Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 721.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 01:12:39 PM

take a look at the @Truthcoin perspective. note how he wants to "share" our value:

https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/532538170030948354

when you're swapping BTC for CC through the 2wp aren't you effectively "shorting" BTC and going "long" CC?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

over and over and over. sheesh:

“Bitcoin is two things, right? Bitcoin is a currency and it is a way to create a network. And the two today aren’t associated. People (ask): ‘Are you going to accept the coin?’ And the answer is, we’ll think about it when our clients actually want to use it. So when we have banks and merchants saying ‘Hey, our clients really want to pay in Bitcoin,’ then it becomes a meaningful question for us to answer. Until then, it is just theoretical would we do it, and we have – I forget a couple of hundred currencies or 170 currencies that we do business in. If we chose another one, we can certainly do that.”

http://www.pymnts.com/news/2014/visa-ceo-confirms-tokens-as-new-network-revenue-stream/#.VGS1MlVn3qc

read the article. it talks extensively about "tokens".

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 01:26:14 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 13, 2014, 12:47:01 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:55:57 AM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

Gavin's got it right, semi-trusted oracles dont make money, that's why we have PoW, PoW is designed to scale to the value of the money not the assets used to store the money, semi-trusted oracles are just decentralized conduits, and can be made trustless.

Either way, the blockstream devs say they will test the federated peg first. We may find that model is good enough and no changes are needed to the core protocol.

i can only hope.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

good news for goldbugs! looks who's backing their new currency with gold?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-13/isis-unveils-its-new-gold-backed-currency-remove-itself-oppressors-money-system

but i thought Bitcoin was their preferred currency?

HeliKopterBen

hero member

Activity: 622

Merit: 500

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 13, 2014, 12:47:01 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:55:57 AM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

Gavin's got it right, semi-trusted oracles dont make money, that's why we have PoW, PoW is designed to scale to the value of the money not the assets used to store the money, semi-trusted oracles are just decentralized conduits, and can be made trustless.

Either way, the blockstream devs say they will test the federated peg first. We may find that model is good enough and no changes are needed to the core protocol.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

take a look at the @Truthcoin perspective. note how he wants to "share" our value:

https://twitter.com/Truthcoin/status/532538170030948354

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 12:01:01 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:54:15 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:51:51 AM

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

Of course they have an interest in profiting from Blockstream. I'm not so naive.

The point is hurting Bitcoin has a direct impact on the core of their business model.

Additionally, as we seem to have agreed, most of Blockstream's creations will not compete with Bitcoin's money function so I can hardly see how one of their sidechain could be a menace to Bitcoin.

keep in mind Bitcoin has a market cap of about $5Billion. Blockstream hold the belief that if this protocol change is made, it will be possible to separate BTC Asset (by keep your private ket 100% safe for you), using there blockchain technology, from the value locked in the Bitcoin blockchain. If that comes to pass there is a lot of wealth to siphon out regardless of the ultimate Bitcoin outcome.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:55:57 AM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

Gavin's got it right, semi-trusted oracles dont make money, that's why we have PoW, PoW is designed to scale to the value of the money not the assets used to store the money, semi-trusted oracles are just decentralized conduits, and can be made trustless.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 12:37:56 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 12:33:31 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 12:26:15 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:55:57 AM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

Again, how is the federated model centralized?

To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model. Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security.

I did not say it was centralized. But we have the opportunity to make every platform as decentralized (or close to) as Bitcoin is, why not look into it?

i'm confused yet again. there's that path diversion...

You know exactly what I mean

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 12:33:31 PM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 12:26:15 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:55:57 AM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

Again, how is the federated model centralized?

To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model. Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security.

I did not say it was centralized. But we have the opportunity to make every platform as decentralized (or close to) as Bitcoin is, why not look into it?

i'm confused yet again. there's that path diversion...

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 12:26:15 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:55:57 AM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

Again, how is the federated model centralized?

To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model. Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security.

I did not say it was centralized. But we have the opportunity to make every platform as decentralized (or close to) as Bitcoin is, why not look into it?

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:51:51 AM

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

I think experience helps. Look again when you have an additional 20 years. It also helps to consider every one is correct when judging others views.

HeliKopterBen

hero member

Activity: 622

Merit: 500

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:55:57 AM

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

Again, how is the federated model centralized?

To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model. Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

here we go again:

Bitcoin Is a Payment System, Not an Investment: Woo

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/bitcoin-is-a-payment-system-not-an-investment-woo-vkLZekoCRc2yZu4Pr~2Ptw.html

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 12:01:01 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:54:15 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:51:51 AM

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

Of course they have an interest in profiting from Blockstream. I'm not so naive.

The point is hurting Bitcoin has a direct impact on the core of their business model.

Additionally, as we seem to have agreed, most of Blockstream's creations will not compete with Bitcoin's money function so I can hardly see how one of their sidechain could be a menace to Bitcoin.

i just get confused when you go down one path, i follow, only to be diverted to another path:

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:48:44 AM

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:54:15 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:51:51 AM

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

Of course they have an interest in profiting from Blockstream. I'm not so naive.

The point is hurting Bitcoin has a direct impact on the core of their business model.

Additionally, as we seem to have agreed, most of Blockstream's creations will not compete with Bitcoin's money function so I can hardly see how one of their sidechain could be a menace to Bitcoin.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: HeliKopterBen on November 13, 2014, 11:50:52 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough.

Quote from: Gavin Andresen

So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?

The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."

That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).

It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts).

Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:51:51 AM

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

but it's a good question, isn't it?

if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:50:10 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:48:44 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:45:35 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:16:36 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:03:57 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:51:27 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:48:33 AM

brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?

They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized.

but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest.

Server centralization is a very real risk.

Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown.

which make them all that more dangerous

Quote

As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.

in the world of money where the competition will latch onto every inconsistency in Bitcoin philosophy, i foresee this one becoming a headline.

The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other.

well then, why not make it a non-profit?

because development comes before success and development needs money.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 721. (Read 2032266 times)