains are an answer to a demand that exist and that will eventually be solved through more centralized schemes if sidechains are not implemented.

What is more dangerous for the miners and the ecosystem? To modify the incentive model to have them mine a group of chains where the value reside or bypass them through federated servers/oracles and remove their incentives to protect the network

"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
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 ... 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!