oops. you simply said Bitcoin and not Bitcoin+SC's. my mistake. i don't agree with you. you're simply a troll.
SC BIP published. ... few months ago
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 587. (Read 2032291 times)
SC BIP published. ... few months ago
Bitcoin now
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Sorry for the pessimism, but my image of the bitcoin blockchain with all those appendages is the first image above with 20 chairs bolted to each wing and three cargo containers attached underneath the fuselage. Then, moving away from bitcoin as currency would be like removing the engine and propellers to make room for more luggage.
i hate to have to agree with the ultimate Bitcoin troll but you're right.
and we know this by Adam's vision of what Bitcoin is and his thoughts.
oops. you simply said Bitcoin and not Bitcoin+SC's. my mistake. i don't agree with you. you're simply a troll.
Bitcoin now
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Sorry for the pessimism, but my image of the bitcoin blockchain with all those appendages is the first image above with 20 chairs bolted to each wing and three cargo containers attached underneath the fuselage. Then, moving away from bitcoin as currency would be like removing the engine and propellers to make room for more luggage.
this one ?
Bitcoin now
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Sorry for the pessimism, but my image of the bitcoin blockchain with all those appendages is the first image above with 20 chairs bolted to each wing and three cargo containers attached underneath the fuselage. Then, moving away from bitcoin as currency would be like removing the engine and propellers to make room for more luggage.
and we know this by Adam's vision of what Bitcoin is and his thoughts.
Bitcoin now
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Sorry for the pessimism, but my image of the bitcoin blockchain with all those appendages is the first image above with 20 chairs bolted to each wing and three cargo containers attached underneath the fuselage. Then, moving away from bitcoin as currency would be like removing the engine and propellers to make room for more luggage.
i've been nice to you ever since you entered this thread in a big way. yet this is about the 4th time you've called me a troll despite the fact i even complimented you on your POW work.
Relax, just a joke
I dont think you're a troll, though I see I am not alone in enjoying flame fests sometimes.1. in the WP, you mentioned that it is possible that if a SC became popular enough, then Bitcoiners might have to move all their BTC to the SC. what about those who don't get the memo? this question is similar to the big debate we had a couple years ago about harvesting apparent "un-used" addresses. that was obviously shot down real quick in that there is no way to ever be sure exactly that the true owner was dead or had lost the privkey.
Personally I would not see anything that didnt protect all ownership, being accepted by anyone sane. What I mean is eg in the same way you keep your bitcoins as we go from 0.09 to 0.10; you'd keep your bitcoins if we went from 0.99 to 1.0 if that was a hard fork implemented and switched over to using a sidechain as the live-beta process.
not if the MC gets destroyed or fails in the years after abandonment. who would mine the tx into the SC?
3. what real difference is there in forcing more transparency (as we are now doing with Merkle root audits, regulation, better VC funded exchanges) on 3rd party merchants vs. using SC's where supposedly we will be able to view the source code to ensure no backdoors (only a select few can do that)? i would argue that the former is no different than the real mechanisms we have today and therefore not experimental or as risky to the degree you're wanting to construct via an unprecedented and untested 2wp.
Matter of debate. I guess while its true as you said they are improving at governance, its also true the scammers our out in force, so its risky relying on governance alone, and merkle audits are after-the-fact. Mtgox could've had merkle audits and still lost $500m the next day.
Either way I think it is important to simplify, modularise and freeze the basic bitcoin as sound money to protect it from failure. You realise bitcoin has been lucky or the devs have been epically proficient in coding and testing the code and fixing bugs carefully for nothing to have blown up at a level that wiped out long stored coins. We want bitcoin to be here in 50 and 100 years.
Then you want people who are using bitcoin for fancier things to do it somewhere else, with a guaranteed firewall between your savings and their more complex code bases. IMO. Sidechains is one way to do that. Another one is provably secure consistency enforcing bytecode VM.
we already have secured the sound money aspect with Bitcoin as it is. don't fix something that isn't broken. if Bitcoin becomes a bonafide traded forex currency, all those other speculative assets can start being denominated in BTC units w/o SC's.
will you sell SC's to govt's if asked?
My opinion is we dont need too many chains, as more asset types can be available on the same chain (its easier to write a smart-contract between assets natively on or pegged to the same chain). So I think a separate chain should be for something that cant co-exist with because its mutually exclusive or a different risk profile (say like zerocash or snark smart-contracts (very private and safe/efficient to verify arbitrarily complex contract!) with its dependence on novel crypto). I would therefore imagine it would more be to help people issue assets, or integrate an existing sidechain than to make someone there very own sidechain. I mean a chain should be a blockchain which implies decentralisation and neutrality from undue code influence etc. A company or government "owning" a chain seems like a bad idea, and probably doesnt make sense.
But I do think it would be interesting to have a government issue its electronic M0 directly onto a chain, which it would do with a secure hw signing key. The interesting part is that they could make a smart-monetary-policy eg committing to cap QE at 2%/year. Something like that might greatly improve the stability and exchange rate of a currency that is currently poorly run, because they'd be intentionally giving up control of moral hazard. Its not an alien concept to monetary policy because they often set eg mandates and limits, its just that in times of stress they break their own rules to their own currencies detriment.
Whether we'd want to consult for someone would depend on whether we think what they're proposing to do is non-evil for humans and for bitcoin.
why should we trust someone like gmax to be in a position, along with the others in BS, to make that sort of decision? i'm certainly not comfortable about the idea of having a gvt-enabled SC that could be declared mandatory in their jurisdiction. i think this is all going in the wrong direction of what Bitcoin is all about and you're articulating it right here with no qualms.
i posted above that there are several venture funds that have invested. how can they not want the std 10x return of their investment? those fund constituents do not just represent the viewpoint of their founder.
Sure I said something about profit here:
Quote from: adam3us link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9997666#msg9997666
You should view blockstream as a sort of hybrid. We are developing FOSS open IP much as a not-for-profit would. But we are also aiming to make a profit by selling services, doing partnerships, advising integrators etc this is all complicated stuff and people need help to make it work. Like was said its kind of like Mozilla.
and
Quote from: adam3us link=https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=68655.msg9997307#msg9997307
The quote didnt say not to make a profit it said to have a dual objective and compared the approach to Mozilla. Mozilla made plenty of profit (and is a hybrid incorporating both a for profit and a not-for-profit) and also did a good job of making the firefox browser a leading source of user ethos focussed innovation and features.
Greg Maxwell (nullc on reddit) wrote some about how blockstream plans to make profit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhoo7d
I dont think making a profit is a bad thing - to hire developers & QA and UX designers and maintain software and design protocols and figure out how to use smart-contracts and find business partnerships to make those available to users all takes money. As those are good outcomes, and require more money, you have to have a profit to fuel it, you cant rely on investors to keep putting in more rounds!
Its quite feasible to make money without being controlling, proprietary, centralising or evil. We certainly aim to try.
Greg Maxwell (nullc on reddit) wrote some about how blockstream plans to make profit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhoo7d
I dont think making a profit is a bad thing - to hire developers & QA and UX designers and maintain software and design protocols and figure out how to use smart-contracts and find business partnerships to make those available to users all takes money. As those are good outcomes, and require more money, you have to have a profit to fuel it, you cant rely on investors to keep putting in more rounds!
Its quite feasible to make money without being controlling, proprietary, centralising or evil. We certainly aim to try.
Quote from: cipherdoc
btw, you show your bias when you nitpick my trivial comment to tvbcof here w/o even acknowledging the disgusting, immature video he put up. i suggest it's b/c he supports your view:
Probably predisposed to side with the underdog (no pun intended:), problems with authority, libertarian you know how it goes. Nah its not for his views but cause you were trying to be rude/belittling. But chortle at the Chihuahua humping someones ankle video. Well you did kind of ask for it by saying "you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms" though, so its hard to complain
Adam
to summarize. i think our ideologies about what Bitcoin is are too different to achieve an agreement. i view it simply as Sound Money which can fix all our problems. i don't think you see it the same way:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/about-price-stability-lack-of-pricesupply-feedback-long-run-electrical-cost-907157
Bitcoin now
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Bitcoin with sidechain support
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
- you are using tooo much "if"s
- you see MM as only solutions (we will have only few 2-3 100% MM SC (edit: if any :-))) => there are other better solutions than MM
what are they besides federated servers?
- yes, it is possible to use private federated server (FS) for local SC
- it is possible to create independent oracles
- it is possible to use timestamps in MC (MCTS)
- it is possible to use various combination of FS, MCTS and oracles
but that isn't a better solution than MM. it's inferior.
Once you create SC with some functionality and then you can run 1,000,000 (zerocoin?) clones.
15 yr weekly USD/$DJI comparison chart. there's some weird shit going on here. note the late change:
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
- you are using tooo much "if"s
- you see MM as only solutions (we will have only few 2-3 100% MM SC (edit: if any :-))) => there are other better solutions than MM
what are they besides federated servers?
- yes, it is possible to use private federated server (FS) for local SC
- it is possible to create independent oracles
- it is possible to use timestamps in MC (MCTS)
- it is possible to use various combination of FS, MCTS and oracles
but that isn't a better solution than MM. it's inferior.
Using 1,000 local SC is much more better (decentralized, authority resistant) than 1 global MM SC
edit:
it cost 1/1000 of resources
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
Damn, don't be a tool. Who cares about the US?
i neither approve or disapprove of this. this is just my observation. the reality of the matter is that US pools are in a very difficult situation. BTCGuild and Eleuthria sold out b/c he wasn't about to go against possible US regulation as he didn't want to go to jail.
A problem pos currencies don't have to deal with.
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
- you are using tooo much "if"s
- you see MM as only solutions (we will have only few 2-3 100% MM SC (edit: if any :-))) => there are other better solutions than MM
what are they besides federated servers?
- yes, it is possible to use private federated server (FS) for local SC
- it is possible to create independent oracles
- it is possible to use timestamps in MC (MCTS)
- it is possible to use various combination of FS, MCTS and oracles
but that isn't a better solution than MM. it's inferior.
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
- you are using tooo much "if"s
- you see MM as only solutions (we will have only few 2-3 100% MM SC (edit: if any :-))) => there are other better solutions than MM
what are they besides federated servers?
- yes, it is possible to use private federated server (FS) for local SC
- it is possible to create independent oracles
- it is possible to use timestamps in MC (MCTS)
- it is possible to use various combination of FS, MCTS and oracles
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
introducing regulatory/political drawbacks into a technology is sure to compromise its function and benefits to humanity.
would you have lawyers/politicians design/build 747's for you to cross the Atlantic in? design/build nuclear power stations to power your cities?
leave technology to the technologists unless you want bad outcomes.
money is a value information technology not a political tool, it needs to be the best technology it can be to maximally benefit humanity, not a compromised, politicised, perverted tool for oppression and dubious agendas.
marcus, in your opinion does that include SC's for Bitcoin?
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
introducing regulatory/political drawbacks into a technology is sure to compromise its function and benefits to humanity.
would you have lawyers/politicians design/build 747's for you to cross the Atlantic in? design/build nuclear power stations to power your cities?
leave technology to the technologists unless you want bad outcomes.
money is a value information technology not a political tool, it needs to be the best technology it can be to maximally benefit humanity, not a compromised, politicised, perverted tool for oppression and dubious agendas.
I see your point
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
That doesn't sound very promising
Yes you are right. Not very promising and shady too!
apparently not for LukeJr and Eligius!
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
- you are using tooo much "if"s
- you see MM as only solutions (we will have only few 2-3 100% MM SC (edit: if any :-))) => there are other better solutions than MM
what are they besides federated servers?
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
Damn, don't be a tool. Who cares about the US?
i neither approve or disapprove of this. this is just my observation. the reality of the matter is that US pools are in a very difficult situation. BTCGuild and Eleuthria sold out b/c he wasn't about to go against possible US regulation as he didn't want to go to jail.
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
introducing regulatory/political drawbacks into a technology is sure to compromise its function and benefits to humanity.
would you have lawyers/politicians design/build 747's for you to cross the Atlantic in? design/build nuclear power stations to power your cities?
leave technology to the technologists unless you want bad outcomes.
money is a value information technology not a political tool, it needs to be the best technology it can be to maximally benefit humanity, not a compromised, politicised, perverted tool for oppression and dubious agendas.
Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?
Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.
Adam,
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.
That doesn't sound very promising
Yes you are right. Not very promising and shady too!
Lobster my man, this was honestly the first thing that crossed my mind on reading the paper. I don't know why it isn't being addressed