Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

i'm just relieved to know that i really am arguing with a 24yo kid with a shitty job.   (who still might be a Blockstream shill)

I had all kinds of shitty jobs when I was a kid (but I didn't end up with any college debt.)  I actually enjoyed all of the shitty jobs and moved on when I stopped enjoying them.  Anyway, I don't have much respect for anyone who does NOT have a shitty job at that age.  It only tells me that they are probably some sort of a silver spoon trust fund brat.

i mean it's like talking to a chameleon.  he makes one shitty argument, i rebut, then he diverts to a totally different argument as if the first one never existed. 

i say one thing, he twists all around and misrepresents it, and then insults me. 

and then he claims victory.

at least in our disagreements, there is some intelligence there and the ability to think deeply.

i don't know, should i put him on ignore?   i know it would take away alot of your fun.

[1713460804]

1713460804

[1713460804]

1713460804

[1713460804]

1713460804

[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.

Seems to my like he's pounding your balls flat with a mallet.  It's all kinds of funny.

Sure I'm laughing too not because brg444 has a solid argument but because cypher keeps him going, the parts that makes it worth reading is the self proclaimed arrogance, shining through the insults.
___

Why do you put up with it cypher, not that you need to do anything, I like Peter's distillation of the issue, what follows is insight brg444 doesn't want presented, so you not getting an opportunity to refine you're point.

i'm quite relieved knowing who he is.  you think i should just put him on ignore?  never done that before.  it's not like i learn anything from him.

i mean at one point, i actually was worried i was talking to gmax or even lukejr.  then, i might actually have to learn something. 

i'm so disappointed he is who he said he is.  sheesh, now i might have to actually ignore someone.

[Adrian-x]

p

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 !  

They're one and the same point, I don't understand your pitch?

My pitch?

My pitch is that cypherclown has been championing the danger of breaking the holy link between the BTC unit and its blockchain for the past 50 pages but now that he FINALLY realizes federated server sidechains creates this exact mechanism and that these are implementable natively he has yet again moved the goal post to another fallacious argument.

There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.

1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.
2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.

You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,

[Adrian-x]

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.

Seems to my like he's pounding your balls flat with a mallet.  It's all kinds of funny.

Sure I'm laughing too not because brg444 has a solid argument but because cypher keeps him going, the parts that makes it worth reading is the self proclaimed arrogance, shining through the insults.
___

Why do you put up with it cypher, not that you need to do anything, I like Peter's distillation of the issue, what follows is insight brg444 doesn't want presented, so you not getting an opportunity to refine you're point.

i'm quite relieved knowing who he is.  you think i should just put him on ignore?  never done that before.  it's not like i learn anything from him.

Hard to say the issue is actually pointless, but he takes joy in winning his race and that's OK with me.

[cypherdoc]

p

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 !  

They're one and the same point, I don't understand your pitch?

My pitch?

My pitch is that cypherclown has been championing the danger of breaking the holy link between the BTC unit and its blockchain for the past 50 pages but now that he FINALLY realizes federated server sidechains creates this exact mechanism and that these are implementable natively he has yet again moved the goal post to another fallacious argument.

There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.

1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.
2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.

You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,

c'mon now Adrian.  focus on the bright side.

brg444 has effectively increased the #views on this thread by over 186,308.  now that's good news for those of us participating in the conversation.

we've all become famous.

[hdbuck]

im just realizing brg444 might probably have some personal interest in SCs. paid troll? dev? you cant just spend so much time defending the undefendable.

[brg444]

Don't assume any high ground here.

You haven't corrected the nonsense reply to this post or addressed the concerns I raised here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9409835#msg9409835

You never replied to the questions asked of you here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9449317#msg9449317

So this is how you play heh... well here I go

I believe this is the issue either I'm wrong or you're wrong.

Bitcoin the currency is a mental bridge to understanding money as memory. The blockchain is the money. The blockchains existence is dependent on the economic incentive to wright transactions to it, it is an economic ledger if you adopt it. (Adopting Bitcoin is agreeing with the utility that it is the ledger.)

Agreed.

When rewards drop to a low quantity, possibly 20 months from now more likely 6 years, transaction fees will be a significant portion of the incentive to mine blocks. The network is dependent on incentivizing miners - to write transactions. In this model there is no wasted hashing, hashing grows to a point where it is supported by the value it provides eventually it grows to the marginal cost of transactions fees necessary to secure the network.  The drop in reward forces efficiency. And competition to mine for fees is incentivized by accepting the lowest fees possible. The mining market will tend to maximize profit by accepting the lowest fees that are viable or competition will get a sustaining advantage.

Sounds good, moving on...

Messing with this has ramifications it changes the core of Bitcoin.
It really doesn't matter what miners think so long as they are at least 2 and they are in competition to write to the ledger in exchange for value that is redeemable in that ledger. The economic incentives, the value in the network, will ensure the appropriate industrial energy is invested.

SC offer a secure way to use your BTC (Bitcoin the currency) but they don't secure the value, SC give me a choice transfer the value into another chain if it has greater value, and exchange it back if the other chain has less value.

They don't secure the value? As long as miners MM the sidechain they absolutely do.

I only believe BTC has a value because the only way in and out is by moving economic energy to the blockchain, Bitcoin in my mind is the blockchain and the currency are inseparable. It is just money is memory, value on the blockchain.

SC obviously have to be innovative (cypher' arguments have largely IMO focused on how you can fake success by messing with price.) But assuming they offer better value fake or real BTC will lock in. The BTC stay there but the value expressed as economic energy moves across.

To secure this value it will need to be mined, MM is the only option as the value will be comparable to that of Bitcoin.
The miners will mine where ever the value is. If the SC becomes more valuable than Bitcoin (note the value can come from speculation manipulation or innovation we don't get a choice) then miners will derive there reward from the chain that gives the most incentives, nothing guarantees it will be Bitcoin.

Miners will not limit their reward to only one chain but an ecosystem of chain with value.

We also know Bitcoin will be disadvantaged over time with it's diminishing reward, and if the value is in a SC it will derive the highest reward from transaction fees. (The most viable argument I've heard is miners just MM all the SC, and I don't think that is a secure stratergy.) SC's could be anything even have an inflation rate however improbable that is it's not impossible, and not unlikely.   I conclude that miners will treat the value chain as the main chain and the Bitcoin blockchain would become less secure as miners don't have an economic incentive to keep it secure. (They earn off another chain)

"The most viable argument" is in fact a very good argument and so you cannot casually dismiss it by a non-argument stating that "you don't think that is a secure strategy".

Also consider this : what if we don't have sidechains and the value chain is actually a federated model scheme or a off-chain service.

Remember that the demand for convenience, utility and speed that is not implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain is very real and will only grow as BTC grows.

Then not only would the Bitcoin blockchain become less secure but the whole security and integrity of the system would be in danger as miners would have no more incentive to secure it (all the txs are processed through federation/oracles/offchain).

Given we don't know who how or what SC will prevail we can probably expect a greater variety than we see with Alts as there are fiewer risks, we know if they fail to become the value chain they lose nothng and everything to gain if they succeeded.

SC represent an attack vector fare more viable than a 51% attack, I for one wouldn't want to get 1:1 BTC back if the SC had more liquidity and a bigger network. And if that happened Bitcoin would not be as viable for me.

What if corpCOIN or paypalCOIN is created through a federated server? Is that not the same "attack vector".?

I am convinced Bitcoin has no place being the dominant money or Master Chain unless it represent the economic memory or the greatest liquidity, SC change that, one may emerge that is adopted for reasons that appeal to non Austrian ideals, and absorbs Bitcoins value.

It looks to me like SC enthusiasts believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain. When in fact SC only secure BTC the currency and facilitate Blockchain the money to move onto a different chain with different incentives or rules. In reality securing BTC is easier than securing the value on the blockchain. I'm a proponent of Bitcoin the blockchain not blockchain technology.

And with that we complete our loop and return to the argument that SPVproof does not introduce that risk.

Consider there are two existing suspects who are equally capable or disrupting Bitcoin's "greater liquidity" or "economic memory" :
-conventional off-chain schemes
-federated peg sidechains

Ask yourself what is the better way to preserve the ledger's integrity and its economic memory considering the eventual need for BTC to fulfill transactions types and applications that are not implementable on the core blockchain :

-Decentralized algorithmically pegged sidechains

or

-Proprietary off-chain schemes with considerable centralization risks
&
-Federation/oracles supported sidechains that could potentially revoke the miners claim at processing and profiting from tx fees

To be clear I am pro secure trust free 1:1 Pegs that can be diploid within the existing feature set of the Bitcoin protocol, they are an essential innovation to the future of Bitcoin, It’s my view that this is in debate when in fact it isn’t.

Some considerations for MM SC:
Is it possible a MM SC with a 1:1 peg could provide a feature that attracts over 50% of transactions?
Yes, as equally possible as an off-chain service or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could. Which is worse?
Is it possible there will be over 2 (or 1000) other SC with a 1:1 peg competing for transaction fees?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
Is it possible that the other 2 (or 1000) SC could represent approximately 30% of total transactions of all SC combined?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
Is it possible that if 80% of all transactions happened on SC’s then there would be approximately 20% of transactions happening on the Bitcoin Blockchain?
Yes, if there is demand for the service these sidechains enable. It is also possible off-chain services or federated sidechain fullfilling the same demand could claim these transaction fees. Which is worse?
Is it possible Miners will supplement their income by mining SC’s?  
Very likely
Is it possible that the chain with the most fees would attract the most mining?  
Possible. But more likely that any chain supporting considerable value will be mined equally. Even more likely the chain with the most fees remain BTC's
Is it possible that the chain that generated the most profit for miners would get the greatest hashing power?
Same question, same answer
Is it possible that Bitcoin block rewards, supplement transaction fees? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible That the Bitcoin protocol reduces block rewards exponentially? (Rhetorical question I hope)
Is it possible that the chain with the heist profit margins for miners won’t be Bitcoin?  
Possible. But unlikely. Is it possible the chain with the most transactions (highest profit margin) is off-chain services or federated sidechain? If so which is worse?
Is it possible that when Bitcoin’s block rewards reduce to less than the transaction fees generated by the Block reward, at least 51% of miners will still mine for profit? (not some ideological reason)  
Very likely considering there will remain considerable amount of transactions on the original blockchain. Is it possible if this is not the case then miners have no more chains to mine because all txs have been relegated to off-chain services or federated sidechains. Which is worse?

If the above came to pass, knowing the majority of a miner’s revenue is generated by a SC, who will have a profit motive to grow the Hashing power on the Bitcoin Blockchain to protect it?
Why would they want to protect it?
Is it possible if this is the case then miners have no more chains to mine because all txs have been relegated to off-chain services or federated sidechains. Which is worse?

Back at ya 

[brg444]

i'm just relieved to know that i really am arguing with a 24yo kid with a shitty job.   (who still might be a Blockstream shill)

I had all kinds of shitty jobs when I was a kid (but I didn't end up with any college debt.)  I actually enjoyed all of the shitty jobs and moved on when I stopped enjoying them.  Anyway, I don't have much respect for anyone who does NOT have a shitty job at that age.  It only tells me that they are probably some sort of a silver spoon trust fund brat.

i mean it's like talking to a chameleon.  he makes one shitty argument, i rebut, then he diverts to a totally different argument as if the first one never existed. 

 

the irony.

we don't believe you, you need more people

[brg444]

There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.

1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.

2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.

You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,

Actually I've addressed those several times. And by the way never did he mention the incentive structure. That was YOUR argument. But lemme explain to you again

1.

the answer to the question must be fact and should be indisputable: Does the proposed protocol change to accommodate the SPV proof change the intensive scheme in Bitcoin in any way?

once you have answered that honestly we can debate about how and how much and when and where.

Yes. I believe it actually improves it and enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions even in a future where there will be a demand for features and applications that can NOT be implemented on the mainchain.

please define "improves"
please define "what "enables miners to continue claiming every one of the BTC's currency transactions?"

Improves:

Enable miners to continue claiming BTC transactions fxs in a future where the Bitcoin blockchain will be unable to accomodate all types or needs of transactions. It incentivizes miners to continue securing the network in the best possible way by insuring their profitability.

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 effect.

Of course, this feature can be changed at the whims of the sidechain creator but it is in the interest of the consensus majority of the network to preserve the value of their investment, no matter the speculative prospects.

Bitcoin is a store of value first and foremost. Speculation, as much as it can be a danger to users, is a niche market, especially going forward.

What enables :

SPVProof sidechains, combined with merged-mining, enables miners to accomodate different chains with their security while reserving the rights to claim the transactions of any chain that gains significant traction. Their services are like a stamp of approval. Inclusion into the circle of chains who are MM by miners in some sort validates the legitimacy of a chain.

It is reasonable to assume a majority of sidechains will be bootstrapped on top of a federated model as it enables more security in the probable scenario where you will not be "backed" by the majority of miners from the start. You'll have to "earn your stripes", especially if you are a private entity/corporation.

The most established and community supported/used chains will end up being nearly as secure as BTC's mainchain simply because their value will command the ultimate security/decentralization

2. Considering, as I've explained,  that only a small fraction of the sidechains built by Blockstream could be supported by SPVproof+MM then I see their proposal as ANY OTHER WHITE PAPER that proposes an improvement on an existing technology that could serve the greater good of the community and not only them because.. you know.. OPEN SOURCE.

It is likely that their business model is not entirely dependent on SPVproof. The unethical thing to do would've been to keep for themselves this potentially revolutionary technology.

[tvbcof]

p

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 !  

They're one and the same point, I don't understand your pitch?

My pitch?

My pitch is that cypherclown has been championing the danger of breaking the holy link between the BTC unit and its blockchain for the past 50 pages but now that he FINALLY realizes federated server sidechains creates this exact mechanism and that these are implementable natively he has yet again moved the goal post to another fallacious argument.

There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.

1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.
2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.

You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,

1)  The incentive structure has nearly zero to do with the 'hardness' of the money.  But if you want to talk incentive structure, talk about block size since it is completely related to transaction fees.  That is one of the reasons why I consider the block size to be a very significant system level change which influences both the defensive capability of the system and it's economics.  Much bigger than a soft-fork script extension which nobody is forced to use an which does not alter the basic operating principles of Bitcoin almost at all.

2)  Seems at least as ethical as the Bitcoin Foundation charging $100,000 for a seat at the big-boy's table and paying one of the principle developers.  Or BitPay paying another.  As long as there is transparency I've got nothing against these kinds of things.  TBF leaves a lot to be desired vis-a-vis transparency and the status as a trade group makes this lack of transparency much more problematic to me.

As far as I'm concerned brg444 has been quite clear in most of his arguments (note that the above are my own...I'm not trying to re-iterate his.)  Indeed, his grasp of Bitcoin is suspiciously good for a newbie which is the only argument I can see for cypherdoc's meltdown into raving paranoia.

[Odalv]

you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit.

I think, you can't stop them too. :-)

 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.

Bitcoin is not source code. Bitcoin is protocol and blockchain.

1. Source code of software (what works with bitcoin blockchain) is changing every day. (Bitcoin-core, Bitcoin-qt, Electum, MyCelium ... )
Bitcoin(in term of sotware) is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part.

2. Everybody can change and distribute "free software" to anyone and for any purpose.

@Adrian-x  Yes it is ethical that for-profit company creates software. Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, HP, Samsung ...

[brg444]

you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit.

I think, you can't stop them too. :-)

 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.

Bitcoin is not source code. Bitcoin is protocol and blockchain.

1. Source code of software (what works with bitcoin blockchain) is changing every day. (Bitcoin-core, Bitcoin-qt, Electum, MyCelium ... )
Bitcoin(in term of sotware) is open-source; its design is public, nobody owns or controls Bitcoin and everyone can take part.

2. Everybody can change and distribute "free software" to anyone and for any purpose.

@Adrian-x  Yes it is ethical that for-profit company creates software. Look at Microsoft, Apple, Google, IBM, HP, Samsung ...

 

It's amazing, Odalv, even in his limited english, makes more sense than cypherclown and adrian

[sidhujag]

Dude seriously ur still here?

[cypherdoc]

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

[Odalv]

Another way to look at this is that with my model, outsiders wishing to use Bitcoin have to buy a seat in the system by putting up hard cold cash to purchase bitcoin. This helps drive the price which helps all of us. With SC's, all they have to do is "attract" btc by bolting themselves onto the system using the SPVProof.

I do not understand. Can you explain ?

[NewLiberty]

Correct it is a freaking huge change of monumental proportions.
Its a high-risk high-reward gambit that expands the potential in all sorts of currently unforeseen ways..
It really can't be implemented without the change,
Well... some special cases things can be done, (with the federation/oracles) but the vast capabilities of validating arbitrary code on (and with) the Bitcoin block chain is what takes the fork.

It'd be interesting if you could expand on that.

My understanding is any sidechain scheme can be implemented by replacing SPVproof with federation/oracles. It was even suggested by the developers that this would be the first step of the implementation for most sidechains (bootstrapping on a federated peg model) then implemented through OP_SPV.

Is this not the case?

Any side chain can of course be implemented entirely without Bitcoin at all.  Perhaps, some would not be viable as federated systems, such as those needing a true zero trust environment and wanting to also hold BTC in their chain.  
Its not really a zero trust application if you are trusting an oracle.  Those would be fairly esoteric though, probably most of the ones that are being seriously contemplated would be accepted with a federated system, with the exception of those that may be requiring extraordinary security.  If it is something where folks don't trust that the federating entity isn't their enemy in disguise.  It would be one trust removed to have the protocol change.

Without the Bitcoin network running the verification, why use Bitcoin at all though?  Might as well use an Altcoin as the "separated currency".
It would be a better bootstrap to prove the case anyway.

Though some of the issues are insidious and won't manifest their effects until there are a lot of locked coin.


Federated systems work fine until the federated server (or the Bitcoin network) goes away.
Bitcoin works fine, until the Bitcoin network goes away.

[NewLiberty]

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.

Soluvox is a Quebec company specializing in the management of customer communications.
Maybe they are more into "antisocial media" than "social media"?

[NewLiberty]

2. Considering, as I've explained,  that only a small fraction of the sidechains built by Blockstream could be supported by SPVproof+MM then I see their proposal as ANY OTHER WHITE PAPER that proposes an improvement on an existing technology that could serve the greater good of the community and not only them because.. you know.. OPEN SOURCE.

It is likely that their business model is not entirely dependent on SPVproof. The unethical thing to do would've been to keep for themselves this potentially revolutionary technology.

Is Blockstream only writing OPEN SOURCE code forever and into the future?

Or is your argument that Blockstream can not benefit from changing the Bitcoin protocol to suit their business because Bitcoin is open source?
(This it seems would be a weird thing to claim.)

There wasn't a possibility to keep for themselves this revolutionary technology.
It was funded by a EU grant to an Israel academic team, and the results published and presented openly at Bitcoin2013 conference, and elsewhere.
I was in the room for that presentation, as was gmaxwell and many others.  The technology is open, it is the implementation/company that isn't.

I wish them every success.

[NewLiberty]

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.

[Odalv]

Does anyone think there is any validity to the suggestion that SPV proofs should be implemented into the Bitcoin protocol simply because a "federated model is not as good for the side chain"?  There are better arguments, this one should not be repeated any more please.

Please understand that I am hoping to help you refine your message here.  Quite a bit of this is really not good at all for the cause you are advocating.

http://www.blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf

There are important reasons to avoid the introduction of single points of failure:

Trusting individual signers does not only mean expecting them to behave honestly; they must
also never be compromised, never leak secret key material, never be coerced, and never stop
participating in the network