Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Adrian-x]

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

I'm into improving Bitcoin, but I think we need agreement on what is wrong with it and why it should be improved, there are lots of BIS in the pipe, I just what to know what's wrong with Bitcoin that the SC proposal is supposed to fix  "improve"?

Ive been doing product development for over 20 years, and if there is one lesson I've learned the hard way it is if it isn't broken don't fix it. not that thats my position with SC's  

brg444 could squash my position in 2 words and make my case very tedious to prove, the thought of reading through more A.D.D. rhetoric is not comforting, and I'll probably crawl back into my shell, or he can carry on all A.D.D. like and I wont have to present my position again.  

[brg444]

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

Please bestow us with your wisdom of these indisputable facts or shut the hell up.

That was Adrian-x's challenge to you, your response was your belief in a potential future.
I was defending you.  He did a switch up on you, and challenged you to change your argumentation style. and for that you attack me?

You aren't even turning out to be a good rhetorician.  You can't even tell who is on your side.

he's so frantic to shill for Blockstream, you'd think he was being paid by them to do so.

my job is to confront trolls who spread FUD and misinformation. I'd say I did a pretty good job with you

[brg444]

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

I'm into improving Bitcoin, but I think we need agreement on what is wrong with it and why it should be improved, there are lots of BIS in the pipe, I just what to know what's wrong with Bitcoin that the SC proposal is supposed to fix  "improve"?

Ive been doing product development for over 20 years, and if there is one lesson I've learned the hard way it is if it isn't broken don't fix it. not that thats my position with SC's  

brg444 could squash my position in 2 words and make my case very tedious to prove, the thought of reading through more A.D.D. rhetoric is not comforting, and I'll probably crawl back into my shell, or he can carry on all A.D.D. like and I wont have to present my position again.  

You could at least adress my answers to your questions.

[Adrian-x]

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

Please bestow us with your wisdom of these indisputable facts or shut the hell up.

That was Adrian-x's challenge to you, your response was your belief in a potential future.
I was defending you.  He did a switch up on you, and challenged you to change your argumentation style. and for that you attack me?

You aren't even turning out to be a good rhetorician.  You can't even tell who is on your side.

 

well sorry about that. but your obscure 1 liner with no reference had me confused.

I think it reflects on your ego, and mental disposition. facts shouldn't require ego, but threatening to mess with the incentive structure that gives my bitcoins value is something worth debating.  

[Adrian-x]

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

Please bestow us with your wisdom of these indisputable facts or shut the hell up.

That was Adrian-x's challenge to you, your response was your belief in a potential future.
I was defending you.  He did a switch up on you, and challenged you to change your argumentation style. and for that you attack me?

You aren't even turning out to be a good rhetorician.  You can't even tell who is on your side.

he's so frantic to shill for Blockstream, you'd think he was being paid by them to do so.

my job is to confront trolls who spread FUD and misinformation. I'd say I did a pretty good job with you

define: "job" in that statement?

[brg444]

I think it reflects on your ego, and mental disposition. facts shouldn't require ego, but threatening to mess with the incentive structure that gives my bitcoins value is something worth debating.  

well then will you be debating will anything else than ad hominem attacks?

care to bring some arguments that support your position and poke some holes in mine?

[NewLiberty]

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

I'm into improving Bitcoin, but I think we need agreement on what is wrong with it and why it should be improved, there are lots of BIS in the pipe, I just what to know what's wrong with Bitcoin that the SC proposal is supposed to fix  "improve"?

Ive been doing product development for over 20 years, and if there is one lesson I've learned the hard way it is if it isn't broken don't fix it. not that thats my position with SC's  

brg444 could squash my position in 2 words and make my case very tedious to prove, the thought of reading through more A.D.D. rhetoric is not comforting, and I'll probably crawl back into my shell, or he can carry on all A.D.D. like and I wont have to present my position again.  

It may be meant to be a new feature, rather than a fix.
Seeing how it works out on an altcoin that has some value (or two) before experimenting on Bitcoin with it, would be beneficial
It changes some incentives... and how that plays out may be more interesting than we imagine, for it is uncharted territory.

[Adrian-x]

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

I'm into improving Bitcoin, but I think we need agreement on what is wrong with it and why it should be improved, there are lots of BIS in the pipe, I just what to know what's wrong with Bitcoin that the SC proposal is supposed to fix  "improve"?

Ive been doing product development for over 20 years, and if there is one lesson I've learned the hard way it is if it isn't broken don't fix it. not that thats my position with SC's  

brg444 could squash my position in 2 words and make my case very tedious to prove, the thought of reading through more A.D.D. rhetoric is not comforting, and I'll probably crawl back into my shell, or he can carry on all A.D.D. like and I wont have to present my position again.  

You could at least adress my answers to your questions.

your input confirms my argument, I unfortunately (fortunately actually) have better things to do in a Friday evening, so I won't be taking the time this evening, or this weekend unless your poke my ego.
I'll come back to it as my job permits next week. None the less i gave you an opportunity to think about the 2 words that would make it difficult to prove my case.

[Adrian-x]

Is it even fair to ask a rhetorician for concise facts that should be indisputable?

I'm into improving Bitcoin, but I think we need agreement on what is wrong with it and why it should be improved, there are lots of BIS in the pipe, I just what to know what's wrong with Bitcoin that the SC proposal is supposed to fix  "improve"?

Ive been doing product development for over 20 years, and if there is one lesson I've learned the hard way it is if it isn't broken don't fix it. not that thats my position with SC's  

brg444 could squash my position in 2 words and make my case very tedious to prove, the thought of reading through more A.D.D. rhetoric is not comforting, and I'll probably crawl back into my shell, or he can carry on all A.D.D. like and I wont have to present my position again.  

It may be meant to be a new feature, rather than a fix.
Seeing how it works out on an altcoin that has some value (or two) before experimenting on Bitcoin with it, would be beneficial
It changes some incentives... and how that plays out may be more interesting than we imagine, for it is uncharted territory.

I have no doubt it is uncharted territory or, it'll be more interesting than I can imagine, there are some inevitable outcomes one can predict, and there is also the ongoing experiment that is Bitcoin. The Bitcoin experiment is headed into uncharted territory with many interesting outcomes, too. I like experimentation, not sure I like experimenting on experiments without a control.

[NewLiberty]

On that we agree.  It would be nice to see some controlled experimentation first....

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.

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

As Charlie Munger, Warren Buffett's long-time business partner said: “Show me the incentive and I will show you the outcome”.

This incentive remains a bit troubling.  There should be a way to defeat it other than requiring multi-sig and oracle/authorities for every SPV transaction.
The troubling part is that it would be insidious.  The incentive would build gradually as the sum of all SPV'd coins' UXTOs would grow over time.

I wasn't particularly pleased with Luke's idea of a test plan on their AMA:

RaptorXP40 - 23-Oct-2014 17:56
Do you have a plan for testing side-chains before the new script operators are implemented in Bitcoin (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY and the other ones)?
luke-jr60 - 23-Oct-2014 18:00
Yes, that's what the federated peg in Appendix A is for. We can use that to make a sidechain without any changes to Bitcoin today, and implement the pegging opcodes there. When everyone is satisfied the pegging code is complete and stable, we just migrate the main chain over.

[cypherdoc]

the answer is, there is nothing wrong with Bitcoin.

it's a nascent currency that is going up against the world's greatest powers in both the political and financial world and all we see is increasing adoption globally.  more and more exchanges are coming online along with payment processors.  we've had a record year in merchant adoption and tx volumes are growing and just hit an all time high.  VC capital investments are at record highs and you can feel the increasing momentum in the news if you care to follow closely:







hashrate has experienced record growth and is finally leveling off as it has reached a rate that has successfully secured our precious network.  NOW is the time for all the $ pouring into mining to be diverted into the price.  but SC's threaten to disrupt this delicate equilibrium:



the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks.  where did all that FUD go?  and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:



and as far as volatility of the price goes, this is normal price action.  the fact that we are still way up here at $397 speaks volumes that Bitcoin is here to stay.  everything is going as planned and gold is suffering as i predicted and will soon be a feeder source for Bitcoin.  if we get a financial crisis that will help too.  all we have to do is not fuck it up. and that means having patience.  and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.  it will also send a bad message and establish a precedent for criticism from outsiders.  the business of Money cannot be conflicted if we want nations and all classes of ppl to buy in.

who cares about the 10 min block time?  really?  that's about what it takes for a decentralized network to synchronize worldwide.  the network needs that time to prevent attacks.  who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.  and if you really want you can mix your coins or do a Coinjoin.  no problem.  there are many issues that keep being debated but Bitcoin keeps grinding on.

many, many ppl always call for major changes at the bottom of these cycles.  i've seen it 5x.  brg444 is a newbie around since February.  he has no experience in the Bitcoin arena if we are to believe what he has said.  

we've got a great opportunity to make major changes for the better in the financial system.  just be patient and hodl.

[iCEBREAKER]

hard to tell what topic we are on now. I came in here to talk about gold markets...obviously not the convo here

Gold has been discussed to a point of conclusion.

The new convo is about the magnitude of increased technical/economic attack surface created by scamchains.

[brg444]

the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks.  where did all that FUD go?  and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:

What are you talking about?   When have I ever tried to scare people? You've been doing a good job at it ever since we started discussing sidechains

and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.

The reality is there is plenty of things wrong about Bitcoin if we want it to effectively change the world of money as we think it will.

At its core it is unfortunately very limited. There may be good reasons for this but if we're gonna have the world's economy sitting on top of this thing, status quo does not cut it.

It's like trying to invent the internet with only TCP/IP. It is very shortsighted to imagine Bitcoin is perfect as is and needs not to improve. This thing need to develop and be able to adapt to the new realities.

The simple fact that schemes like Counterparty, Ethereum, Coloredcoins are getting traction is a clear representation of a demand and a need for such additional layer built on top of Bitcoin and that the Bitcoin blockchain alone does not suffice.

The decision is whether or not we want these layers to be as equally decentralized as Bitcoin in the event that a majority of us gets to use them. Read this again, maybe you'll get a clue.

It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.

This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it,  then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network

who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.

Please don't make me laugh...

i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity.  therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.

since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?

[cypherdoc]

the same doom and gloom ppl like brg444 were trying to scare us all about 51% attacks.  where did all that FUD go?  and now just look at the evening out of the pooling percentages just as i predicted according to the Pure Strategy Nash Equilibrium:

What are you talking about?   When have I ever tried to scare people? You've been doing a good job at it ever since we started discussing sidechains

and that means stopping any conflicted, self interested, unethical group from coming in and changing the rules of the game which will destroy confidence in Bitcoin as Sound Money.

The reality is there is plenty of things wrong about Bitcoin if we want it to effectively change the world of money as we think it will.

At its core it is unfortunately very limited. There may be good reasons for this but if we're gonna have the world's economy sitting on top of this thing, status quo does not cut it.

It's like trying to invent the internet with only TCP/IP. It is very shortsighted to imagine Bitcoin is perfect as is and needs not to improve. This thing need to develop and be able to adapt to the new realities.

The simple fact that schemes like Counterparty, Ethereum, Coloredcoins are getting traction is a clear representation of a demand and a need for such additional layer built on top of Bitcoin and that the Bitcoin blockchain alone does not suffice.

The decision is whether or not we want these layers to be as equally decentralized as Bitcoin in the event that a majority of us gets to use them. Read this again, maybe you'll get a clue.

It is an improvement on the current situation where transactions are ALREADY tending to be processed off-chain for convenience, speed and utility. Given the absolute existence and growth of demand for transactions types that are not implementable on the Bitcoin sidechain, the exodus of transactions to off-chain schemes is a rational concern going forward.

This is not only true with concern to miners and their transaction fees but also because for the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger. Off-chain schemes inherently require additional trust in that the ledger will be preserved. The most likely suspects to inflate Bitcoin in its current state are these off-chain schemes. SPVProof sidechains enables the possibility to ensure the conservation of the ledger on a protocol level. With this we potentially eliminate fractional reserve schemes. If your chain/service/application do not recognize and preserve my stake in the ledger, at the extent that I am not looking to speculate on it,  then you will not have my money and neither will you profit from the ledger's network

who really needs absolute anonymity?  sure, for illegal stuff.  but most of us don't do that.

Please don't make me laugh...

i believe the vast majority of BTC holders value anonymity.  therefore perfect anonymity should be better than pseudonymity.

since that's the case, why wouldn't you then move ALL your BTC into scBTC?

I'm so glad we got to the bottom of this.

brg444 and Blockstream are here to fix Bitcoin.

All hail to the new Fedstream!

[notme]

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).   

That makes sense, thanks for clearing it up.

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.

They can't jam anything through.  The developers still need to get miners to run their code.

[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.

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

I agree. Whitepaper gives them name "Co-signed SPV proofs"

[Odalv]

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.

[Erdogan]

hard to tell what topic we are on now. I came in here to talk about gold markets...obviously not the convo here

Tell us about gold and the Islamic State.

[hdbuck]

hard to tell what topic we are on now. I came in here to talk about gold markets...obviously not the convo here

Tell us about gold and the Islamic State.

is ISIS gog or magog? ^^

[NewLiberty]

Sure they CAN be combined with multi-sig and oracles.  But if this is not ALWAYS done (and it appears that it is likely to in fact be rare) then each SPV proof that does not so combine them, increases the incentive for a 51% attack (with miners not running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY support, due to the ability to unlock SPV locked coins, and perhaps make some use of them).

If you have big enough user base then even 100% hash power attack cannot spend this BTC b/c it is not valid transaction.

1. you can ignore OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY
2. if some miner will add transaction what will spent BTC from address using OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY  into block  without valid "SideChain proof"  then this block will be ignored b/c it will contain invalid tx.

Thanks, I've been intrigued on the details of that since the San Jose 2013BF conference.
This was something that Eli Ben-Sasson worked out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRcPReUpkcU

The TX are invalid for nodes running OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, but if not...
This is an implementation of this SCIP (Succinct Computational Integrity and Privacy) so it has to be checked, yes?

It struck me as the opening of the window for deterministic computing.
Essentially verifiability of what all computers are doing all the time.
It sets up a powerful framework.  Terrifying, important, and exciting.
I get why the core devs want to work on it.  New math changes things.