Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 722.

HeliKopterBen

hero member

Activity: 622

Merit: 500

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).

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

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?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

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.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:42:47 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:36:00 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:31:26 AM

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme. looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.

you'd have to assume he would not be privy to the title of the article. he must have said enough to give the author that impression.

Cause it would be the first time journalists use quotes out of context or fit them to their narrative right?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

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.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 11:36:00 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:31:26 AM

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme. looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.

you'd have to assume he would not be privy to the title of the article. he must have said enough to give the author that impression.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 11:31:26 AM

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme. looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't.

Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though.

Man these articles are irritating, these people really don't have a clue what is coming.

It's a good thing we are at that point though. At least they're starting to admit defeat and recognizing the technology is useful is their first step of "acceptance".

Justus put it in a nice way on twitter "it's the bargaining part of grief for people who did not buy Bitcoin earlier"

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme. looks like all maybe lost:

Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.

"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

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.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

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.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

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.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

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?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:32:39 AM

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

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:19:18 AM

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

but of course, my question doesn't apply to your "utility" chains where there is no new asset/coin generated.

but just to finalize and be clear, by "blockchain", you mean SC.

Sorry, yes.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

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

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:19:18 AM

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

but of course, my question doesn't apply to your "utility" chains where there is no new asset/coin generated.

but just to finalize and be clear, by "blockchain", you mean SC.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:24:52 AM

brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?

Positive economic effect.

Irrelevant politically. Are politicians getting after TCP/IP because of Silk Road?

Comeon now, you know well we are creating the internet of value here.Like the internet politicians will quickly realize they are powerless in the face of innovations built on top of the Bitcoin protocol.

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:19:18 AM

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset"

My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC.

So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 10:04:13 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 12, 2014, 11:46:54 PM

Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run.

I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives.

i just want to make another point here. the only part of the SC process that we should expect to be OS is the 2wp or SPVproof itself. OS is not required for the way the SC decides to run itself which is dependent on its developer. for me, thinking of these for profit SC companies as circles helps envision a self encapsulated, potentially closed opaque system within which rides an unknown blockchain ledger to which your valuable BTC will be transferred at your own risk.

Not required, maybe. Expected? certainly.

The point is people can now choose between transparent and opaque systeme without any tradeoff in feature.

Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the majority will willingly transfer their wealth to a system that essentially recreates the closed, centralized financial institutions/services that the openness of the blockchain as made irrelevant.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 10:15:14 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 09:46:28 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 09:21:58 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 06:12:18 AM

I watched that twitter dialog. They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.

In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right?

But I don't think that is the case no. I believe the process NL is describing above :

Quote

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

..is completed automatically in a "seamless" matter. What I mean by that is I don't believe the user gets to choose whether the SC asset is created or not. Maybe I'm wrong and then someone can correct me..
[/quote]

well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).

brg444

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 504

Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 09:46:28 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 13, 2014, 09:21:58 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 13, 2014, 06:12:18 AM

I watched that twitter dialog. They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages?

No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC.

In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right?
[/quote]

But I don't think that is the case no. I believe the process NL is describing above :

Quote

1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).

..is completed automatically in a "seamless" matter. What I mean by that is I don't believe the user gets to choose whether the SC asset is created or not. Maybe I'm wrong and then someone can correct me..

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 722. (Read 2032266 times)