Topic: blockstream - wants to tax you and become the new Bitcoin oligarchy - page 4. (Read 8953 times)

must be pretty irrelevant if you felt the need to shout it in red in 8 threads.

ignore.

Two known CIA/NSA assets infiltrated in the Bitcoin community - Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn - have joined forces to push a hastily concocted privacy nightmare/scamcoin, which they call Bitcoin-XT.

It is currently completely irrelevant, owing to an absolute lack of financial, economical, technical or social support.

perhaps true. still, they will have first mover advantage... but more importantly, they will be a player in a space that exists only because the blocksize is small.  They (and perhaps also their competitors as you point out) will be making money off everyone using Bitcoins instead of the mining system we have today. 

so how do you think did they rais 21mio investor capital then?
last time i checked investors arent altruistic.

if blockstream can profit from it, then many other sidechain provider can also profit it. There will be no monopoly.

I frequently get things wrong, or say the wrong thing.

I am happy to acknowledge both circumstances, and evidence exists all over this forum. You should attack me on that basis instead, I think it would be much more effective than trying to assert what I believe, or things I say, when neither are demonstrably the case.

Work with facts, it works. Discrediting arguments on the basis of mistruths only discredits your argument.

I would not waste my time arguing with him. He just cant never be wrong.

He did not understand at all. Why bother?

Not in that text

I think I did - at least in this particular context.

What's wrong with pegging? (you didn't explain that before)

I don't know what the rolley eyes is for. The "implementation document" expresses a principle called "pegging".

Without that principle sidechains don't exist, no matter how you implement them.

That's Peter Wuille's BIP, not what they all think. I don't support that.

Why doesn't a dynamic limit interest you, Litecoinguy?

you are right: their plan is 1.07 MB blocks in the year 2021 - big difference. meanwhile they can charge big fees for their blockstream service.  

toknormal: "Implementation isn't relevant. Just look at what it says here in the implementation document..."

 

On the contrary. It depends on the principle - the implementation is irrelevant. If you read the sidechains whitepaper, the principle of 2-way pegging underlies the whole thing. This is not going to change with 'implementation'.


direct modification is a relative term in this case. It is not a 'direct modification' in a technical sense but it is in a commercial sense since the bitcoin is removed from circulation and directly substituted for the sidechained-alt. So it amounts to a "direct modification" as far as the market is concerned (thats the whole point of sidechains).


"accomplished computer scientists" are not necessarily "accomplished monetary analysts" or even "accomplished systems analysts". It's true that the people who design good software systems are usually programming professionals, but the people who specify the requirements for such are usually not.

In this case, an implicit assumption has been made which is economic - i.e. that the world economy cannot sustain more than one cryptocurrency and that "network effects" will tend towards the adoption and consolidation of this currency. But then the theory immediately contradicts itself by acknowledging the need for diversification and hence the emergence of sidechains.

You only need to take one look at the range of monetary like stocks traded on any global exchange to see that markets favour diversification of genuinely independent assets rather than diversification of 'presentation' within a particular asset, so the commercial assumption that underlies the concept of sidechains is flawed IMO, however well designed it is technically.

This analysis is further endorsed by examining the properties of "good money" which are well understood and considering the impact of a concept like sidechains on these. Think it through - you basically have a set of pegged altcoins that have varying levels of demand, all pulling in different directions on a common base currency. The effect of this is to cause price and liquidity volatility in commercial sectors where it didn't originate. What will the market do in that case ? - it will simply use an altcoin that's native to that sector in preference to the sidechained one.

That is one of the effects of adversely impacting on "fungibility" but there are others (think Greece & the Euro).

You know, this debate has become very tiring. As Antonopoulos said, the debate is full of ad hominem, it has involved attacking people rather than discussing ideas and the use of ideological aphorisms without sufficient evidence. I am guilty of that as anyone else (his words; apply to me as well). You can't expect me to support discussing XT and trolling in a SPECULATION thread about Bitcoin and Gold.

---

---

People are twisting everyone's words for their own sake. Antonopoulos said that consensus is very important and that we should be implementing everything (i.e. bigger blocks, sidechains, lightning network, payment channels). He did not say that he supports XT (there is a thread stating that he does).

It's alright to support XT but you should not support everything XT related unless it is the truth. cypherdoc's 'Gold Collapsing. Bitcoin Up' thread was about Gold vs Bitcoin, but later onwards it became a discussion about XT solely. So it was moved to Altcoin board which is the correct action. If you don't agree, then another way is to delete all the posts about XT from that thread. IMHO, former is better than later. LaudaM clearly stated:

---

A year ago, XT didn't hardfork. As it didn't, the protocol is same as the widely-agreed Bitcoin Core's. Therefore, how can it be an alt? Isn't that obvious?


Yes. The thread was locked because people started discussing about a client called XT, which is definitely not a Gold vs Bitcoin 'speculation'. If its not a speculation, how can it be in 'Speculation' child-board?

* Edited.

Actually it's more of a hypothesis than a claim.  And I am using a reasonable line of argument.  
Blockstream devs do not want bigger blocks.  This is fact.  It is not baseless.  And the other devs
who are not on blockstreams payroll do want bigger blocks.  I guess you have a reasonable explanation
for that, though, right?  Go ahead, I'm all ears.

His cause is propaganda, so he will continue to repeat it even though he knows full well it's not true. He isn't trying to debate or educate, his cause is only to make peoples minds up for them with misinformation.