Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[brg444]

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address. 

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

[cypherdoc]

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.  

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

i'm not sure what you think you're fixing.

it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away.  inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing.

[brg444]

and you are one senile grampa

what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"

what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.

it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.

you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.

my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear

no, that's just been your misperception of my argument.  it's ALWAYS been about changing source code.

OH IS THAT RIGHT

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Well tough luck brothers, because the BTC unit CAN and WILL be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) by SIDECHAINS running on a federated server model. That very mechanism is possible without any change to the source code.

So...it seems my good man that Bitcoin as Money is broken ALREADY which brings me to ask you......







.... sold your Bitcoins already?

[tvbcof]

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

You cook the stuff yourself?

allowing the exit of BTC from its secure blockchain via the SPVproof breaks the whole concept of the Sound Money function of Bitcoin in my book.  whereas ppl would have been forced to buy into BTC to participate in Bitcoin, now they will be able to buy all sorts of SC speculative assets which will be derivatives of BTC, whether they be on federated servers or decentralized SC's.  Bitcoin won't be Bitcoin anymore thus ppl should willingly do this as BTC really won't have the ability to appreciate anymore as it will no longer represent Sound Money.  in essence, i see these speculative SC's, which Blockstream will be creating for fees, to be inflationary.  their ledgers will be hidden and opaque and insecure as i doubt they will be mined as MM has a limited capacity.

You sound like Peter Schiff with the appeals to the 'Sound Money' sloganeering.

Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.

[brg444]

this is where you are very wrong.

the Federated model SIDECHAINS allows a transformation of BTC to all manner of speculative assets by allowing an offramp to these speculative SC's with opaque ledgers and insecurity. this does 2 things; drains value from Bitcoin itself and increases attacks while on this insecure SC.  this is a totally different situation from a gox general deposit address which still exists on the Bitcoin blockchain and even if hacked just moves those BTC to the hackers new address.  

FTFY, again.

Sure what you describe is true, that is if you believe and trust gox to maintain full reserve. Unfortunately history has shown this to be a very shaky proposition

i'm not sure what you think you're fixing.

it matters not whether gox maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got deposited to the general deposit address was always there or got hacked away.  inflation applies to what was happening with goxBTC on the orderbooks which is not the same thing.

LOL you still don't get it do you? Notice the ol' SPVProof/Federated Sidechains switcharoo? See how it fits perfectly in there and remains true?

Got it? Probably not....

Lemme pull the same ol' trick :

it matters not whether the sidechain maintains full reserve.  whatever BTC got locked to the sidechain was always there or got "burned" away.  inflation applies to what was happening with scBTC on the sidechain which is not the same thing.

  cool no?

[cypherdoc]

and you are one senile grampa

what you keep emphasizing is your opposition to the detachement of the BTC asset from the BTC mainchain onto potentially speculative sidechains that could drain away the value off the BTC mainchain. I hope you did not forget this. If so I can gladly pull up your numerous posts that clearly imply this mechanism would "destroy Bitcoin"

what I keep emphasizing, which you are seemingly to stupid or disingenuous to comprehend, is that federated servers do exactly this.

it has never been a debate about changing the source code or not. so unless you are trying to move the goal post ONCE AGAIN, then at least make at attempt at being honest.

you concern is Bitcoin's Sound Money property.

my answer to your concern is you should see your bitcoins RIGHT NOW because SIDECHAINS using a federated model are this danger you so very much fear

no, that's just been your misperception of my argument.  it's ALWAYS been about changing source code.

OH IS THAT RIGHT

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Well tough luck brothers, because the BTC unit CAN and WILL be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) by SIDECHAINS running on a federated server model. That very mechanism is possible without any change to the source code.

So...it seems my good man that Bitcoin as Money is broken ALREADY which brings me to ask you......







.... sold your Bitcoins already?

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

[brg444]

the Blockstream bounty still applies btw  

nothing you've said has changed my mind.  in fact, its all crystallized it for me.

You cook the stuff yourself?

 

[cypherdoc]

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

[cypherdoc]

Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.

huh?  why would you think multi sig would be a threat?

[brg444]

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? Some fragment of your imagination created by your schyzophrenic mind? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.  

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.

[cypherdoc]

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.  

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.

so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear!  lol!

go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all.  let 'em do it.

as long as they don't change source.

[brg444]

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.

You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of.

[Jimmy_Zed]

Gold will hold above 1000 USD for ever, and will hit 5 K before 2020. Maybe even 10 K. BTC will follow.

[cypherdoc]

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.

You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of.

i read them but i ignore answering them b/c they are usually a bunch of shill bullshit and not worth the time.  you never listen to my answers anyway and certainly never answer any of my questions.

[brg444]

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.  

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.

so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear!  lol!

go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all.  let 'em do it.

as long as they don't change source.

Should we really run a list of your argument beginning at the start of this discussion?

Do you even remember this one?

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore   How dare you !  

[tvbcof]

Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.

huh?  why would you think multi sig would be a threat?

I didn't say 'threat'.  I said 'funny' in the context of how money normally works.  Contrast it to 'sound'.

I had some concerns that the added complexity would produce attack modes that nobody anticipated.  So far it has not seemed to...unless one has some absurd idea that sidechains are a threat and some of these mechanisms might be used to facilitate federations and such.

[cypherdoc]

Anyway p2sh and the multi-sig support and such is far more significant protocol level stuff than the modest proposals to better support sidechains.  If all that stuff doesn't turn Bitcoin into 'Funny Money' (note the capitalization appropriate for religious-tinted dogma) then I don't know what does.  That didn't kill Bitcoin.  I myself was actually concerned that it would, but not for phony-baloney economic reasons.

huh?  why would you think multi sig would be a threat?

I didn't say 'threat'.  I said 'funny' in the context of how money normally works.  Contrast it to 'sound'.

I had some concerns that the added complexity would produce attack modes that nobody anticipated.  So far it has not seemed to...unless one has some absurd idea that sidechains are a threat and some of these mechanisms might be used to facilitate federations and such.

you don't think SC's are vulnerable to attack?  how does that help Bitcoin?  but also how does forcing a choice btwn corpGovCoin and PaypalCoin help any of us?

[cypherdoc]

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source.  even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step.  i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons.  the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above.  i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.  

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.

so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear!  lol!

go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all.  let 'em do it.

as long as they don't change source.

Should we really run a list of your argument beginning at the start of this discussion?

Do you even remember this one?

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore   How dare you !  

you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit.  plus, federated servers don't change the source code and force all of us to scramble to adjust our strategies based on a disruption of the mining equilibrium as well as user disincentives to further utilize Bitcoin as Sound Money as it will have been broken by an SPVproof.

[cypherdoc]

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.

You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of.

do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems?  it just shows how young and immature you are.

they just laugh at you like i do.

[Bagatell]

you mean like this trick?

i'm an asshole.

Everytime you resort to ignoring my comments I smile knowing I've won that argument.

You are a sad, sad person cypher. I hope you get some help. This pathetic ego of yours is digging you a hole from where you'll have a hard time climbing out of.

do you really think ppl actually listen to your bullshit ad hominems?  it just shows how young and immature you are.

they just laugh at you like i do.

Pots and kettles..