Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 4.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:33:16 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 04:30:06 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:18:22 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 04:13:29 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:01:16 AM

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..

So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??" Huh

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one. Grin

Nop.

The argument is there is nothing wrong with conflict-of-interest per say when stated. They do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.

Are you stating you don't have any?

Quote

More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

How is that? You said Mike is on Circle's board (I don't know what else he does for work, I'm going to guess you probably do though). That's a pretty obvious affiliation and transparent potential COI. Gavin works for a non-profit research institution. You can read out of that whatever you like, but in any case it's not hidden at all.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:27:44 AM

sidechains can achieve inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving ~~scarcity~~value from main Bitcoin blockchain

ftfy. Finally you get it.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 04:30:06 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:18:22 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 04:13:29 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:01:16 AM

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..

So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??" Huh

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one. Grin

Nop.

The argument is there is nothing wrong with conflict-of-interest per say when stated. They do not necessarily imply wrongdoing.

More interestingly I happens that as it stands I know more about the potential conflict-of-interest of Blockstream developers than I know about Gavin's or Mike's.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:18:22 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 04:13:29 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:01:16 AM

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..

So your new is argument is "They are all doing it, so why can't we??" Huh

Not winning any meritorious badges with that one. Grin

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 04:21:42 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:05:51 AM

That profit does depend on side chains becoming a reality but that's kind of backwards since sidechains ARE a reality, just not under the optimal security models they'd like to attain (SPV Proof). As gavinFanClub mentioned sidechains can be operated as we speak using federated servers which is perfectly fine for a private, corporate sidechain for example.

If you are going to rely on federated servers, why not just use the Factom model? Factom uses federated servers in a similar, but much more elegant design.

One that works with bitcoin as it currently is.

...because what Factom is attempting to do (data layer on top of Bitcoin) is not in any way similar to what sidechains can achieve (inter-operability between blockchains using units deriving scarcity from main Bitcoin blockchain)

maybe worth it to watch the video here to be better informed : http://www.blockstream.com/developers/

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 04:00:08 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:52:39 AM

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:49:02 AM

Thank you for answering my question.

Now that you said "No!", how do you think their business model will work if they do not have a financial incentive to keep certain users off the block chain?

How do they make their money if they are in fact a for-profit company?

It's been repeated ad nauseum that their business model is similar to RedHat or any other companies that built entreprise class software on top of open source platforms and offer a variety of consulting services.

but does that profit depend upon side chains becoming a reality and/or the max block size staying relatively small or at 1MB?

I don't think it does necessarily if you accept that they aren't sure where they are going to make money other than providing enterprise services in the Bitcoin marketplace. That may be sidechains, or lightning (apparently not part of the original plan but now it is), or it could be something else. Sidechains, in particular, might have nothing whatsoever to do with the block size (other than perhaps benefiting from a larger one), if they add value by adding features or being a private (in house) or consortium application.

Quote

ad nauseum where? lol I haven;t seen any recent discussion of their business model in depth.

Agree.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:05:51 AM

That profit does depend on side chains becoming a reality but that's kind of backwards since sidechains ARE a reality, just not under the optimal security models they'd like to attain (SPV Proof). As gavinFanClub mentioned sidechains can be operated as we speak using federated servers which is perfectly fine for a private, corporate sidechain for example.

If you are going to rely on federated servers, why not just use the Factom model? Factom uses federated servers in a similar, but much more elegant design.

One that works with bitcoin as it currently is.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 04:13:29 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:01:16 AM

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

Mike Hearn is a board advisor at Circle and Gavin is under MIT payroll. Developers need to get paid too you know. By all account most developers are under a certain conflict of interest (think of Garzik also at Bitpay). Assuming they are "problematic" is your own opinion.

"Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like." Just make sure it has some merit..

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 04:03:16 AM

So then you concede that the goal of using side chains is to effectively divert users to a less secure block chain to increase capacity?

I highly doubt 100% of miners would merge-mine the side chain.

From your knowledge how are they proposing to improve privacy for example?

You can't be that dense Cheesy

I've spent the last couple posts explaining that sidechains are not exactly about "increasing capacity" (scaling)...

The fact that you "highly doubt" something brings no value or argument to the discussion.

As for improved privacy, more on the subject here: https://github.com/ElementsProject/elementsproject.github.io/blob/master/confidential_values.md

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 04:01:16 AM

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

I've moderated the language in my post. Of course you're entitled to hold any opinion you like.

However, as good as you feel the blockstream proposal is ( and I dont deny it has merit) , it still indicates a problematic conflict of interest between bitcoin core members who will directly profit from blockstream and their role in advancing the best case for Bitcoin and its community.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 04:00:08 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:52:39 AM

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:49:02 AM

Thank you for answering my question.

Now that you said "No!", how do you think their business model will work if they do not have a financial incentive to keep certain users off the block chain?

How do they make their money if they are in fact a for-profit company?

It's been repeated ad nauseum that their business model is similar to RedHat or any other companies that built entreprise class software on top of open source platforms and offer a variety of consulting services.

but does that profit depend upon side chains becoming a reality and/or the max block size staying relatively small or at 1MB?

ad nauseum where? lol I haven;t seen any recent discussion of their business model in depth.

Oh really

So you've missed the dozens of reddit threads and hundreds of pages discussing this very issue here?

That profit does depend on side chains becoming a reality but that's kind of backwards since sidechains ARE a reality, just not under the optimal security models they'd like to attain (SPV Proof). As gavinFanClub mentioned sidechains can be operated as we speak using federated servers which is perfectly fine for a private, corporate sidechain for example.

As for your repeated insistence on their reliance on a small block size. Maybe read this a couple times until it sinks in:

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 02:29:58 AM

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:57:04 AM

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:50:49 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:48:42 AM

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:36:02 AM

Simply put:

Sidechains will have security issues.

Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.

Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.

You went from implying conflict of interest and nefarious actions to simply bashing sidechains because according to your reputable technical expertise "they're not secure".

Answer me this:

Where does the additional hashing power come from to secure any side chain to make it equally secure to bitcoin's current security?

And I was merely pointing out how SC's will not be as secure as bitcoin.

BTW please answer my question on how Blockstream makes its money if it is a for-profit company.

Thanks Grin

No one claimed it can be as equally secure as Bitcoin but it can get pretty darn close. The beautiful thing about sidechains is they offer a wide range of security models that can be leveraged for various degrees of decentralization and trustlessness.

About the hashing power, if merged mining is implemented then miners will have financial incentive to process and secure transactions occurring on a sidechain. It isn't a stretch to believe that a particularly popular and useful sidechain (improve privacy for example) could see close to 100% of the miners merge-mine the chain.

So then you concede that the goal of using side chains is to effectively divert users to a less secure block chain to increase capacity?

I highly doubt 100% of miners would merge-mine the side chain.

From your knowledge how are they proposing to improve privacy for example?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 03:56:35 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:43:19 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 03:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:31:36 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 03:26:24 AM

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans.

You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen?

So you are a blockstream insider then? Figures.

Why would I be privy to such detail? I don't broadcast the breakdown of the development resources in my business.

Seems you are too since you know so much about their "core focus"

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzwety?context=3

I'm sorry, but what part of that cosy exchange with Rusty would lead me to believe you are not a blockstream shill? Huh

You asked for details about my knowledge of Blockstream development resources, I pointed you to my source.

Are you cypherdoc cousin by any chance? Is your next step to issue a BTC bounty to try and dox me and my personal life to "prove I'm a blockstream shill".

I'm just a regular dude trying to kick some sense into your head and calling out the bullshit I read

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:52:39 AM

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:49:02 AM

Thank you for answering my question.

Now that you said "No!", how do you think their business model will work if they do not have a financial incentive to keep certain users off the block chain?

How do they make their money if they are in fact a for-profit company?

It's been repeated ad nauseum that their business model is similar to RedHat or any other companies that built entreprise class software on top of open source platforms and offer a variety of consulting services.

but does that profit depend upon side chains becoming a reality and/or the max block size staying relatively small or at 1MB?

ad nauseum where? lol I haven;t seen any recent discussion of their business model in depth.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:50:49 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:48:42 AM

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:36:02 AM

Simply put:

Sidechains will have security issues.

Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.

Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.

You went from implying conflict of interest and nefarious actions to simply bashing sidechains because according to your reputable technical expertise "they're not secure".

Answer me this:

Where does the additional hashing power come from to secure any side chain to make it equally secure to bitcoin's current security?

And I was merely pointing out how SC's will not be as secure as bitcoin.

BTW please answer my question on how Blockstream makes its money if it is a for-profit company.

Thanks Grin

No one claimed it can be as equally secure as Bitcoin but it can get pretty darn close. The beautiful thing about sidechains is they offer a wide range of security models that can be leveraged for various degrees of decentralization and trustlessness.

About the hashing power, if merged mining is implemented then miners will have financial incentive to process and secure transactions occurring on a sidechain. It isn't a stretch to believe that a particularly popular and useful sidechain (improve privacy for example) could see close to 100% of the miners merge-mine the chain.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:43:19 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 03:35:37 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:31:36 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 03:26:24 AM

https://bitcoinmagazine.com/20618/blockstream-starts-development-lightning-network/

They didnt originate it, but it will become their core (pun intended) focus.

Yes. Tell me more about your intricate knowledge of their business plans.

You're aware they have a total of ONE developer working on LN out of a total of more than a dozen?

So you are a blockstream insider then? Figures.

Why would I be privy to such detail? I don't broadcast the breakdown of the development resources in my business.

Seems you are too since you know so much about their "core focus"

https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3gmkak/the_blockstream_business_plan/ctzwety?context=3

I'm sorry, but what part of that cosy exchange with Rusty would lead me to believe you are not a blockstream cheerleader? Huh

edit: cheerfully withdraw the shill remark. you are entitled to give their side of things.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:49:02 AM

Thank you for answering my question.

Now that you said "No!", how do you think their business model will work if they do not have a financial incentive to keep certain users off the block chain?

How do they make their money if they are in fact a for-profit company?

It's been repeated ad nauseum that their business model is similar to RedHat or any other companies that built entreprise class software on top of open source platforms and offer a variety of consulting services.

sAt0sHiFanClub

hero member

Activity: 546

Merit: 500

Warning: Confrmed Gavinista

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:38:39 AM

Read my posts above. Blockstream is first and foremost about extending the features of Bitcoin, not scaling.

But isn't this the crux of the situation? Blockstream ( and by extension, bitcoin core) have no intention of scaling Bicoin to become a global payment system, but merely a support mechanism for their scalable payment system. Huh

hdbuck

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1002

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:36:02 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:10:52 AM

Quote from: sAt0sHiFanClub on August 18, 2015, 03:05:50 AM

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 02:52:23 AM

From where I stand it always seemed to me Blockstream was about scaling the features of Bitcoin, not its capacity, so I'm not certain how this conflicts with their position on the block size debate.

Read page 1, section 1 of the LN white paper. For large scale payments, it says that bitcoin is not fit for purpose, and we need something else. It says nothing about scaling the features of bitcoin, just how bitcoin can be used to support LN, which would be a separate system.

I see you're still confused. You do know Blockstream did not come up with LN or write the white paper?

Here is the Blockstream sidechains whitepaper:

Quote

We propose a new technology, pegged sidechains, which enables bitcoins and other ledger assets to be transferred between multiple blockchains. This gives users access to new and innovative cryptocurrency systems using the assets they already own. By reusing Bitcoin’s currency, these systems can more easily interoperate with each other and with Bitcoin, avoiding the liquidity shortages and market ﬂuctuations associated with new currencies. Since sidechains are separate systems, technical and economic innovation is not hindered.

That sounds like scaling features to me.

Simply put:

Sidechains will have security issues.

Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.

Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.

obviously, but thats why you want bitcoin core to be set in stone.

+ talkin about security..

Quote from: hdbuck on August 18, 2015, 02:15:50 AM

Gavin Andresen On Future Blockchain Security: I Dunno LOL!

http://qntra.net/2015/01/gavin-andresen-on-future-blockchain-security-i-dunno-lol/#comment-7830

Quote

So how will blockchain security get paid for in the future?

I honestly don't know.

fuck you gavin.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1473

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: brg444 on August 18, 2015, 03:48:42 AM

Quote from: smoothie on August 18, 2015, 03:36:02 AM

Simply put:

Sidechains will have security issues.

Any side chain of bitcoin will likely have less security in terms of hash.

Not sure how viable that option would be given the possibility of miners pointing their pools at a side chain just to dick around with it and mess up people's assets on the side chain.

You went from implying conflict of interest and nefarious actions to simply bashing sidechains because according to your reputable technical expertise "they're not secure".

Answer me this:

Where does the additional hashing power come from to secure any side chain to make it equally secure to bitcoin's current security?

And I was merely pointing out how SC's will not be as secure as bitcoin.

BTW please answer my question on how Blockstream makes its money if it is a for-profit company.

Thanks Grin

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 4. (Read 2032254 times)