Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 699. (Read 2032265 times)

  You are so basic.

SPvp SC's will be MM only at the extent that they support a considerable part of the economy and enable a service/feature/application that command a level of decentralization & security on the same level as BTC.

Examples are utility sidechains that serve a money function : fast txs, anonymity. I'm sure there will be more of these but not 1000s or BILLIONS.

These chains are likely the ones that will be supporting a majority of the network transactions, surely enough to satisfy the miners' incentives.

Federated servers sidechains will support more corporation type, centralized sidechains that demand more control and oversight over the chain's parameters. They will be the model of choice for any entity that cannot secure the backing of a majority of the mining network.

SPVProof enables a balance between both types and provides an insurance for the miners incentives.

Bullshit.

Find one credible source who will go on record saying that sidechain units carry zero counterparty risk compared to bitcoins.

Actually the sidechains whitepaper was fairly explicit about saying the opposite.

Reducing counterparty risk is a worthy goal, however one can't build solutions to a problem that one refuses to acknowledge.

Anybody who thinks that counterparty risk for promissory notes can be eliminated is delusional.

Managed? Sure. Reduced? Absolutely. Eliminated? Never.

why?

yes, and they can't get to 1st base unless the spvp is inserted into source.

c'mon man, you do realize what you're saying and how contorted it is?  let me summarize:

"b/c spvp SC's are insecure b/c they won't be MM'd, Blockstream will develop federated SC's instead.  b/c federated SC's will prevent miners from collecting tx fees, we should therefore adopt spvp SC's even though they're insecure and then they can be MM'd." 

This is complete non-sense.

Off ramp created by federated sidechains can be equally speculative & inflationary.

SPVProof is neutral and has no inherent inflation attached. The sidechain issued from a SPVProof are whatever their creator make them to be.

it will be hard lesson you will be learnt in the next year.

Promissory notes engineered on the protocol level are a whole different animal : no counter-party risk.

The SPVP introduces a new proof verification method. It does not guarantee that everyone will be able to leverage it because to do so you have to depend on miners adopting your chain.

This is a very shaky proposition and it is very likely that federated servers will have an important place in the sidechain ecosystem. In fact, any of the proposed malicious schemes you have described will likely use that format.  

Only community approved and adopted sidechains will be able to command MM from the miners. These are very likely to be utility chains that are 100% open source, transparent and serves the public good.

The very SPECULATIVE chains you are so concerned about will most certainly be supported by federated servers. The reason is evident and logic very intuitive : since it is impossible for them to guarantee a sufficient enough level of MM by miners, they will opt to provide "security" through a more centralized proof mechanism.

I believe you had agreed that only a certain number of chains would be MM to provide a security level equivalent to BTC. Any others are subject to the necessary centralization tradeoff.

It is for that reason that a great majority of Blockstream's chains built for clients will be AT LEAST bootstrapped on top of federated server model. It only makes sense.

Therefore, yes federated model sidechains will absolutely gain traction and detach a considerable portion of the BTC assets off the mainchain. Their off ramp, while different from SPVproof, results in the exact same mechanism.

SPVproof only enables the possibility to bestow the ultimate decentralization to the chains that command this feature. They are most certainly not an open door that allow anyone to magically "siphon" more BTC than they would through a federated sidechain.

yes.  most ppl missed the point of a post i made the other night.

by destroying Bitcoins sound money principle by inserting an offramp into source, you effectively make the destination speculative SC's inflationary.

I see something happening here that's been a long standing problem in the Bitcoin space, especially in "Bitcoin 2.0" circles.

Quite a few people, sometimes out of ignorance and sometimes out of malice, blur the lines between money and promissory notes.

the answer is clear. 

the spvp is the biggest threat cuz it breaks the sound money principle by changing source.  yes, you can't stop all stupid ppl from doing a 2wp to a federated server.  i'm sure some will but it won't be a large # b/c they are centralized and insecure and represent niche local community uses.  they won't gain any traction and thus don't threaten the sound money principle as they are not institutionalized into the protocol.

What breaks Bitcoin Sound Money principle?

The introduction of a change to its source code or the detachement of the BTC asset from its mainchain?

and you still aren't listening.  who cares about federated servers?  they pose no threat cuz they don't change source code.

I repeat


This is exactly what is going to happen with more off-chain/federated servers sidechains.

And you still don't get it....

Federated pegs create the SAME off-ramp using a different proof mechanism. The proof mechanism has no incident on the possibility to create sidechains where BTC can escape to speculative asset.

You should take back what you said and use Melbustus' spoon fed argument for you because yours really makes no sense, once again.

its not a question of honesty, which is one of your favorite ad hominem attacks.  it's our different assessments of the threat of the federated server SC's to Bitcoin.  i don't see any threat at all.  you do.   fine.  others will have to evaluate themselves.

Except if they decide to run a fractional reserve.

That has nothing to do with my argument anyway which you again so conveniently avoid : TXs are not processed by the miners.


Once again, your brain dead logic fails you.

i've actually refined my argument down to that being the mere introduction of spvp into the source code may break Bitcoin's ability to act as Sound Money.  the spvp should be viewed as an off ramp for BTC to escape to speculative assets of all types on SC's, not only to research utility chains.  once Bitoins sound money function is broken, there will be no incentive to keep BTC on MC.

yes, these offramps and the SC's they lead to will be sold by Blockstream to any willing buyers.

The only valid argument against MM is more potentially more centralization of the miners. One could argue this is an inevitable reality either way.

My position also proposes that the alternative of fulfilling on off-chain or federated servers the demand for any type of transactions that cannot be accomodated on the mainchain can lead to a dangerous loss of incentive for miners.

These schemes effectively deny them the rights to claim all of the network's transaction fees effectively diminishing their incentive to secure.

Sidechains, to that effect, are a valuable alternative that should, imo, be considered a "win" scenario.