Quote from: cypherdoc on January 02, 2015, 11:56:41 PM

Quote from: Odalv on January 02, 2015, 11:54:46 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 02, 2015, 11:47:06 PM

Quote from: Odalv on January 02, 2015, 11:34:17 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 02, 2015, 11:27:38 PM

Quote from: dakota neat on January 02, 2015, 11:21:49 PM

Quote from: BlindMayorBitcorn on January 02, 2015, 11:20:01 PM

Ok brothers I've read the sidechains whitepaper and I have a question.

What are the regulatory/political drawbacks or ramifications of introducing extra-anonymous features in a scBTC?

Nobody cares about the fucking goverment. This is Crypto.

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 02, 2015, 10:36:53 PM

Adam,

5. if a SC like Zerocoin/Zerocash gets declared illegal by the US gvt, legit pools that can't/won't participate in an illegal SC might have an actual incentive to attack it to destroy those users and their scBTC that are in fact using Zerocoin/Zerocash illegally. given that no SC will ever have 100% MM, 51% attacks become much easier to execute.

- you are using tooo much "if"s
- you see MM as only solutions (we will have only few 2-3 100% MM SC (edit: if any :-))) => there are other better solutions than MM

what are they besides federated servers?

- yes, it is possible to use private federated server (FS) for local SC
- it is possible to create independent oracles
- it is possible to use timestamps in MC (MCTS)
- it is possible to use various combination of FS, MCTS and oracles

but that isn't a better solution than MM. it's inferior.

Using 1,000 local SC is much more better (decentralized, authority resistant) than 1 global MM SC

edit:
it cost 1/1000 of resources