Quote from: TPTB_need_war on June 26, 2015, 08:45:37 PM

Quote from: tvbcof on June 26, 2015, 06:09:22 PM

Tangential skim. From this note the above (and other things) my sense is that your ideas, priorities, etc, and mine are not well aligned in certain ways (which is fine.)

What you want is exactly what I am driving towards. You perhaps think I won't play nice in open source for the greater good, but that is incorrect. My retention has to do with making sure that capital is focused where it needs to be in order get things done, e.g. Blockstream's technology would not have been brought to market timely without $21 million in funding (well probably could have been achieved with much less but you get my point any way).

If the only thing that needed to be accomplished was to release a side chain with my new consensus algorithm, then I could just approach Blockstream and hope to get hired (virtually because I won't move). But there are other very important open source initiatives that need to be funded, which are not within Blockstream's business model scope.

Changing consensus _on a sidechain_ would be one of the first things I would do. I'll look forward to seeing what you've got and expect there will be a lot of interesting things come about. Here's the deal:

Massive sha256 hash power is what Satoshi choose as backing for Bitcoin (for better or worse.) The equivalent would be the atomic structure of gold atoms and the difficulties involved with fucking with them.

A sidechain is simply an extension Bitcoin. Since the sidechain relies on Bitcoin as it's backing it absorbs the backing store of Bitcoin itself without needing to do the work.

The fall-out of this is that a whole new world of consensus mechanisms, ledger structures, etc, etc are free to be explored. Again, the solidity of a sidechain is obtained through it's Bitcoin backing.