this last slide is really interesting:
Future Direction
• I'm looking forward to watching alpha network explode in
interesting ways
– Testnet itself has been under some interesting attacks lately...
who's paranoid now, iCELatte? actually, he should be. b/c i don't see why miners will complicate their lives by having to write 1000's of new miner software versions to support all these different SC's which also encourage tx's to move off MC which undercuts their long term viability. maybe they are the one's attacking the SC testnet?
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 249. (Read 2032248 times)
why don't you try debating the technical feasibilities instead of slinging arrows?
Because your sidestream FUD has already been repeatedly debunked.
If you didn't understand then, you won't understand now.
No amount of facts and logic are capable of disabusing you of your paranoid fear of and animosity towards Blockstream.
We get it. You don't like Blockstream. If they're for something, you're against it.
Sidechains are here now. As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."
Monero is bouncing right back up. Even if it wasn't, you still be guilty of making the same invalid, cherrypicked "zomg BTC crashed from ATH wat a worthless failure AMIRIT" argument as Buttcoiners. As others have said, you of all people know better.
no, it's b/c i haven't ever gotten satisfactory answers of which you clearly can't provide any.
here's a simple example for you. with Trezor, many of us have been unhappy that we've had to use myTrezor.com, a SatoshiLab-based server, to complete our tx's. altho they have promised us they do not log or track our tx's, many of us complained. their responsible response? they built a Chrome extension that allows us to connect our Trezor to directly which now allows us to construct our tx's on our laptops w/o involving their "trusted" server.
now compare that to Blockstream's federated server model proposed just now. i just snipped a quote from gmax slide admitting that it requires us to trust that any tx's aren't tracked. why should we trust that model at all? here's the whole slide:
Federated Consensus
• Replace mining DMMS with a plain multiparty-signature:
Yields a centralized security model
• But (arbitrarily) better than “trust one party”
– Real-time audited by all participants
– Most dishonest behavior machine decidable
– Arbitrary multisig policy (A & 5-of-8) | (8-of-8)
• No human discretion required: can implement on tamperresistant
hardware
• Some applications need trust: if you have it, why not use it?
i know i'm stressing your brain cells but do try to concentrate.
why don't you try debating the technical feasibilities instead of slinging arrows?
Because your sidestream FUD has already been repeatedly debunked.
If you didn't understand then, you won't understand now.
No amount of facts and logic are capable of disabusing you of your paranoid fear of and animosity towards Blockstream.
We get it. You don't like Blockstream. If they're for something, you're against it.
Sidechains are here now. As for GavinCoin, "not tonight dear."
Monero is bouncing right back up. Even if it wasn't, you still be guilty of making the same invalid, cherrypicked "zomg BTC crashed from ATH wat a worthless failure AMIRIT" argument as Buttcoiners. As others have said, you of all people know better.
I remember watching Adam Back's talk about this concept when he was in Israel at a meeting I think sponsored by Meni Rosenfeld.
Request for comments
http://voxelsoft.com/dev/sumcoin.pdf
CT and Anon MiniChain in one coin? Impressive tech and elegant implementation! Do want.
Any thoughts on which PoW is a good fit? My favorite ATM is BBR's Wild Keccak (http://boolberry.com/files/Block_Chain_Based_Proof_of_Work.pdf).
I see Coloured Coins aren't compatible. If implemented independently, are there more trade-offs with other trendy functions like CIYAM's AT, OP_RETURN, or CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY? What about proof of stake?
If the Monero folk decide to put Sumcoin under their hood, would you help the core devs with integration?
Sumcoin is work/stake agnostic (stake may require disclosure), and does not break the core scripting language; so the opcodes remain possible.
It is early yet, want to get this out for review to the people who can - very possible I've made some mistakes.
Off-top-my-head, Monero seems like the easiest fit because it already has a view key, but I have not looked in detail.
Thanks for WK. Long term, it might be possible to auto-generate equivalent-difficulty hash functions. A new hash function for every block. That would fix things back down to FPGA technology level, and contribute better to generic hardware development.
https://www.braintreepayments.com/features/paypal
Anyone know anything bout em? I was in new York and saw their building. Apparently accepting Bitcoin.
Anyone know anything bout em? I was in new York and saw their building. Apparently accepting Bitcoin.
I bet they do accept it
iCELatte, have you dumped your XMR, btw? the federated SC of Monero will make them worthless.
Hard dumping at the momentso sorry iCELatte.
as i said, most ppl are going to continue losing money in crypto from foolish investments. as a pure Bitcoiner holding BTC, i'm doing great
while i wish every success to the federated SC model, please don't forget this from nullc slide presentation:
Federated Consensus
• Replace mining DMMS with a plain multiparty-signature:
Yields a centralized security model
Federated Consensus
• Replace mining DMMS with a plain multiparty-signature:
Yields a centralized security model
iCELatte, have you dumped your XMR, btw? the federated SC of Monero will make them worthless.
Hard dumping at the moment
iCELatte, have you dumped your XMR, btw? the federated SC of Monero will make them worthless.
i would like to propose a compromise.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
No deal. Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."
Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?
what do you expect being in a Blockstream thread with all it's supporters cheerleading?
why don't you answer the questions i posed since no one else seems to be able to?
Likewise, what do you expect except upvotes when you post on GavinCoin cheerleading threads?
Nobody except Adrian and Justus cares about your shopworn sidechain FUD.
It's been debunked over and over, just like you exaggerating Gavinistas' failed "capacity cliff/hard impact/choking/strangling" scare tactics.
We aren't going to use sidechains to pull your GavinCoin wagon. What part of ""completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate" do you not understand?
why don't you try debating the technical feasibilities instead of slinging arrows? you forget that pwiulle large miner large block attack has been debunked so he's not flawless. plus, on reddit we're simply talking about the press release which still hasn't issued any retraction. nothing important like the technical merits of SC's.
i would like to propose a compromise.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
No deal. Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."
Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?
what do you expect being in a Blockstream thread with all it's supporters cheerleading?
why don't you answer the questions i posed since no one else seems to be able to?
Likewise, what do you expect except upvotes when you post on GavinCoin cheerleading threads?
Nobody except Adrian and Justus cares about your shopworn sidechain FUD.
It's been debunked over and over, just like you exaggerating Gavinistas' failed "capacity cliff/hard impact/choking/strangling" scare tactics.
We aren't going to use sidechains to pull your GavinCoin wagon. What part of ""completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate" do you not understand?
i would like to propose a compromise.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
No deal. Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."
Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?
by lifting the cap while simultaneously inserting the spvp, if too many tx's were happening on MC to cause delays or unconf tx's, SC's could automatically assume the load. or vice versa. they would be automatic stabilizers for each other.
i think it's a good idea and nothing for you to be scared of.
unless, of course, you have some other agenda.
i would like to propose a compromise.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
No deal. Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."
Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?
plus, i think you're scared to run that test. or just plain ignorant to what i think would be the result.
sound money would win b/c that is the fundamental problem in the world today. we don't need more speculation via SC's.
i would like to propose a compromise.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
No deal. Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."
Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?
what do you expect being in a Blockstream thread with all it's supporters cheerleading?
why don't you answer the questions i posed since no one else seems to be able to?
let me also be clear on my stance.
i'm perfectly fine with Blockstream running federated pegs or server models. they aren't requiring a change in the core code. hence, they are perfectly free to run these centralized experiments. but to extrapolate those proxy results and apply them to their ultimate goal of changing the core code (just like Gavin is proposing NOW) is much more of a challenge, not only technically but politically like we have with the block size debate.
i wish them best of luck on these experiments. hopefully they can advance the space. but the battle to change the code has only just begun. those who have the purest of arguments and intentions hopefully will win out.
i'm perfectly fine with Blockstream running federated pegs or server models. they aren't requiring a change in the core code. hence, they are perfectly free to run these centralized experiments. but to extrapolate those proxy results and apply them to their ultimate goal of changing the core code (just like Gavin is proposing NOW) is much more of a challenge, not only technically but politically like we have with the block size debate.
i wish them best of luck on these experiments. hopefully they can advance the space. but the battle to change the code has only just begun. those who have the purest of arguments and intentions hopefully will win out.
i would like to propose a compromise.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
No deal. Sidechains are, as nullc and pwuille already patiently explained to you last night, "completely orthogonal to the blocksize debate."
Did you sleep well after getting spanked and pouting until downvoted?
then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
I don't think the proponents of sidechains, or of Lightning Network, will ever be in favor of unhindered competition between the approaches to see which one the market prefers.Lightning Network in particular looks like it was tailor made to sell Bitcoin to banks.
It has the features they'd like, such as the moat of requiring large amounts of idle capital to start, and it allows deep-pocketed entities to earn passive income by virtue of having idle capital.
It reduces the number of players who can access the blockchain directly and connects them through a BGP-style routing network that would be amenible to US-style viral regulation enforcement (participants can only route payments through peers who agree to enforce extraterritorial laws, and who require all their peers to do the same). Think of that routing network as bringing Ripple-style centralized UNLs to Bitcoin.
So when I talk about selling Bitcoin to the banks I mean "sell" both in the sense of "convince them to adopt" and also "hand over the keys to".
Part of convincing the banks to adopt LN would be promising them that Bitcoin users won't have a choice in the matter - they'll have to use LN because the block size limit will stay in place (or be lowered!) and so they won't have an escape route.
Cypherdoc's laser cataract surgery advertisement is showing up on every site I visit that has Google ads displayed (with a small thumbnail of his face). I had to delete the Google cookies to resolve the haunting. I suppose this was set when I visited his bio page. Lol.
Brave new world.
Brave new world.
I really think Bitcoin should stick to the business of money not the business of business. Blockstream is turning Bitcoin into a vehicle for speculation via SC's.
Its sad to see iCELatte and marcus et al cheering the above sidecoin as a competitor to Bitcoin. It just shows how much misunderstanding there is about Bitcoin as Money which is its original goal.
Its sad to see iCELatte and marcus et al cheering the above sidecoin as a competitor to Bitcoin. It just shows how much misunderstanding there is about Bitcoin as Money which is its original goal.
Bitcoin is by design a settlement system. And like it or not, sidechains are happening.
The more subordinate sidechains BTC provides settlement between, the more utility (and thus value) it accrues.
GavinCoin is turning Bitcoin into a vehicle for speculation via Frappuccinos and LightHouse:
Quote
let's be clear why they are "happening" just so you don't give everyone the impression that all of us have "accepted" something inevitable.
the initial implementation merely runs off federated servers and doesn't require a source code change like Gavin's block size increase. thus, no concensus, or even a majority of us need to approve. a federated server model is simply a simplistic proxy for SC's, which i'd argue really doesn't tell us much as compared to how a spv proof will perform on the MC. it's an apples to oranges test and does not imply "victory" of the iCELatte's of the world.
i would like to propose a compromise.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit accordiing to Satoshi's original vision. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
let the Blockstream folks insert their SPV proof into source while simultaneously eliminating the block size limit accordiing to Satoshi's original vision. then we can see which Ferrari will go faster.
the network effect of sound money vs that of SC's (speculation). it would be a fantastic test of the market.
Jump to: