My original Bitcoin is essentially held in escrow
Thought as much. You are handing over your bitcoin to a 3rd party, and you rely on trust to get it back, like any escrow service.
And dont give me "enforced with software" because it will be enforced by whoever has the majority in a 2-of-3 multisig.
Read my post above. Then read the sidechains white paper. Then come back here when you actually understand how this stuff works
Miss me with your "arguments to ignorance" until then.
A what now?
The assumption of a conclusion or fact based primarily on lack of evidence to the contrary. Usually best described by, “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”
You said it behaves like escrow.
And what I said was, it is placing it into a 3rd party that you need to trust. There is no lack of evidence on this, surely?
place in custody or trust of 3rd party until a specified condition has been fulfilled.
What this is doing is changing Satoshis view of bit coin from a "peer-to-peer payment network" to something different. Its so fundamental to what bitcoin is, I frankly dont understand why we are even arguing about it. First line of the white paper makes it pretty clear:
A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution
Note the use of the word "
Purely". Also note that he also foresaw the possibility of 3rd parties getting involved, and expressly mentioned their
exclusion in the opening gambit.
But if you still aren't convinced, try reading a bit further into his white paper.
Like to the next lineDigital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main
benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending
So, where is your argument to ignorance? The only ignorance I see is your own refusal to accept that side chains introduce 'trusted' 3rd parties into what was conceived to be a trust-less peer to peer network.
