justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1013
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:16:50 PM |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. That's not actually what cryptoanarchism is about. The violence which cryptography is supposed to protect people from is the violence initiated by governments. It's about making anonymous trade possible and safe, so that no third party can rain down retribution upon consensual trade for which they are not involved but disapprove, or for which they demand to be paid tribute for the privilege of not being assaulted.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:30:38 PM |
|
more and more realization about the Sound Money advantages of Bitcoin from the gold community. forget intra-protocol speculative trading: Bullion Dealer Agora Commodities Will Rebrand to Focus on Bitcoinhttp://www.coindesk.com/agora-commodities-rebrand-bitcoin/
|
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:32:53 PM |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.
i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.
No, you disagree simply because of previous butt hurt with gmax & lukejr. After some digging it is clear as day your problem is your ego.
|
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:33:40 PM |
|
forget speculation there is no speculation there is no spoon
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:37:11 PM |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.
yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream) i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.
There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error) You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )
|
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:42:59 PM |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.
yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream) i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.
There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error) You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate. Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive. Pick your poison
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:47:53 PM |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.
yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream) i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.
There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error) You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate. Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive. Pick your poison there's the FUD again. go ahead and use federated servers if you want. as long as they don't change source code. but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity. AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately. that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time. b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued. so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers.
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:51:51 PM |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.
yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream) i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.
There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error) You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate. Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive. Pick your poison there's the FUD again. go ahead and use federated servers if you want. as long as they don't change source code. but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity. AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately. that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time. b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued. so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers. it seems to me Coinbase, Circle, Bitfinex, Bitstamp, every and any exchange or off-chain schemes can be considered relatively successful even with their centralized model. There is no "opportunity cost" of losing out on BTC because they are redeemable 1:1, no matter the fluctuating value of the scBTC.
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:52:28 PM |
|
another article on the Currency Wars. Bitcoin wants to be in the middle of this. ultimately, fiat currency will be consumed by the soundest of monies; Bitcoin. forget SC's and intra-protocol speculation that will enrich Blockstream at the expense of Bitcoin as Money: WSJ's Mattich: The Currency War is Onhttp://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Mattich-currency-war-China/2014/11/23/id/609158/
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:53:20 PM |
|
forget speculation there is no speculation
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
November 24, 2014, 11:58:05 PM |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.
yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream) i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.
There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error) You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate. Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive. Pick your poison there's the FUD again. go ahead and use federated servers if you want. as long as they don't change source code. but they aren't going to succeed anyways b/c of centralization and insecurity. AND the fact that ppl will hold BTC until the last moment before using the server for whatever function or asset it offers. and then they will withdraw immediately. that's b/c of the opportunity cost of losing out on BTC appreciation over time. b/c of that reduced liquidity of the server asset, it won't be valued. so Blockstream, don't expect to make any money off federated servers. it seems to me Coinbase, Circle, Bitfinex, Bitstamp, every and any exchange or off-chain schemes can be considered relatively successful even with their centralized model. There is no "opportunity cost" of losing out on BTC because they are redeemable 1:1, no matter the fluctuating value of the scBTC. yes they are. and that's b/c they have some regulation in place that alot of ppl seem to value. not everyone is an anarcho-capitalist. otoh, what assurances to ppl have with federated servers? they could disappear in a moment and no one would have any recourse. the 1:1 spvp is vaporware at the moment. and MM is theoretical at best. NMC is not a valid example of success.
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
November 25, 2014, 12:04:01 AM |
|
yes they are. and that's b/c they have some regulation in place that alot of ppl seem to value. not everyone is an anarcho-capitalist.
otoh, what assurances to ppl have with federated servers? they could disappear in a moment and no one would have any recourse.
the 1:1 spvp is vaporware at the moment. and MM is theoretical at best. NMC is not a valid example of success.
your disingenuity knows no bounds. I suggest you leave technical assertions to technical people. Not that I am one but saying things such as "federated servers could vanish" (as if Bitstamp, Bitfinex or BTC-e couldn't), "1:1 spvp is vaporware" and "MM is theoretical at best" only serves to make you look like a clown who has little clue what he is talking about.
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
Adrian-x
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1372
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 25, 2014, 12:04:06 AM Last edit: November 25, 2014, 12:30:53 AM by Adrian-x |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.
yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream) i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.
There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error) You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate. Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.Pick your poison Citation needed, this is just conjecturemy position is clear, dont make the protocol change. just because the impact is belittled in the whitepaper calling it a mere security upgrade, doesn't make your argument. it's not a mere security upgrade, its a huge change to the protocol that alters the incentive system that secures Bitcoin. it may be a mere change to developers who've go to dev, but it's has economic impacts you repeatedly undermine. FTFU"the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade as a way to final separate the value on the block chain from BTC the asset to reduce the trust required in the system."
|
Thank me in Bits 12MwnzxtprG2mHm3rKdgi7NmJKCypsMMQw
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
November 25, 2014, 12:07:46 AM |
|
poor Blockstream investors. $21M down the drain on a hair brain idea of separating the currency unit from the blockchain.
that is how you know we are not in a bubble.
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
November 25, 2014, 12:12:22 AM |
|
there will be more QE. do you know what that means? value will flow to the soundest form of money on the market, just like it has the last 6 yrs. and which currency has that been? BITCOIN. “the unfolding deflationary quagmire into which we are sinking will get worse and there will be more Fed QE.”
SocGen's Edwards: Deflationary 'Quagmire' Will Spur More Fed Stimulushttp://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Societe-Generale-Albert-Edwards-Federal-Reserve-inflation/2014/11/24/id/609261/don't let the apparatchiks screw things up by changing the source code to their own advantage.
|
|
|
|
BlindMayorBitcorn
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1116
|
|
November 25, 2014, 12:14:11 AM |
|
there will be more QE. do you know what that means? value will flow to the soundest form of money on the market, just like it has the last 6 yrs. and which currency has that been? BITCOIN. “the unfolding deflationary quagmire into which we are sinking will get worse and there will be more Fed QE.”
SocGen's Edwards: Deflationary 'Quagmire' Will Spur More Fed Stimulushttp://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Societe-Generale-Albert-Edwards-Federal-Reserve-inflation/2014/11/24/id/609261/don't let the apparatchiks screw things up by changing the source code to their own advantage. Or gold
|
Forgive my petulance and oft-times, I fear, ill-founded criticisms, and forgive me that I have, by this time, made your eyes and head ache with my long letter. But I cannot forgo hastily the pleasure and pride of thus conversing with you.
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
November 25, 2014, 12:15:14 AM |
|
i understand what you guys want to do, ie, mathematically enforce all contracts and financial dealings so that force from gvts is unnecessary or even obsoleted. it's a laudable goal and very understandable. we are all on the same page with that.
yes, this is our goal. (SCs invented by Blockstream) i just disagree with how you're trying to accomplish that.
There is not other theory what can explain how to do it (there are many with errors) . SC is the first idea what describes how this can be realized. (I did not find error ... it does not mean there is not error) You've already pointed out how to do it, the example you cited doesn't affect the mining incentives and thus has no impact on Bitcoin as is. Federated servers use multisig (bitcoin already support multisig). One server(one owner) has one signature. You choose how much server do you trust N and how many of them have to sign M. => M of N ( eq. 3 of 5 )
Once sidechains with a federated peg are in use, the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade to reduce the trust required in the system. Existing sidechains could simply migrate their coins to the new verification system. This approach also opens additional security options: the DMMS provided by mining is not very secure for small systems, while the trust of the federation is riskier for large systems. A sidechain could adaptively use both 530 of these approaches in parallel, or even switch based on apparent hashrate. Federated and offchain models on a large scale are a danger to the miners incentive.Pick your poison Citation needed, this is just conjecturemy position is clear, dont make the protocol change. just because the impact is belittled in the whitepaper calling it a mere security upgrade, doesn't make your argument. it's not a mere security upgrade, its a huge change to the protocol that alters the incentive system that secures Bitcoin. it may be a mere change to a developers who've go to dev, but it's has economic impacts you repeatedly undermine. FTFU"the addition of SPV verification to Bitcoin script can be seen as merely a security upgrade as a way to final separate the value on the block chain from BTC the asset to reduce the trust required in the system."Maybe they are undermined because of your failure to illustrate these dangers in details and in plausible context? The last part just goes to show you and your teamate stubbornness and incapacity to recognize that the value is seperated from the Blockchain everyday through schemes much less legitimate and or secure than what sidechains potentially provide.
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
NewLiberty
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002
Gresham's Lawyer
|
|
November 25, 2014, 12:16:02 AM |
|
I like gmax and his work. I have never met him(he does not know me) but I understand what how and why he wants to say. => He is not techno-communists.
I also like gmax and his work. We met in AMS in 2013 (and prior to that, though he didn't remember). He knows me mostly by my writing. He doesn't like my criticisms of government. Still we have more in common than we have differences. I'm not a political guy, don't adhere to any party, but I do love liberty, and I tend to say so right out in public. I've spent many hours in the company of the "original" cypherpunks so certainly some things have rubbed off on me. I wouldn't characterise gmaxwell as a communist, but I really wouldn't know if he were.
|
|
|
|
brg444
|
|
November 25, 2014, 12:18:45 AM |
|
poor Blockstream investors. $21M down the drain on a hair brain idea of separating the currency unit from the blockchain.
that is how you know we are not in a bubble.
yeah. poor billionaires they should've asked cypherdoc before trusting some of the most competent and well educated people in the sphere. btw I will repeat, just as an attempt to maybe drive the point home one last time, that the concern is not separating the unit from the blockchain (which is technically not true of sidechains anyway) but the seperation of the value from the ledger.
|
"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010
|
|
|
Erdogan
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1005
|
|
November 25, 2014, 01:07:26 AM |
|
there will be more QE. do you know what that means? value will flow to the soundest form of money on the market, just like it has the last 6 yrs. and which currency has that been? BITCOIN. “the unfolding deflationary quagmire into which we are sinking will get worse and there will be more Fed QE.”
SocGen's Edwards: Deflationary 'Quagmire' Will Spur More Fed Stimulushttp://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Societe-Generale-Albert-Edwards-Federal-Reserve-inflation/2014/11/24/id/609261/don't let the apparatchiks screw things up by changing the source code to their own advantage. ...but but but - bitcoin has to speed up a bit, else we get Σ1-n[national currencies] -> dollar -> bitcoin
|
|
|
|
|