Pages:
Author

Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. [NooNooPol] - page 4. (Read 15271 times)

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 23, 2015, 08:08:42 PM
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 Cheesy

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year.  It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period.  I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting.

I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution.  As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently.  In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions.  As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain.


I use it weekly to pay php freelancers I hire in India. I also have 3 clients whom I invoice in bitcoin.  Works fine for me, as I'm sure it does for others.

Your tipping example means that I cannot tip in Bitcoin anymore, I can only tip in the shitcoin that supports the sidechain its run on.

But anyway, get back to my points above.  How do investors handle the coins to be pegged? I thought that only the holder of the private key has any claim on a bitcoin. They will need to hand them over, no?
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 23, 2015, 07:48:41 PM
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 Cheesy

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin.

They're about augmenting its features and capabilities.

Quote
Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12170746


Austin Hill, chief instigator at Blockstream, respectfully disagrees with you.....

Quote
But, there are several problems with bitcoin, too, says Hill, which is why exchanges like Coinbase generally run their own transactions outside the block chain.

Hill told CoinDesk: "There is a practical reason why some of those things can't operate on the block chain, and that's because at peak, they're doing more transactions than bitcoin can support right now."

Instead, Back and Hill want to 'shard' the block chain, creating another block chain, which has a two-way relationship with bitcoin's own.

This will have two major benefits, Hill suggests: functionality, and scalability.

Firstly, "We could have US and Canadian dollars, smart derivatives, option shares, and future contracts. A whole series of programmable trust instruments. A lot of people had talked about these things, and how the block chain could be adapted for this, but I hadn't seen anyone lay out how it would come to pass."

And secondly: "By sharding, you can have orders of magnitude faster transaction processing and you can start to scale bitcoin."

source

Seriously, did you just quote your own opinion  to back up your statement??? 
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
August 23, 2015, 07:12:38 PM
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 Cheesy

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

I have not performed a bitcoin transaction in over a year.  It is not an appropriate solution for any transaction I've wanted to perform over that time period.  I pay a .01 BTC transaction fee when I do because it was about right for the service I was getting.

I very much look forward to being able to do minor transactions in such a way that will not compromise the core Bitcoin solution.  As soon as a micro-tipping sidechain comes out, I will peg some BTC to it and transact frequently.  In this way, one on-chain transaction will represent thousands of real-life transactions.  As a side benefit, one will not be able to analyze my behavior just by reading the Bitcoin blockchain.

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 23, 2015, 07:11:07 PM
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 Cheesy

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.

No, for the 1000th million times, sidechains are not about scaling Bitcoin.

They're about augmenting its features and capabilities.

Quote
Never have I seen sidechains be proposed as an actual solution to scaling Bitcoin so I'm not certain how that holds true.

If my understanding is correct the proofs used in their concept to move coins between chains are in fact competing with transactions for space in blocks so it makes absolutely no sense to propose they profit from undue advantage by restricting block growth.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12170746
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 23, 2015, 07:02:40 PM
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 Cheesy

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.

So sidechains are not about facilitating a greater number of transactions? Do explain. You sound like you are getting frustrated.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 23, 2015, 06:59:33 PM
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The  danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.

Pragmatic? You mean foolish and totally absent of any economic understanding.

https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hyb1l/it_seems_like_theres_a_nonetrivial_number_of/cuc4hj6

Good article, but the first rebuttal is better :

Quote
Excellent post with much needed enlightenment around the crucial aspect which tends to be forgotten within the blocksize debate, namely, how should the "base money" of the internet be structured?
In this discussion, I would like to raise a few clarifying points:
1) Distributed asset ledgers are the first protocol instance of where the stakeholder to a ledger, and not the ledger operator, has control over the ledger assets (the importance of this cannot be overstated - it is the most crucial aspect of Satoshis discovery). Up until now, technological developments within finance have been limited to digitizing the record of account held with financial institutions. Banks have so far been shielded from disruption as the basic premise, that they are the account operator, has never before been under question.
2) As such, it is the first time that access to "base money", without counterparty risks, is available to everyone - as you mentioned, central banks only allow commercial banks to hold accounts in "base money", everyone else is left holding bank issued credit. Any limitation of this availability will ensure that we are back to the model whereby we need to trust a third party with custody of our assets.
3) Nearly every clearing model is based upon a net deferred settlement cycle, i.e. settlement does not happen until certain time-periods every day when all obligations to deliver are conducted through Delivery vs Payment (DvP) or Payment vs Payment (PvP). This is normal, and will work the same way even with the internet's "base money". When settlement is conducted, it is crucial that the multiple accounts can have a simultaneous discharge of obligations, i.e. the blocksize needs to be large enough to allow for the net settlement between the multitude of accounts/addresses to be included in one block/transaction which may be significantly larger than 1mb, even if the blockchain purely functions as a large value payments system.
In closing, I would like to raise a few points:
I understand that there is a strong desire to maintain the blockchain as trustless and distributed, but is the 1mb blocksize, whereby everyone is forced onto "commercial bank ledgers" - a.k.a. federated chains with one, or several, trusted third party, the way to go?
If we maintain the 1mb limit, will the "commercial banks" or sidechains be able to conduct settlement on a net deferred basis?
It seems to me a low blocksize will guarantee that bitcoin not only has centralized mining, but will also force people onto centrally controlled sidechains that may or may not be operated by a central account operator who can decide when you have access to your assets, under what circumstance you have access to your assets and how you will be able to access them.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 23, 2015, 06:07:27 PM
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels.

 Cheesy

So many lines or worthless FUD and yet still not one fucking clue about what sidechains are about.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
August 23, 2015, 06:05:37 PM
I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The  danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.

Pragmatic? You mean foolish and totally absent of any economic understanding.

https://np.reddit.com/r/bitcoinxt/comments/3hyb1l/it_seems_like_theres_a_nonetrivial_number_of/cuc4hj6
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
August 23, 2015, 06:02:09 PM
...

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.



funny they bring USD up tho. it indeed has everything to do regarding this subject.

this is yet another attempt to 'QE' bitcoin, its blocksize, its transaction capacity, even its cap down the road because of instigating a precedent upon its governance and since that's always been the mainstream financial solution to control everything.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 23, 2015, 05:02:47 PM

Stop talking gobbledygook.


What's there to explain?  A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg.  The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain.   There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'.  There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc. This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.

"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"?  But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions.  If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it?

Unfortunately a discussion about this would be, to you, unintelligible 'gobbledygook'.  It is an interesting topic however, and one I'm happy to exchange ideas upon with anyone who is coherent in such topics.



You see, this is an example - "coherent in such topics" You may adopt a belief that is coherent, or you may be proficient in a topic, but Ive never seen them combined.
I find it makes more sense to more people to just used simple terms and language.


[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

Confusing to whom?  I'm just being realistic. In the world of finance, bitcoin is a minnow, its growing ( but of course you will say not enough to justify simply making blocks bigger) but it is still small. The quantum leap suggested by blockstream includes handling payments in other currencies such as the dolllar.


For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle.

You clearly have not done your homework on why Blockstream's motto is 'trust everyone.'  The only sure-fire way to trust someone is to know that they don't have any opportunity to screw you.  The mainstream financial sector relies on state sponsored judicial systems to achieve this trust, and the trust is starting to crack and peel as this sector takes a bigger and bigger role in formulating the government through lobbying.  Crypto uses mathematics to establish this trust, and Blockstream uses crypto.  (Apologize in advance for the 'gobbledegook' that you see here.)

You quote my phrase "handover their private keys to them", but then you go off on a meandering narrative about " state sponsored judicial systems" and finance. Then you tell me "Crypto uses mathematics"?  Blockstream because... trust.  What about the bitcoins the sidechains are being pegged to? How is that achieved? How do you secure them without having access to the private keys?


But its a moot point:  This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain.  Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be.

The real value of the work Blockstream is undertaking is that it would allow Bitcoin to scale to serve every individual in the world (even if by proxy) while remaining lite and tight and thus being able to defend against dedicated attack by those who are currently monopolizing and exploiting our established mainstream set financial mechanisms.  To me, there is a 100% chance that such an attack will happen and that it will be brutal if crypto gets even a little bit of a toe-hold to muscle in on their action.  We may or may not be on the cusp of doing so now.  Probably we are, and probably XT is an expression of these attacks.


XT is not an attack on Bitcoin. It is simply a different, more pragmatic view of how bitcoin can evolve over time. It seems to me that the Blockstream narrative effectively writes off bitcoin as a payment system as unfit for purpose. Everything blockstream espouses is predicated on a fundamental change to what bitcoin is and how it will work in the future. The paradox in your statement above is that you believe bitcoin will be the largest payment system in the world, but you cant even allow it to expand to serve its small but growing current userbase.

I find it strange that blockstream hold up Visa as the holy grail in terms of transaction throughput and the need for Bitcoin to adopt sidechains so they can reach these levels. What they fail to mention is that Visanet can get this throughput because they do not make payments. All they do is provide the checking and reporting mechanisms to support the payments. Chase Manhattan in NY and London do all the settlements ( the actual payments to accounts).  Bitcoin, on the other hand, actually executes the payment. The  danger here is that they will make bitcoin just another reporting system.
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
August 23, 2015, 01:39:42 PM

Stop talking gobbledygook.


What's there to explain?  A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg.  The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain.   There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'.  There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc.  This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.

"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"?  But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions.  If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it?

Unfortunately a discussion about this would be, to you, unintelligible 'gobbledygook'.  It is an interesting topic however, and one I'm happy to exchange ideas upon with anyone who is coherent in such topics.
 

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

Introducing the US Dollar into things is probably a deliberate attempt to confuse things, but also may be just an expression on your part of disjoint thinking.  The USD has nothing to do with any of this stuff and only confuses things.

The *must* part is completely dependent on what the user demands.  I will probably stick with 'simple' sidechains which adhere to a static peg initially.  Later on I may branch out into sidechains who's management is more sophisticated, but only after they've appropriately demonstrated certain technical internals to my level of satisfaction.

Also, don't forget that there is no reason why people who have a need to perform large value transactions are not perfectly able to use Bitcoin natively.  I would expect them to do so indefinitely.  Unless, of course, someone like Hearn comes along and manages to ruin Bitcoin for such a use.  Of course if that happened Bitcoin would also be useless as a backing store (aka, 'reserve currency') for a system of subordinate chains such as what Blockstream is spearheading with their sidechains efforts.  In that case they would just choose something else.


For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle.

You clearly have not done your homework on why Blockstream's motto is 'trust everyone.'  The only sure-fire way to trust someone is to know that they don't have any opportunity to screw you.  The mainstream financial sector relies on state sponsored judicial systems to achieve this trust, and the trust is starting to crack and peel as this sector takes a bigger and bigger role in formulating the government through lobbying.  Crypto uses mathematics to establish this trust, and Blockstream uses crypto.  (Apologize in advance for the 'gobbledegook' that you see here.)


But its a moot point:  This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain.  Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be.

The real value of the work Blockstream is undertaking is that it would allow Bitcoin to scale to serve every individual in the world (even if by proxy) while remaining lite and tight and thus being able to defend against dedicated attack by those who are currently monopolizing and exploiting our established mainstream set financial mechanisms.  To me, there is a 100% chance that such an attack will happen and that it will be brutal if crypto gets even a little bit of a toe-hold to muscle in on their action.  We may or may not be on the cusp of doing so now.  Probably we are, and probably XT is an expression of these attacks.

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 23, 2015, 12:04:46 PM

he is really disgusting ...

Quote from: Marshall Mathers
Everybody only wants to discuss me
So this must mean I'm disgusting

hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 23, 2015, 07:32:15 AM
satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.

you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.

you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.

ignored.

Goodbye. The quality of your character and intellect always shone clearly through your posts.

legendary
Activity: 3920
Merit: 2349
Eadem mutata resurgo
August 23, 2015, 07:31:31 AM
satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.

you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.

you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.

ignored.

he is really disgusting ... I have no idea what he's saying because he is on the  ignore list of bear shills since forever. I think many XT trolls maybe a lot of bear shills who think they can create further uncertainty and discord by pushing XT incessantly even though they have no idea how it works, except that it is divisive and good for bear profiteering FUD.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 23, 2015, 06:50:30 AM

I forget that not everyone is familiar with systems development.  A 'primitive' is a generic and basic function though they are often fairly cutting edge.  For a system which is more than trivial, a competent developer will start out by building 'primitives' (unless someone else has already done so which is common.)  Upon these one can build a system to solve specific problems and also build other systems to solve other problems.

Stop talking gobbledygook.


What's there to explain?  A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg.  The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain.   There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'.  There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc.  This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.



"A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg"?  But you talked earlier about ratios and internal circulation decisions.  If its just a bitcoin, why inflate it?

[in bold] Thats what I was looking for. So you are stating that the $100m being transferred on the side chain MUST be backed with an equivilent $100m worth of bitcoin. And thats where this falls down. You are hinting at turning bitcoin into a liquidity market when it was conceived as a peer-to-peer payment system.

For any sidechain business to compete in the settlement market, they would have to convince enough bitcoiners to handover their private keys to them. With its stellar track record of fraud and scamming, how many will? Plus, thousands of competing sidechains will exist - as I said before, liquidity will be a serious hurdle.

But its a moot point:  This is largely a daydream in the context of large interbank settlement networks. They will only on-board when they are offered a side chain solution which is essentially a copper wire solution, with the immutability of Bitcoin. A solution which effectively unhooks the requirement of holding a bitcoin to leverage the usefulness of the blockchain.  Thats what the real value proposition of Blockstream will be.


legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
August 23, 2015, 04:10:40 AM
satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.

you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.

you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.

ignored.

q.e.d.
That's exactly the linguistics of the sidecoiners. Warriors, censors, destroyers.
How can they ever win the majority of the bitcoiners that way? Great job.
legendary
Activity: 1162
Merit: 1004
August 23, 2015, 04:04:07 AM

It is unbelievable but true. Idiocy prevails. This stalker thread is still unlocked.

Ah, there you are.  I was going to ask you if there is any truth to this thing which covered Switzerland a little bit:

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQIBpGu5I6E

If there is, I am extra glad that my ancestors got the fuck out of there.  

Switzerland is the one and only Direct Democracy. The country can be glad seeing people with your mentality (stalking/hating direct voting/applauding censorship) leaving.


Your leaderships are clearly seeking to hybridize the herd with gene-stock from various far flung regions in addition to converting the native stock into people who are to sexually confused to reproduce on their own.  I can guess the types of policies the populous is going to prefer for the betterment of society through the 'direct democracy' that you are so proud of in the next generation.


Conspiracy paranoia. That you and your wannabe elitist soulmates hate direct voting is obvious.
legendary
Activity: 4592
Merit: 1276
August 23, 2015, 12:07:48 AM
...
The primitives which Blockstream are working on would allow a lot more flexibility in distributing value to sidecoins and managing risk in doing so.  Also, by providing robust reference implementations and being available to audit (for a fee I suspect) they provide a very valuable service to end-users (like me) who are trying to judge these risks.


Sidestep. Skip. Dodge.  You move better than Mohammed Ali.

They are only primitives because they haven't got a working solution. They grabbed on to LN like a man in the bottom of a well grabs onto a ladder lowered down to him. I'd say they are under some pressure, no?

I forget that not everyone is familiar with systems development.  A 'primitive' is a generic and basic function though they are often fairly cutting edge.  For a system which is more than trivial, a competent developer will start out by building 'primitives' (unless someone else has already done so which is common.)  Upon these one can build a system to solve specific problems and also build other systems to solve other problems.


Anyway, you still havent explained how valuable transactions will be catered for in terms of liquidity and credit risk. Lets say its not a bank, lets say instead its Daddy Warbucks from Annie!

What's there to explain?  A sidecoin is just a Bitcoin due to the 2-way peg.  The 'liquidity' is just what Bitcoin people are willing to peg to a particular sidechain.   There is no 'credit' so there is no 'credit risk'.  There are plenty of other risks associated with fraud, accidents, mis-management, etc.  This is why an entity (e.g., Blockstream) consisting of proven, trusted, and skilled people is a valuable thing.

legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1002
August 22, 2015, 09:30:49 PM
satoshifanclub you should be ashamed baring satoshi's name. you no fan his his.

you are a discusting little piece of shilling shit.

you should not even have 1 satoshi. not that i suspect you of having much more.

ignored.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
Warning: Confrmed Gavinista
August 22, 2015, 08:43:37 PM

You were given a chance to explain where these new sidechain altcoins are going to derive their value.

(still waiting)

Ya, Ya.  I'm getting to it.  In the mean time, you should brush up on some of the work the Blockstream guys are doing and why their motto is 'trust everyone'.  They are focused on crypto-based solutions which would allow one to balance risk.  So, instead of giving the bank all of your money (or BTC) which technically and legally becomes their property to do with as they please, there are things like time-locks.  If you take or fail to take certain actions on a certain schedule, the value of your deposit can revert back to your control.  These crypto 'primitives' allow a much more robust cyrpto-currency ecosystem and cut the (unreliable and expensive) state sponsored legal system out of the loop leaning instead on pure mathematics which is much more reliable.


Stop fudging the issue.

 I'm well aware of what blockstream does.  And I also know what it needs before a bank would have any interest in using it. I just want that penny to drop with you, or at least hear your attempt to explain it.


I've never run across an XT shill who is even dimly aware of 'what Blockstream does', or if I are, they have made no attempts to demonstrate this knowledge.  In fact relatively few of said shills seem to have even a modest grasp on Bitcoin itself.  You are no exception.

Nobody I have any respect for wants banks in the common sense of the word to have anything to do with crypto-currencies.  They are obsolete with a properly functioning crypto like Bitcoin.

The primitives which Blockstream are working on would allow a lot more flexibility in distributing value to sidecoins and managing risk in doing so.  Also, by providing robust reference implementations and being available to audit (for a fee I suspect) they provide a very valuable service to end-users (like me) who are trying to judge these risks.


Sidestep. Skip. Dodge.  You move better than Mohammed Ali.

They are only primitives because they haven't got a working solution. They grabbed on to LN like a man in the bottom of a well grabs onto a ladder lowered down to him. I'd say they are under some pressure, no?

Anyway, you still havent explained how valuable transactions will be catered for in terms of liquidity and credit risk. Lets say its not a bank, lets say instead its Daddy Warbucks from Annie!

Pages:
Jump to: