Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[cypherdoc]

I really don't see what the big stink is about Side Chains. So they change the Bitcoin protocol a little, big deal. As long as it doesn't break the current technology and only changes the human incentives, then there is no problem. If the new incentives don't work, then they will be rejected. If the new incentives do work, then Bitcoin grows stronger. The change to the protocol may also inspire new possibilities. Whether you call it money or a trading platform is meaningless because they are both sociological terms. Sociological variables change with the weather. You create tools that function and let the humans decide how to use them.

Examples:

1. An anonymous side chain is developed. Suddenly millions of people are kidnapped. You stop using the Side Chain or your wife will leave you or you learn empathy.
2. A Side Chain creates and markets MeowMeowBeenz that uses merge mining and saps hashes from Bitcoin. The next day WoofWoofBeenz replaces it because marketing. Bitcoin stays golden because it needs no marketing.
3. A Side Chain becomes so popular that most bitcoins get locked into it in 140 years. A single satoshi is still enough to run the rest of the global economy after moving the decimal point. There will still never be one global money because we are not like the others.
4. Bitcoin breaks and the Side Chains can not be saved by the patch. That's the sociologists problem for approving the Side Chains.

What am I missing?

you're missing the other half of this argument.

that being, the ppl proposing the spvp happen to compose 40% of core dev + 3 of the top committers, all of whom have gotten together and raised $21M in cash to form a for-profit company called Blockstream.  these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors.  to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money.  in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation. crucial to their success is inserting a spvp into the source code specifically to facilitate their business model.  now, when you try to explain what Bitcoin is, you can no longer say that Bitcoin is a form of digital cash.  you'll have to say it's a trading platform that offers stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts, and oh currency.  kinda like WoW.  but maybe not quite as good. Blockstream will want to see these SC's become successful as a happy customer is a happy payor and thus becomes a profit center which can refer more and more clients to build more SC's.  this is their job.  they will make $millions/billions.

Sorry, I don't see a problem as long as the Bitcoin protocol still works. If they eventually abandon Bitcoin for their own altcoin, then competition may overtake them. Maybe they will succeed, but crying won't stop them. If they are smart enough to be innovative, then they will be smart enough to not shoot themselves in the foot by trying to reinvent the wheel. All the stuff about using Bitcoin for trading is a good thing. Rich people usually listen to smart people. Proof of Work will survive on its own merit.

no one's crying.  it's about having enough self awareness as a community to understand that letting a bunch of insiders who control a disproportionate amount of access to the source code shouldn't be proposing a source code change that specifically is designed to benefit themselves and their for profit company they have been found to set up last February.  no wonder there hasn't been any progress on the Bitcoin code.  how do you think all those other companies or altcoins feel that have spent millions in money and time designing processes to compete head to head with Bitcoin w/o the insider advantage of Blockstream?  how do you think the outside financial world will look at this?  the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.  i for one, think they have the possibility to abuse this retained position to block other promising innovations that come along in the future that might obsolete SC's.  if they really believe in their product  they should have no problem stepping down.  or if they want to stick around, reorg as a non profit.  i think it's the right thing to do.  and then we as a community don't have to worry about this ethical conflict.

Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  if we want ppls of all nations and social strata to buy in we cannot afford to let Bitcoin appear to have any improprieties or be subject to any vested interests like Blockstream.  we don't need or want a Redhat for Bitcoin as Money.

[1713564347]

1713564347

[1713564347]

1713564347

[1713564347]

1713564347

[brg444]

these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors.  to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money.  in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation.

I'm so sorry to have to say this again but you are out of you mind.

The core devs you talk down on have been hacking for hours on Bitcoin's code for the previous few years.

You think that you have got all the answers because you have a popular thread on bitcointalk forum and your join date says 2011 ?

Did you even bother reading their blogs and understand where they are coming from? Who they are? What this project means to them?

For some, it is the culmination of nearly 20 years of cryptography related work. These guys are all champions of the open-source movement. Cypherpunks that have collectively recognized that Bitcoin is their opportunity to show their work to the world.

Your insistence on using the stupid "devs gonna dev" meme is a blatant offense at the core of Bitcoins' ethos. I sometimes wonder if you forget about the audience you are talking to. This very forum is full of devs creating the services YOU are using, without charging you a satoshi. All because of open source.

Considering you are an ardent defender of Satoshi's blockchain, I propose you consider having some respects for devs, that have devved & came up with the technology that you use everyday and will make you filthy rich.

As for these people, no they are not in the business of creating "speculative SCs".

They are in fact hoping to build a decentralized environment of trust-less infrastructure that will support the Bitcoin economy and actually help strengthen its core.

Sidechains are IMO *the* natural evolution of BTC. It is Bitcoin 2.0 done right. Now that does not mean that all other crypto 2.0 projects are irrelevant : I think federated models/oracles/voting pools and maybe colored coins will find their niche and be used most probably in majority by the corporate world to create whatever model of infrastructure that provides necessary control, oversight & transparency.

Sidechains will likely support large scale open source infrastructure where the value exchanged might command a security model that should be considerably more decentralized. My bet is these open source platforms will be developed by Blockstream.

These 20 millions are going to be used to develop Sidechains' dev kit. This kit might include platforms ("official" sidechains) that enable bootstrapping other secondary sidechains. Reid Hoffman has insisted that Blockstream at this stage is akin to the Mozilla Corporation. He has stressed prioritization of "public good over returns to investors."

In that sense, you are right that SPVP is crucial to their success because it is the only way they can create these ambitious extensions of Bitcoin I'm sure they have in mind.

I suspect they will leverage these open source platforms to then concentrate on consulting and developing secondary sidechains that serve corporations/governments interest. These will likely not be MM for reasons stated below, they are likely to use a different model.

What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop.

If you think they are going to be alone playing with these toys you are fooling yourself. None of this is proprietary.

By its open source nature it will become part of the internet and will lay the foundation for hundreds, thousands of unimaginable innovations.

SPVP, sidechains are a public good for everyone to use, Blockstream are the innovators leading the way.

Yes there will be idiots who will try to abuse the system but they will be flushed out by honest, hardworking technologists that will build recognizagle, safe and useful applications for the world to use, preserve its value & grow the economy.

Yes speculative instruments will be built but they will run on mathematically proven and secure reserve that does not inflate the value of its holder's wealth. Withstanding the obvious fluctuations of whatever market or asset he decides to invest in. Your suggestion that people are going to be throwing their money into half-assed scams that will sink the Bitcoin economy is asinine at best.

If these sidechains are successful than logically so is Bitcoin because unlike what you twisted up logic leads you to think no one can sit at the table without having purchased its tickets. It matters little whether people decide to hold stocks, bond, insurance & contract because they are all trading in BTC. Someone has to pay for them, whether they decide to use them as bearer instrument for anything or as currency.

No, people are *not* having a free pass by "siphoning" BTC through a sidechain. Unless they effectively steal them they will have to pay "cold hard cash" to claim them (BTC).

[cbeast]

I really don't see what the big stink is about Side Chains. So they change the Bitcoin protocol a little, big deal. As long as it doesn't break the current technology and only changes the human incentives, then there is no problem. If the new incentives don't work, then they will be rejected. If the new incentives do work, then Bitcoin grows stronger. The change to the protocol may also inspire new possibilities. Whether you call it money or a trading platform is meaningless because they are both sociological terms. Sociological variables change with the weather. You create tools that function and let the humans decide how to use them.

Examples:

1. An anonymous side chain is developed. Suddenly millions of people are kidnapped. You stop using the Side Chain or your wife will leave you or you learn empathy.
2. A Side Chain creates and markets MeowMeowBeenz that uses merge mining and saps hashes from Bitcoin. The next day WoofWoofBeenz replaces it because marketing. Bitcoin stays golden because it needs no marketing.
3. A Side Chain becomes so popular that most bitcoins get locked into it in 140 years. A single satoshi is still enough to run the rest of the global economy after moving the decimal point. There will still never be one global money because we are not like the others.
4. Bitcoin breaks and the Side Chains can not be saved by the patch. That's the sociologists problem for approving the Side Chains.

What am I missing?

you're missing the other half of this argument.

that being, the ppl proposing the spvp happen to compose 40% of core dev + 3 of the top committers, all of whom have gotten together and raised $21M in cash to form a for-profit company called Blockstream.  these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors.  to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money.  in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation. crucial to their success is inserting a spvp into the source code specifically to facilitate their business model.  now, when you try to explain what Bitcoin is, you can no longer say that Bitcoin is a form of digital cash.  you'll have to say it's a trading platform that offers stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts, and oh currency.  kinda like WoW.  but maybe not quite as good. Blockstream will want to see these SC's become successful as a happy customer is a happy payor and thus becomes a profit center which can refer more and more clients to build more SC's.  this is their job.  they will make $millions/billions.

Sorry, I don't see a problem as long as the Bitcoin protocol still works. If they eventually abandon Bitcoin for their own altcoin, then competition may overtake them. Maybe they will succeed, but crying won't stop them. If they are smart enough to be innovative, then they will be smart enough to not shoot themselves in the foot by trying to reinvent the wheel. All the stuff about using Bitcoin for trading is a good thing. Rich people usually listen to smart people. Proof of Work will survive on its own merit.

no one's crying.  it's about having enough self awareness as a community to understand that letting a bunch of insiders who control a disproportionate amount of access to the source code shouldn't be proposing a source code change that specifically is designed to benefit themselves and their for profit company they have been found to set up last February.  no wonder there hasn't been any progress on the Bitcoin code.  how do you think all those other companies or altcoins feel that have spent millions in money and time designing processes to compete head to head with Bitcoin w/o the insider advantage of Blockstream?  how do you think the outside financial world will look at this?  the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.  i for one, think they have the possibility to abuse this retained position to block other promising innovations that come along in the future that might obsolete SC's.  if they really believe in their product  they should have no problem stepping down.  or if they want to stick around, reorg as a non profit.  i think it's the right thing to do.  and then we as a community don't have to worry about this ethical conflict.

Bitcoin has evolved to that of a public good.  if we want ppls of all nations and social strata to buy in we cannot afford to let Bitcoin appear to have any improprieties or be subject to any vested interests like Blockstream.  we don't need or want a Redhat for Bitcoin as Money.

This is war. All is fair, mate. Pick your side and call to arms.

[brg444]

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

[cypherdoc]

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is.

[brg444]

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is.

You sound like an insider. Tell us more. 

[cypherdoc]

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is.

You sound like an insider. Tell us more. 

Wat? Lol, I'm just a highly attuned and interested observer who can easily see and feel the tensions between devs and the future direction of bitcoin.

[brg444]

the Blockstream ppl don't even have the sense of self awareness that it might be a fair thing for them to step down given what they're doing.

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

Yeah sure. The core devs should step down and I'm sure there would be plenty of guys who would take their place. And then maybe Gavin could get some work done. Yes, that's how bad I think the conflict of interest is.

You sound like an insider. Tell us more. 

Wat? Lol, I'm just a highly attuned and interested observer who can easily see and feel the tensions between devs and the future direction of bitcoin.

feel it heh

 

there's a post for you up top btw

[molecular]

[questions]

[answers]

[/list]

Maybe someone can be so kind to help me understand by answering some of above questions or disputing my assertions?

Thanks!
[...]

thank you!

[molecular]

[personal 'discussion' with brg444]

actually I'm here to read differing opinions (and also the odd news item) and it's working.

Let's not resort to name-calling and mud-slinging please, that would make this thread unbearable and make grown men look like pissed of little children.

[molecular]

Yes but right now the price of GOLD depends on whats happens to the Gold referendum with the CHF.

Its massive news at the moment.

are the any surveys as to how the swiss will vote?

I'm seriously considering swapping more fiat for metal next week.

[molecular]

Yes but right now the price of GOLD depends on whats happens to the Gold referendum with the CHF.

Its massive news at the moment.

the referendum is on the 31st no? anyway, could also have 0 impact. referendum lately tend not to be so game changing. scotland's independance for example...

I think it would be game-changing... the gold market would price in the fact that the swiss central bank would have to back the franc (again) at least 20% with gold if I understand correctly. Since they don't currently hold such reserves, they'd have to buy gold. It'd be good for the SFR and gold prices.

[molecular]

...
With altcoins we have that fear.  But with Sidechains we don't even have to merge popular functions back into the MC, because they use a token scBTC that is pegged to BTC. So if the sidechain becomes popular, it creates demand for BTC to be locked and represented by scBTC which drives up the price of BTC.  
...

Maybe I missed discussion of it, but a few thousand pages ago I noted that the bolded part above is not necessarily the case since the exchange rate can be defined by "any deterministic function". To me, that's most of the problem. I used this example before, but say a fantastic sidechain is developed with a 1:1000 exchange rate, and a limit of 100M sidechain coins. Once 100,000 BTC move over, that's it. Demand for the sidecoin no longer feeds back into demand for bitcoin because it's de-facto no longer possible to get sidecoin by locking bitcoin. Am I missing something here?

Assuming I'm not missing anything, then all pegs which are not unlimited 1:1 pegs basically just define separate alt-coins, but alt-coins which can bootstrap off of bitcoin.

Interesting. I don't think this has been answered on a technical level.

Is the second bolded part (first one in melbustus quote) even possible?

I was of the impression that a sidecoin with a fixed peg could not introduce a limit on the amount of coins on its own (apart from the implicit limit on BTC) and there would be no mechanism stopping more BTC being locked and 'converted'. This impression of mine might well be wrong (damn, I'm overdue reading that paper, can't just form opinion from heresay)

If it's indeed possible to impose a limit, then the third (second in melbustus quote) bolded part would be true. Free market price of the sidecoin would rise and that of bitcoin would fall. This would indeed be a grave danger for Bitcoin and could easily kill it. Bitcoin-holders would (contrary to some opinions here) not enjoy the fact that they could always convert their BTC to the new successfull sidechain at any time and would have to worry about having to evaluate it (like with altcoins now). They'd have to make up their mind in time or be forced to buy the SC with their BTC increasingly losing value.

I don't like this scenario.

Can someone who looked at the tech comment?

[Dabs]

The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.

[molecular]

The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.

why not? Doesn't it have its own mining and could just cut loose from the main chain once the internal limit is reached?

[Dabs]

The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.

why not? Doesn't it have its own mining and could just cut loose from the main chain once the internal limit is reached?

I'm not sure really. I thought sidechains would be merged mined. Otherwise, the security of the sidechain would not be much better than bitcoin's own blockchain.

[justusranvier]

And what if they step down?

Should they also stop committing code to Bitcoin?

You want to save Bitcoin from a ghost by proposing that 40% of its core developers & 3 top commiters stop working on it.

Yeah, I'm sure that will play out well for the development of Bitcoin's own code.

You've actually hit on a separate, but related issue.

There is a subset of toxic people and petty tyrants among the core developers who believe that what they do defines Bitcoin and wish to be the eternal gatekeepers of what is and is not allowed. They can't actually earn that position by virtue of being superior software engineers, so they keep it by resorting to FUD and other underhanded tactics any time some other developers try to get involved.

There's an extremely long list of people who would have tried to step up and participate, but have been effectively shut out by that cartel.

Bitcoin will be in a much stronger and more secure position once Bitcoin Core is deprecated, or is at least relegated to a minority position on the network. Part of the reason will be that the consensus will be derived from software implementations with a better design and higher code quality, and part of the reason will be because of limiting the effect of toxic developers so that more people will be willing to contribute.

PS: I still haven't forgotten that you never bothered to justify your "less decentralized" claim about colored coins.

[NewLiberty]

The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.

True up to a point.
After which it doesn't.

[sickpig]

The sidechain would need Bitcoin in order to survive. It can't kill the hand that feeds it.

True up to a point.
After which it doesn't.

it depends on what will substitute bitcoin, after such a "point".
if it's a better bitcoin I'm all for it. I guess we won't know
until it will happen.

[NewLiberty]

these ppl have a strong incentive to make money, not only for themselves but for their investors.  to do this, they need to construct and sell as many of these speculative SC's that offer all manner of speculative assets, none of which are likely to be related to sound money.  in fact, they discourage sound money by encouraging speculation.

I'm so sorry to have to say this again but you are out of you mind.

The core devs you talk down on have been hacking for hours on Bitcoin's code for the previous few years.

You think that you have got all the answers because you have a popular thread on bitcointalk forum and your join date says 2011 ?

Did you even bother reading their blogs and understand where they are coming from? Who they are? What this project means to them?

For some, it is the culmination of nearly 20 years of cryptography related work. These guys are all champions of the open-source movement. Cypherpunks that have collectively recognized that Bitcoin is their opportunity to show their work to the world.

Your insistence on using the stupid "devs gonna dev" meme is a blatant offense at the core of Bitcoins' ethos. I sometimes wonder if you forget about the audience you are talking to. This very forum is full of devs creating the services YOU are using, without charging you a satoshi. All because of open source.

Considering you are an ardent defender of Satoshi's blockchain, I propose you consider having some respects for devs, that have devved & came up with the technology that you use everyday and will make you filthy rich.

As for these people, no they are not in the business of creating "speculative SCs".

They are in fact hoping to build a decentralized environment of trust-less infrastructure that will support the Bitcoin economy and actually help strengthen its core.

Sidechains are IMO *the* natural evolution of BTC. It is Bitcoin 2.0 done right. Now that does not mean that all other crypto 2.0 projects are irrelevant : I think federated models/oracles/voting pools and maybe colored coins will find their niche and be used most probably in majority by the corporate world to create whatever model of infrastructure that provides necessary control, oversight & transparency.

Sidechains will likely support large scale open source infrastructure where the value exchanged might command a security model that should be considerably more decentralized. My bet is these open source platforms will be developed by Blockstream.

These 20 millions are going to be used to develop Sidechains' dev kit. This kit might include platforms ("official" sidechains) that enable bootstrapping other secondary sidechains. Reid Hoffman has insisted that Blockstream at this stage is akin to the Mozilla Corporation. He has stressed prioritization of "public good over returns to investors."

In that sense, you are right that SPVP is crucial to their success because it is the only way they can create these ambitious extensions of Bitcoin I'm sure they have in mind.

I suspect they will leverage these open source platforms to then concentrate on consulting and developing secondary sidechains that serve corporations/governments interest. These will likely not be MM for reasons stated below, they are likely to use a different model.

What you should not forget is SPVP is open source and so are the platforms Blockstream will develop.

If you think they are going to be alone playing with these toys you are fooling yourself. None of this is proprietary.

By its open source nature it will become part of the internet and will lay the foundation for hundreds, thousands of unimaginable innovations.

SPVP, sidechains are a public good for everyone to use, Blockstream are the innovators leading the way.

Yes there will be idiots who will try to abuse the system but they will be flushed out by honest, hardworking technologists that will build recognizagle, safe and useful applications for the world to use, preserve its value & grow the economy.

Yes speculative instruments will be built but they will run on mathematically proven and secure reserve that does not inflate the value of its holder's wealth. Withstanding the obvious fluctuations of whatever market or asset he decides to invest in. Your suggestion that people are going to be throwing their money into half-assed scams that will sink the Bitcoin economy is asinine at best.

If these sidechains are successful than logically so is Bitcoin because unlike what you twisted up logic leads you to think no one can sit at the table without having purchased its tickets. It matters little whether people decide to hold stocks, bond, insurance & contract because they are all trading in BTC. Someone has to pay for them, whether they decide to use them as bearer instrument for anything or as currency.

No, people are *not* having a free pass by "siphoning" BTC through a sidechain. Unless they effectively steal them they will have to pay "cold hard cash" to claim them (BTC).

Careful!
Canada has NI 51-102.  In the US its section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933.
But when making such strong claims about the future you may want something like this somewhere in your public facing documentation:

The above contains statements related to future business and financial performance and future events or developments involving Blockstream that may constitute forward-looking statements.
These statements may be identified by words such as "expect," "look forward to," "anticipate" "intend," "plan," "believe," "seek," "estimate," "will," "project" or words of similar meaning.
Blockstream may also make forward-looking statements in other reports, in presentations, in material delivered to shareholders and in press releases. In addition, Blockstream representatives may from time to time make oral forward-looking statements. Such statements are based on the current expectations and certain assumptions of Blockstream management, of which many are beyond Blockstream's control. These are subject to a number of risks, uncertainties and factors. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying expectations not occur or assumptions prove incorrect, actual results, performance or achievements of Blockstream may (negatively or positively) vary materially from those described explicitly or implicitly in the relevant forward-looking statement. Blockstream neither intends, nor assumes any obligation, to update or revise these forward-looking statements in light of developments which differ from those anticipated.

I didn't see anyone is alleging actual impropriety, merely pointing out a conflict of interest due to the duties of care and trust which exists between the Blockstream employees to their investors, and to the constituent community of Bitcoin Core.

It isn't the first time for such conflicts, it likely won't be the last.  People will be watching how the conflict is managed and making decisions based on that.  There are already some mechanisms in place for work review and commit review, and they might consider adding or some reviewers or looking at the process to avoid the appearance of any impropriety.

It is probably a good thing you have nothing whatsoever to do with Blockstream because if you did, you would be a problem for them.