Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 714.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:37:58 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 07:29:46 PM

in my Fedstream analogy, sure other companies can come in and try to compete, but it would be rather pitiful competing against insiders who get a head start and remain inside the Fed with all the insider info that comes with that. they also know when they're going to change the rules once again before everyone else.

Blockstream sets a bad precedent.

Headstart? Insider info?

Do I have to remind you of the concept behind open source technology?

You are so desperate it is pathetic Cheesy

Get a clue, seriously.

abusing their powerful 40% of core dev + 3 major committers to try and force this SPVproof thru, refusing to resign if implemented, setting up a for profit Blockstream company designed to profit off of said SPVproof is NOT open source development.

especially when it comes down to Bitcoin as Sound Money, which is a public good, that is NOT supposed to be subject to improprieties or a vested interest group.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:30:38 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:23:49 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:08:32 PM

the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.

Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.

Oh so you want to debate but you only try to poke holes in my position without adressing yours.

So let us again turn your argument against you.

By suggesting that the majority of the miners income will be provided by SC you propose that the sidechains utility, security & liquidity will be such that the market will have no use for the Bitcoin mainchain. This is the result of a demand for various features that are NOT implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain.

This demand does not go away or does it exist because of SPVproof sidechain.

Consequently, the market will look to other options to fullfill this demand. All of the other options will be more centralized services using oracles, federated servers and the like.

So what happens when the same exodus you propose will happen through SPVproof sidechains happen through these other services?

Well the mainchain is abandoned and miners are left with no incentive to mine.

See how this goes both way? Wink

Bitcoin has grown on average an order of magnitude every year since inception, I think you may be lacking in understanding on how the incentive structures have facilitated that growth.

How does this adress my arguments?

It feels like you and cypher are the same person. Same motus operandi : deflect, avoid adressing the actual argument and reply with convenient nonsense.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 07:29:46 PM

in my Fedstream analogy, sure other companies can come in and try to compete, but it would be rather pitiful competing against insiders who get a head start and remain inside the Fed with all the insider info that comes with that. they also know when they're going to change the rules once again before everyone else.

Blockstream sets a bad precedent.

Headstart? Insider info?

Do I have to remind you of the concept behind open source technology?

You are so desperate it is pathetic Cheesy

Get a clue, seriously.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:31:16 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 07:14:38 PM

he doesn't care b/c he isn't signif invested in Bitcoin. that's clear. he doesn't care about disadvantaging all that came before him.

you are exactly right. Bitcoin miners desperately need all those BTC to stay put on MC and be used locally for tx fees to replace the known decrease in block rewards over the upcoming years, soon to be only 12.5 BTC starting 2016.

Blockstreams monetary incentive, otoh, is to push all these BTC into SC entities thru the SPVproof so that these SC entities begin generating value of their own in essence leeching off value from Bitcoin. these SC entities have to make money or they get mad. Blockstream investors get mad if thousands of SC entities are NOT formed, otherwise how does Blockstream generate return? they will get mad too.

95% of my wealth is in BTC.

When are you ever going to address the fact that Blockstream does not need SPVproof to create such schemes?

Do you have any valid argument for that?

that's BS. they even say in the WP that moving to SPVproof is the preferred outcome. but of course, that is obvious as it institutionalizes the scheme and it forces the entire community to scramble to figure out all the changed economic assumptions this malfeasance has produced. especially those due to the conflict of interest monetary incentives that are created by Blockstream

Quote

It is only your twisted mind that sees this construction of decentralized infrastructure on top of the BTC metalayer as "leeching off value from Bitcoin".

the logic, motives, and game theory on this are as clear as a whistle in my mind, and YOU have helped me crystallize this.

Quote

Any SC entities will generate value for themselves if they offer a service that fullfills a certain demand in the market. It doesn't have to "take over" all of BTC's value.

Blockstream generates value from creating and maintaining decentralized ~~applications~~ Sidechains on top of Bitcoin. That's it, that's all. Whether these applications get any traction is up to the idea and the entity behind them. If it creates any legitimate value proposition then it will be adopted to the extent of the market/demand that it adresses.

ftfy. don't be fooled by this guy.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 07:19:29 PM

my hypothetical Fedstream is a damn pretty good analogy. 40% of Fed governors along with several key top managers decide to establish a for profit company to take advantage of a brand new negative interest rate scheme for profit. this federal monetary policy change is exactly akin to changing the Bitcoin source code protocol. both are a set of rules upon which entire economies depend on, until they can't, due to some inside actors in control of the policy pull a fast one causing everyone to scramble to compensate their investment strategies. they refuse to resign b/c they can control the outcomes much easier if they stay. most ppl get killed financially when this shit is done. this won't be any different and look, brg444 is already telling me to sell my BTC b/c he does know full well this changes all our assumptions.

No, it is a very desperate and quite pathetic analogy.

1. The for-profit company is not dependent on the implementation of the new policy to offer their service. They can leverage technology that already exists and that will likely fit their clients' requirement.

2. The for-profit company does not have a monopoly over this service. Fedstream2 from Vitalik and friends will compete to leverage the same technology.

I'm telling you to sell you BTC because BTC is dead to you.

It should have been ever since you discovered that a federated peg is native to Bitcoin and can effectively dissociate BTC from the mainchain. Or maybe you still don't understand it?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 07:14:38 PM

he doesn't care b/c he isn't signif invested in Bitcoin. that's clear. he doesn't care about disadvantaging all that came before him.

you are exactly right. Bitcoin miners desperately need all those BTC to stay put on MC and be used locally for tx fees to replace the known decrease in block rewards over the upcoming years, soon to be only 12.5 BTC starting 2016.

Blockstreams monetary incentive, otoh, is to push all these BTC into SC entities thru the SPVproof so that these SC entities begin generating value of their own in essence leeching off value from Bitcoin. these SC entities have to make money or they get mad. Blockstream investors get mad if thousands of SC entities are NOT formed, otherwise how does Blockstream generate return? they will get mad too.

95% of my wealth is in BTC.

When are you ever going to address the fact that Blockstream does not need SPVproof to create such schemes?

Do you have any valid argument for that?

It is only your twisted mind that sees this construction of decentralized infrastructure on top of the BTC metalayer as "leeching off value from Bitcoin".

Any SC entities will generate value for themselves if they offer a service that fullfills a certain demand in the market. It doesn't have to "take over" all of BTC's value.

Blockstream generates value from creating and maintaining decentralized applications on top of Bitcoin. That's it, that's all. Whether these applications get any traction is up to the idea and the entity behind them. If it creates any legitimate value proposition then it will be adopted to the extent of the market/demand that it adresses.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:23:49 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:08:32 PM

the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.

Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.

Oh so you want to debate but you only try to poke holes in my position without adressing yours.

So let us again turn your argument against you.

By suggesting that the majority of the miners income will be provided by SC you propose that the sidechains utility, security & liquidity will be such that the market will have no use for the Bitcoin mainchain. This is the result of a demand for various features that are NOT implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain.

This demand does not go away or does it exist because of SPVproof sidechain.

Consequently, the market will look to other options to fullfill this demand. All of the other options will be more centralized services using oracles, federated servers and the like.

So what happens when the same exodus you propose will happen through SPVproof sidechains happen through these other services?

Well the mainchain is abandoned and miners are left with no incentive to mine.

See how this goes both way? Wink

Bitcoin has grown on average an order of magnitude every year since inception, I think you may be lacking in understanding on how the incentive structures have facilitated that growth.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:25:19 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:13:25 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:57:24 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:50:10 PM

that is disingenuous and not in the public good.

great point.

Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this.

There should be no Redhat for Money.

You really don't get it.

Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true.

Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer.

I know how you feel, a central bank is also in the public good.

That would be a great analogy except for the fact that it is a very poor one.

A central bank has monopoly. Blockstream does not.

in my Fedstream analogy, sure other companies can come in and try to compete, but it would be rather pitiful competing against insiders who get a head start and remain inside the Fed with all the insider info that comes with that. they also know when they're going to change the rules once again before everyone else.

Blockstream sets a bad precedent.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:13:25 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:57:24 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:50:10 PM

that is disingenuous and not in the public good.

great point.

Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this.

There should be no Redhat for Money.

You really don't get it.

Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true.

Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer.

I know how you feel, a central bank is also in the public good.

That would be a great analogy except for the fact that it is a very poor one.

A central bank has monopoly. Blockstream does not.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:08:32 PM

the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.

Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.

Oh so you want to debate but you only try to poke holes in my position without adressing yours.

So let us again turn your argument against you.

By suggesting that the majority of the miners income will be provided by SC you propose that the sidechains utility, security & liquidity will be such that the market will have no use for the Bitcoin mainchain. This is the result of a demand for various features that are NOT implementable on the Bitcoin mainchain.

This demand does not go away or does it exist because of SPVproof sidechain.

Consequently, the market will look to other options to fullfill this demand. All of the other options will be more centralized services using oracles, federated servers and the like.

So what happens when the same exodus you propose will happen through SPVproof sidechains happen through these other services?

Well the mainchain is abandoned and miners are left with no incentive to mine.

See how this goes both way? Wink

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 07:14:38 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:08:32 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 06:33:47 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:20:49 PM

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains.

What about the theoretical issue of one moving a largent percent of value into federated peg chains.

Because if we end up with only federated server models then your concerns about miners incentives being removed are much more of a reality.

Whereas if we want to improve on the money functions of Bitcoin (transaction speed, anonymity) without sacrificing decentralization then we absolutely need SPVproofs sidechains.

So either we chose to enable these functions only through a federated server peg and cut miners incentive to process transactions or we give ourselves the option to use the best of both model.

Sidechains are an answer to a demand that exist and that will eventually be solved through more centralized schemes if sidechains are not implemented.

What is more dangerous for the miners and the ecosystem? To modify the incentive model to have them mine a group of chains where the value reside or bypass them through federated servers/oracles and remove their incentives to protect the network

the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.

Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.

he doesn't care b/c he isn't signif invested in Bitcoin. that's clear. he doesn't care about disadvantaging all that came before him.

you are exactly right. Bitcoin miners desperately need all those BTC to stay put on MC and be used locally for tx fees to replace the known decrease in block rewards over the upcoming years, soon to be only 12.5 BTC starting 2016.

Blockstreams monetary incentive, otoh, is to push all these BTC into SC entities thru the SPVproof so that these SC entities begin generating value of their own in essence leeching off value from Bitcoin. these SC entities have to make money or they get mad. Blockstream investors get mad if thousands of SC entities are NOT formed, otherwise how does Blockstream generate return? they will get mad too.

BlockStream have a win win proposition for miners, and for the community who fall for brg444 propaganda, I only hope Start ups like that go through the same stages as miners buying late First Gen ASIC's - (that money would have been better spent just buying Bitcoin) I hope that $15 Million investment would have been better spent on BTC, than trying to change the prototypical.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:13:25 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:57:24 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:50:10 PM

that is disingenuous and not in the public good.

great point.

Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this.

There should be no Redhat for Money.

You really don't get it.

Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true.

Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer.

I know how you feel, a central bank is also in the public good.

my hypothetical Fedstream is a damn pretty good analogy. 40% of Fed governors along with several key top managers decide to establish a for profit company to take advantage of a brand new negative interest rate scheme for profit. this federal monetary policy change is exactly akin to changing the Bitcoin source code protocol. both are a set of rules upon which entire economies depend on, until they can't, due to some inside actors in control of the policy pull a fast one causing everyone to scramble to compensate their investment strategies. they refuse to resign b/c they can control the outcomes much easier if they stay. most ppl get killed financially when this shit is done. this won't be any different and look, brg444 is already telling me to sell my BTC b/c he does know full well this changes all our assumptions.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 07:08:32 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 06:33:47 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:20:49 PM

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains.

What about the theoretical issue of one moving a largent percent of value into federated peg chains.

Because if we end up with only federated server models then your concerns about miners incentives being removed are much more of a reality.

Whereas if we want to improve on the money functions of Bitcoin (transaction speed, anonymity) without sacrificing decentralization then we absolutely need SPVproofs sidechains.

So either we chose to enable these functions only through a federated server peg and cut miners incentive to process transactions or we give ourselves the option to use the best of both model.

Sidechains are an answer to a demand that exist and that will eventually be solved through more centralized schemes if sidechains are not implemented.

What is more dangerous for the miners and the ecosystem? To modify the incentive model to have them mine a group of chains where the value reside or bypass them through federated servers/oracles and remove their incentives to protect the network

the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. increasing there profits, above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.

Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.

he doesn't care b/c he isn't signif invested in Bitcoin. that's clear. he doesn't care about disadvantaging all that came before him.

you are exactly right. Bitcoin miners desperately need all those BTC to stay put on MC and be used locally for tx fees to replace the known decrease in block rewards over the upcoming years, soon to be only 12.5 BTC starting 2016.

Blockstreams monetary incentive, otoh, is to push all these BTC into SC entities thru the SPVproof so that these SC entities begin generating value of their own in essence leeching off value from Bitcoin. these SC entities have to make money or they get mad. Blockstream investors get mad if thousands of SC entities are NOT formed, otherwise how does Blockstream generate return? they will get mad too.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:08:18 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:57:24 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:50:10 PM

that is disingenuous and not in the public good.

great point.

Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this.

There should be no Redhat for Money.

You really don't get it.

Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true.

Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer.

I know how you feel, a central bank is also in the public good.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 07:04:32 PM

notice how brg444's argument has morphed from "SC's will only be implemented as utility chains which will be MM'd 100% and there will be no speculative SC's" to "ZOMG, all the BTC's will move to federated servers if we don't implement SPVproofs!"

you sicken me with you stupidity and dihonesty.

I have NEVER said there won't be speculative SC's. You are free to dig up any of my old post to prove me wrong. My point was that your speculative SC's will not be supported by the miners.

The argument that all BTC's will move to sidechain are yours, you & Adrian. Never did I propose this is likely to happen. This scenario has been a construct of your delusional minds all along.

I am merely turning the table and using this argument against both of you to demonstrate how the situation would be worse if the SPVproof model of sidechain would not be implemented.

Of course you are unable to argue this and so you proceed to your usual, disingenuous dodging & weaving and failure to address my arguments

Did you sell your Bitcoins yet? Because sidechains are coming, SPVproof or not, and watchout cause they're gonna siphon all of BTC value and break the holy link. You best act now.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 06:33:47 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:20:49 PM

It's the idea of decentralized SPV proofs that has proved to be a theoretical issue if one was to move a large percent of value into those chains.

What about the theoretical issue of one moving a largent percent of value into federated peg chains.

Because if we end up with only federated server models then your concerns about miners incentives being removed are much more of a reality.

Whereas if we want to improve on the money functions of Bitcoin (transaction speed, anonymity) without sacrificing decentralization then we absolutely need SPVproofs sidechains.

So either we chose to enable these functions only through a federated server peg and cut miners incentive to process transactions or we give ourselves the option to use the best of both model.

Sidechains are an answer to a demand that exist and that will eventually be solved through more centralized schemes if sidechains are not implemented.

What is more dangerous for the miners and the ecosystem? To modify the incentive model to have them mine a group of chains where the value reside or bypass them through federated servers/oracles and remove their incentives to protect the network

the only point with merit worth debating is the last one in red, the diminishing return in the block halving is not a feature that incentivises mining, it is one that reduces the cost of protecting the network to the marginal cost of service. Miners should hate this but tolerate it as the networks growth creates abundant profit. Increasing there profits above the marginal cost of securing the value in network puts a burden on the system akin to inflation.

Decentralized SC that supplement miners income, or as time goes by provide the majority of there income is not innovation, its a failure in the Bitcoin prototypical. Dont let it happen on your watch.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:57:24 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:50:10 PM

that is disingenuous and not in the public good.

great point.

Bitcoin has evolved to be a public good. It's money function should not have the slightest hint of impropriety or vested interest if we expect people of all nations and strata to buy in. Blockstream violates this.

There should be no Redhat for Money.

You really don't get it.

Sidechains are a public good as well. You can not argue against that it is absolutely true.

Sidechains are applications on top of the Bitcoin money layer so yes, there can and should absolutely be a redhat that build decentralized infrastructures on top of Bitcoin TCP/IP money layer.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 07:06:23 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:50:10 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 04:30:06 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 04:12:43 PM

Like i said a billion times, I have no problem with the federated server model and if Blockstream can make money off that fine. Just don't change the source code asiI see that as a conflict of interest meant to drive their profits at the expense of bitcoin

So how do you explain this

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 01:59:54 PM

this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.

You have no problem with a federated model that "breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain" and will "destroy Bitcoin"?

As long as Blockstream is not profiting from it, right ?

Just FUD, Bitcoin is working as is, if you don't know it, the value is in the Blokchain the ledger, the fact we trade BTC as a way of interacting with the ledger is how we do it they need to be one and the same for it to grow as it has been doing.

There is only one issue, you seem to understand it, and support breaking the link, the for profit company just makes it easier to see why they are doing it.

if you don't want to risk real wealth by growing Bitcoin's success, sure hide behind the open source argument, and employ political pressure to make the change to allow companies with a head start to extract it.

that is disingenuous and not in the public good.

It seems you do not understand my argument.

Bitcoin, as is, enables the creation of federated peg models that can effectively disassociate BTC from the Blockchain. Cypherdoc argues this will kill Bitcoin. So should we understand that Bitcoin is dead, as is?

I will repeat this again, the link, can be broken with Bitcoin staying as it is. And there is nothing you can do to stop that.

SPVproof is merely an upgrade to the existing sidechain technology that improve the decentralization of such a scheme and also enables miners to participate in these sidechains without being replaced by federated servers.

what a hypocrite

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 14, 2014, 06:50:10 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 04:30:06 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 04:12:43 PM

Like i said a billion times, I have no problem with the federated server model and if Blockstream can make money off that fine. Just don't change the source code asiI see that as a conflict of interest meant to drive their profits at the expense of bitcoin

So how do you explain this

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 01:59:54 PM

this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.

You have no problem with a federated model that "breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain" and will "destroy Bitcoin"?

As long as Blockstream is not profiting from it, right ?

Just FUD, Bitcoin is working as is, if you don't know it, the value is in the Blokchain the ledger, the fact we trade BTC as a way of interacting with the ledger is how we do it they need to be one and the same for it to grow as it has been doing.

There is only one issue, you seem to understand it, and support breaking the link, the for profit company just makes it easier to see why they are doing it.

if you don't want to risk real wealth by growing Bitcoin's success, sure hide behind the open source argument, and employ political pressure to make the change to allow companies with a head start to extract it.

that is disingenuous and not in the public good.

It seems you do not understand my argument.

Bitcoin, as is, enables the creation of federated peg models that can effectively disassociate BTC from the Blockchain. Cypherdoc argues this will kill Bitcoin. So should we understand that Bitcoin is dead, as is?

I will repeat this again, the link, can be broken with Bitcoin staying as it is. And there is nothing you can do to stop that.

SPVproof is merely an upgrade to the existing sidechain technology that improve the decentralization of such a scheme and also enables miners to participate in these sidechains without being replaced by federated servers.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

notice how brg444's argument has morphed from "SC's will only be implemented as utility chains which will be MM'd 100% and there will be no speculative SC's" to "ZOMG, all the BTC's will move to federated servers if we don't implement SPVproofs!"

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 714. (Read 2032266 times)