Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 674. (Read 2032265 times)

why should i admit that centralized offchain solutions are dangerous to Bitcoin?  based on what evidence?  Gox?  Bitcoinica?

c'mon, that would be to neglect the greater understanding that has been achieved by such unfortunate events.  it is growing up.  do you expect perfect behavior from children?  Bitcoin is inherently a p2p money and encourages us as individuals to take greater responsibility for our money.  those hard lessons have gone a long way towards strengthening Bitcoin, not endangering Bitcoin.  look at all the improved security measures that have grown out of those events.  we "need" those events to teach us how to interact with Bitcoin and further strengthen it.  SC's are an excuse to not deal with these hard problems esp when it comes to MC development.  instead of Blockstream breaking off with 40% of core devs + 3 top committers in a bid to make $millions/billions, why don't those guys work with Gavin to implement MC improvements?  or if they insist on attempting to make $millions/billions off of Bitcoin, at least step down and allow some non-conflicted core devs to take over.  or reorg as a non profit.

Blockstream is just another for profit company that was established at the beginning of the year and is jockeying to modify the core protocol to its advantage so as to give them an edge over other companies or products like CP, Bitshares, Mastercoin, etc. 

I agree, which goes with my argument that not many SCs will access or even consider using this security model. Though there are certainly use cases that could command and obtain this kind of adoption.

This makes cypherdoc's delusion about SPVP even more irrelevant considering there is a high probability that a good majority of sidechains will use federated models.

I agree with you on this issue cypher but my problem is... If you don't want these side chains to exist, why is it that you are also so against alt coins that enable features that you do not wish Bitcoin to support?

Great read:
https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/20/bitcoin-maximalism-currency-platform-network-effects/

How would you like to see such innovation occur?

Persistingly wrong.

How many times and how many people need to point out the fallacy in your argument for you to finally understand that sidechain DO NOT inherently, "break Bitcoin as Money"?

When are you going to address the fact that any centralized off-chain solution is considerably more dangerous to Bitcoin as Money than sidechains are?

Are you going to admit that SPVP proof is just another verification model by which the allocation of coins to other chains is potentially safer and more decentralized than current solutions that exist?

The Bitcoin money is its ledger. Sidechains are effectively the most secure way to accomodate any transactions that can not be processed on the mainchain while preserving the integrity of the ledger.

If you are honestly worried about corruption of Bitcoin as Money, centralized off-chain solutions should be the biggest of your concerns.

Is there a new innovation in merged mining that adds some security?

The security for merged mined side chains is more likely to be based on good will, than merged mining.  The "can't be evil" requirement is really the critical element.  (Our collective effort to maintain the non-evil is the guiding principle of this topic.)
Everyone has to pretty much love the SC like a precious offspring, for it to survive, if it is merge mined.  Otherwise merge.mine.capability will more likely kill it rather than secure it.

i'm glad everyone's been talking about Satoshi recently.  that stimulated me to go back thru his whitepaper to see if there were any references to any of the speculative SC's functions that are being proposed by the SC proponents in this thread and elsewhere.  those being listed below.  they claim that SC's are a "natural and logical extension" to Bitcoin and that if Satoshi was able to be asked, he would love SC's.  well, i see no indication that this wild claim is valid.  see that none of these speculative assets were ever mentioned:

0 asset
0 stocks
0 bonds
0 insurance
0 smart
0 contracts
0 sidechain
0 offchain
0 separate
2 gold
5 money

it's clear to me that Satoshi intended for Bitcoin to be a new form of digital money, or currency if you will, that mimicked gold in all respects and improved upon it.  i'm only aware of one isolated forum post where he mentioned the addition of smart contracts, etc but that was in the context of adding them to the MC protocol.  never was there any mention of SC's nor the quack idea of separating the BTC units from the blockchain.  and understandably so.  by breaking the inextricable link btwn the two, you break security and therefore break Bitcoin as Money.  this is so obvious.  the last 200 pages have clearly demonstrated a myriad of ways things can go wrong with the SC proponents morphing their vision of how SC's will play out to satisfy any specific concern while promising us the moon.

Bitcoin should continue to focus on what got us to where we are:  the Money function.  that is where the problem lies today in the world of fiat and central banks.  this is what i saw back in January of 2011, Bitcoin as a poison dart aimed at the heart of central banks.  the problem is not stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts.  those all function reasonably well.  the problems we've had with them in the past, such as in 2001 and 2008, were fiat printing enabled and backed by central banks.  w/o the ability to print at will to bail out bad actors, Bitcoin as Money seeks to clamp down and eliminate this moral hazard.  and the network of money is ripe to be disrupted.  and rightfully so.  THAT is where the money is.  the Forex is the biggest in the world as i've shown.  the gold market is huge as well.  if Bitcoin can crack those markets we will go to the Moon.  Bitcoin should stay simple and non complex.  it has evolved to that of a public good.  no one should be allowed to corrupt its primary function of money.  let alone profit off it. 

leave the source code alone.

 

Absolutely not. You are the only one obsessed with these speculative SC's. Everyone else recognize the utility and potential of distributing the Bitcoin ledger on different chains with different utility.

It's not that "no one gets it". It's quite simply that your assumptions are wrong.

Well it was up to the Gold referendum mostly but gold was going down for months prior to this.

 

I was referring to the meme the guys in the video were addressing.  

Mainstream meme : You don't need bitcoin to use Blockchain technology.

Blockstream : You can move Bitcoin around to other chains.

I'd characterize him as pragmatic, rather than a pragmatist.
Sure, mining centralization was anticipated, but not inevitable.
It is non-fatal to the extent the BGP solution addresses it, which it does pretty well, but not perfectly.

i doubt it.  we've already established these asset SC's will be speculative and therefore different ledgers.  no one quite gets that yet.  and they don't get that these distractions will deprecate Bitcoins primary function, that being the disruption of money. 

Blockstream won't even release a business plan outlining exactly how they plan to make money.  once they do, i think everything will become quite clear.

Everyone here "gets" it.

This is absolutely not the argument we are having. These guys are referring to idiots and mainstream journalists who argue you can have the blockchain without the bitcoin.

When they say "you can't separate" the two, that's absolutely not in reference to sidechains or other similar schemes.

In fact, you can bet these guys are pretty excited about sidechains.

+1000! In 3 sentences you perfectly nailed the conundrum, and highlighted everything that is currently *wrong* with 99.9% of the altcoin/appcoin development market.  The majority of alt/app coin developers try to pass off their efforts as completely altruistic and for the good of society, when in reality they're hoping to make a fortune off the backs of the naïve and weak minded.  Pre-mined POS is a perfect example of that.

Nice Bloomberg panel of  guys who "get" that you can't be splitting the unit from  the Blockchain;

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-as-a-technology-bloomberg-panel-TnFJvX9~SOOgqr4UoiWRHw.html

https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#micropayment-channel

It's called the 'free market'.  Try it sometime...you'll be glad you did.  You Libertardian's brains are so muddled up with absurd 'sound money' and 'violence' word-salad nonsense that you cannot see the forest for the trees.

One of the beauties of sidechains is that price discovery hassles are off-loaded to the part of the system which is designed to handle it.  That would be the Bitcoin part.  What 'discovery' that is left is simply that which is driven by creating a good solution which people need.

I think many of you guys are all fucked up on how you (or someone) can make a dime off sidechains by scamming people and it is interfering with your analytical abilities.  There is a sucker born every minute, and I'm sure some sidechains will be part of a system to separate them from their money, but these will be transient and an educational experience for the victims who would get the same experience some other way without them.  The durable sidechains will be those which are created for the right reasons.

Ok thanks, I missed that. I will think of micropayment channels when you mention price discovery mechanisms. So how do you build a micropayment channel?

You are spreading nonsenses and you you will try to call me mad idiot ? Look at you first.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9321024

Oh, I forgot we already had that conversation.