Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 703. (Read 2032265 times)

I agree with all of the above and am happy to see that your thoughts are aligned with mine.

Why use Bitcoin? Simply because the altcoin as less interoperability as a "separated currency" and of course because it creates a new scarcity that does not respect Bitcoin's ledger.

So who are you?  If brg444's privacy has to be sacrificed for the sake of an honest discussion, so should yours.


And a wife with a nice fat trust fund.


And we'd like to know who we're dealing with.

Good day gentleman, it is a beautiful snowy day outside. First, let us address this brain fart from our most cherished lunatic.

 

Why did I not think about this! You don't even need SPVProof, just bolt yourself to BTC directly through a federated server and "siphon" all these BTCs.

But wait.... I still don't own them? How do you suggest I use Bitcoin without actually... you know... buying them? I mean it's cool and all if people lock their BTC to my sidechain but how is this supposed to "buy me a seat" in the system.

Schyzophrenia : where attracting BTC is as easy as a creating a sidechain.

Current situation (without spvp):
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via ALTCOIN offering some speculative ALT-CURRENCY to trade into and just wait.  
 - they must use "trusted/federated" party to exchange  bitcoin with altcoin or use Appendix C Atomic swaps

SC word situation (with spvp)
 - these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative SIDECURENCY to trade into and just wait.
 - now they can use bitcoin-protocol to exchange bitcoin with SIDECURENCY  (but main question is who will want SIDECURENCY when scBTC can provide same functionality)  => It makes only sense if sidecurency can be redeemable for real asset e.g. gold or $ => it is same as buying gold with btc on decentralized exchange.

OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY only removes dependence on trusted counterparty. => the core problem that bitcoin seeks to solve

we deal with all existential threats here.

I think im as skeptical as you when it comes to trusting anyone with the ability to make changes to the Bitcoin protocol, and I have just as much disdain for the Bitcoin Foundation. It wouldn't bother me if TX fees were adjusted manually for the next 2 to 5 years while people discuss options.

As for block size and TX fees, the fee is only used to incentivize security, miners are not (but for a miner limitation in hard drive write speeds) impeded by block size, just nodes.

If Bitcoin scales big I'm of the opinion that a computer enthusiasts with 10 to 100 BTC would be happy and financially incentivized to maintain a node in a similar way many like to manage there own portfolios today.

There is a cost to run the network and it is donated by the nods, the place I see opportunity for innovation is here. I've not seen one proposal to address this in an effective way and SC do it in an ineffective way by using the security incentive to subsidies the maintenance cost.

hey, it worked didn't it? 

i got his identity within minutes and from the most unlikely of all sources, brg444 himself.  and i didn't have to pay a dime.  btw, the 2 BTC bounty is still open for any evidence, subject to my approval, of a direct link of Alex Berg @bergalex to Blockstream.

it really helps to know who your opponent is. isn't that what Sun Tzu said?  for a moment there, he had me worried i was talking to gmax or luke and i'd actually have to learn something technically.  instead, i now know he really is a 24 yo kid with a shitty job who has only been in Bitcoin for a mere 8mo and who has no perspective on the ups and downs of Bitcoin since Jan 2011 when i got involved (lurking).

hell, when i was 24 yo my career success was baked in the cake.  i was in the middle of my training at the #3 ranked school in the nation for what i do and the #1 research grant recipient for same said school.  i've gone on to reach the absolute apex of my field and in my element i have absolute authority to which ppl have to respond within seconds or else lose their jobs.  i work with the highest and coolest of technologies and enjoy a level of respect from clients only granted to a few select professions.  i love what i do and i have time for Bitcoin, which i also love.

and it didn't come with a silver spoon or connections.  i grew up in a lower, middle class family in a shitty city.  the only way i was going to a quality university was to get a full scholarship out of high school, which i did.  that was the ticket that got my career rolling.

so yeah, it really helps to know who i'm dealing with.

It is about Gold collapsing and Bitcoin UP.
Just for wildly inclusive definitions of Gold and Bitcoin.

Right they are different things.
SCIP is the underpinning of SNARK though.

This:

I don't even know what the fuck everyone here is discussing but it sure ain't about Gold collapsing or Bitcoin going up  

let me distill it even further.

brg444 is trying to scare us into believing that unless we implement spvp to core, all these thousands of SC entities are going to move to federated servers which are opaque and much more ominous and threatening to Bitcoin.  somehow.

I proposed naming the 'mainchain' with a 0 back in summer 2011.  One of my early posts on this forum.  Scaling via child chains is actually something of a no-brainer since it solves so many problems so nicely with so few downsides.

I also took on a decent sized Bitcoin position partially because of the hope that the community would eventually understand the scaling difficulties and utilize the mainchain in the logical way before it was to late.  That it took until 2015 has been highly aggravating to me and has caused me long stretches of demoralization with the solution.

Thanks for distilling the essence of the issues being discussed.

Ideally, I'd like to see a development roadmap for the protocol, with clearly-defined criteria for determining what goes in and what does not.

Unfortunately a prerequisite for that is a common agreement on goals.

1) If it does something, it can do something bad.     There are threats and risks to Bitcoin from implementing OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, the question is more whether "the hook is worth the bait".  (But I see I can sign you into the group that pretends that there are no risks to Bitcoin.)  If the hook is tiny, not so sharp and the line is weak...and the bait is very tasty, we may bite the baited hook.  We may find out we were foolish anyway and end up served for dinner.  The older the fish, the more bait it has stolen from a fisherman's hook.

2) Yes, currently the technical implementations require either blind trust, or wading through some very dense mathematics, and then checking whether the full C libraries have been correctly implemented.

When I saw this presentation, it sort of blew my mind in the type of things that it could change.  It is really the beginning of the end of analog.  The only limits seem to be the computational power of the proof systems.
This is not a small thing, it may easily be as revolutionary as the BGP solution.

I for one dearly wish that Bitcoin would scale while retaining the distributed features which, to me, give Bitcoin it's strength.  Unfortunately wishing for something is a poor engineering strategy.

About all I see from the scale-up folks is 'it's so easy...just tweak max_block_size and we can do 20,000 transactions per second no problem because Moore's Law.'  Meanwhile as we get half way to the paltry 7 tps six years on, one's computer running a full node acts like it has a mining trojan.

So, demo some code which does a fraction of the wild numbers needed to support the world.  Also, for an actual convincing test, let an adversary run DPI and filtering between your test sites.

the way i see it, adding the spvp to source forever alters Bitcoins property of Sound Money.  i would no longer view it as a SOV. 

as it currently stands, you want outsiders to either pay hard cash to buy BTC's to get a seat at the table or trade something of value for BTC.  by introducing an offramp spvp, these same outsiders also may have figured out that Bitcoin is broken and instead of buying in, they will simply bolt onto Bitcoin via the spvp offering some speculative asset to trade into and just wait.  eventually, once everyone figures out that there's a leak in the system they will start moving out in droves into all manner of speculative assets and SC's

it's like a barn full of cattle.  they feel perfectly safe and secure while the barn door is closed.  the wolves outside have no way of getting in except for scaling the side of the barn to an open upstairs window.  the cost is high for the wolves cuz they might fall and kill themselves.  instead, someone throws the front door wide open.  initially nothing happens and an occasional cattle glances over at the open door and figures the owner will close it back up to protect them.  eventually they figure out the door isn't closing.  instead of the wolves rushing thru the front door, they decide to just wait outside and pick off every single cattle that comes storming out with time.

Thanks Odalv, I've understood you think it's good, can you explain why you think it is good?

I think most of the sidechain.pdf authors still want to hard-fork bitcoin to support an increased max block size, no?  On that matter, are there any core devs remaining who are against increasing the max block size?

Nevertheless, I made the same point earlier that sidechains could be used as an "excuse" to not move forward with this hard fork, fragmenting community opinion at a time when we need to come together to support this change.  Ideally, I like to see us move forward with the hard fork within the next 12 months, sidechains explored using federated servers, and the risks and rewards of adding support for SPV proofs to the protocol analyzed in much greater detail from the technical perspective, but also from the economic, legal, and game-theory perspectives too.  

that was an interesting video.  thx for sharing.

is the skiplist as described in the SC WP the same as SCIP?  doesn't sound like it.