Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 717. (Read 2032266 times)

I know that anyone can do what they want and that includes me. I'm free to voice my opinion which is what I'm doing.  So what.

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 putting words in my mouth. I  think open source is great.  There just send to be an inconsistency btwn just do it and come to consensus.

I'm riding my bike!

Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.

Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork).  My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid).  What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.

As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof.  All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A).  The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B).  So we get a forked blockchain…

Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain.  When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B.  Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain. 

However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.   


TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision.  It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).   

Smart, you, there, but that error is not in the article, it is in the resource identifier.

stop making so much sense guys, cypher is never going to come back to his thread 

+1

So if SPV proof will kill bitcoin then bitcoin is already dead. (b/c it supports SPV proof by default as valid transaction)

Gold UP

 

I mean... you can't even make this stuff up 

Remember when I said you should make more use of rationality and honesty in your arguments cypher? Well it is exactly because of that.

+1

Cypher, it's great that you care so much about Bitcoin, but the facts are that there is nothing you can do to stop SPV proofs.  If the code were available today, any miner who wanted could start processing them and every other miner would still find their blocks valid.  If this upsets you, your only recourse is to create an altcoin that is designed to be immutable.  Satoshi designed Bitcoin to be able to adapt to the changing needs of the community.

No, in fact you are unable to answer them because they clearly demonstrate that all of your delusions are false.

But please, for the sake of entertainment. Please make an attempt at this one :


or this one

Not true. The SC concept is native to Bitcoin. Try again. The SPVproof is merely an upgrade.

The federated server model will infact be the go-to model for most sidechains for the simple fact that, as we've agreed, most sidechains creators will not be able to guarantee the MM of their chains and the federated server model removes this uncertainty.

There is no argument you can come up with that will demonstrate the SPVproof is a conflict of interest. The SPVproof is opensource code. It is neutral to anyone willing to use it.

In fact, let me demonstrate to you why you are so clearly wrong. You have said that without the SPVproof the Blockstream business model is not viable.

Well quite to the contrary, I would venture to say that MOST of the sidechains created by Blockstream for corporate entities will be supported by the federated server model. This is a very intuitive proposition considering that as we have discussed, it is farfetched and even impossible for ALL sidechains to gain the level of security necessary through MM.

Because of this uncertainty, corporations, or government will prefer the use of more centralized federated server which they control. This actually supports my original point that only a number of utility sidechains will be MM 100% by miners. It is likely these sidechains will be the one used for the common good and supporting the money function of BTC.

For that reason, the majority of sidechains that will be created will be supported by the federated server model and so will be the majority of sidechains created by Blockstream for private clients.

So in effect, the SPVproof proposition is merely a proposal to enable those chains that require the same decentralization that BTC does. Blockstream's business model can very well succeed within the confines of the federated server model.


I repeat, sell your Bitcoins right now because Blockstream will do that whether or not there is implementation of the SPVproof.



Yes you have a problem with that, don't you remember that detaching BTC from the mainchain will destroy Bitcoin?

If you do not like open source then do not use it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software

as a separate topic, i see this free for all mentality as inconsistent with the consensus model both of which are supposed to be principles of open source.  by your argument above, you suggest that someone should just fork code w/o bothering to gain consensus.  that's weird.  how is that consistent with the consensus model that supposedly our core devs engage in with Bitcoin?  shouldn't we all, as a community, strive to figure out ahead of time what our path should be so as to attempt to minimize mis-steps as long as force is not applied?

all your questions and points have been answered by me, multiple times, yet you persist in screaming in desperation that i have not answered them.  

your employer is going to be sorely disappointed in your performance.

back at you bro

Of course they are. Every possible scheme implemented on a sidechain supported by SPV proof can be replicated on a federated server model.

Decentralization is merely an adoption incentive. As you've been persistent in saying, some people will not care about lesser decentralization if they find considerable utility or speculative value in the sidechain. Furthermore, as some people were quick to show me, federated server can be considerably trustable and efficient.

Security is relative then if you accept and trust the federated server because they can be considered more secure than MM sidechains.


No, my point, which you are evidently too dense to understand, is that Blockstream will mostly not be building speculative SC's booted on top of malicious schemes. There are limitless possibilities of applications sidechains that can be built that are not speculative. This is what Blockstream will be doing.

You're acting as if any scammer off the street will be able to hire Blockstream to develop their scammy sidechains. Hopefully you don't really believe that. Blockstream will deal will large corporations that have a desire to decentralized certain infrastructure of their business so as to make them more efficient or create additional value.