Quote from: Odalv on November 02, 2014, 03:51:56 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 02, 2014, 03:30:52 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 02, 2014, 03:18:23 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 02, 2014, 03:03:36 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 02, 2014, 03:01:02 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 02, 2014, 02:43:19 PM

Quote from: Odalv on November 02, 2014, 02:39:32 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 02, 2014, 02:02:55 PM

It is POS like in that the servers are set up by stakeholders and are centralized. Is that really the direction you want to move Bitcoin?

Fine, don't force us to change the source code for your own purposes.

What changes exactly do you mean ? Nobody proposes to change PoW to POS in bitcoin network.

I thought that was the last time you were going to respond to this topic??

The SPV proof, waddaya think? The pos reference was to the federated model.

Simplified payment verification proof can be used on SC and will be created by SC.

No. To initiate the first transfer requires change in Bitcoin source to construct the SPV proof so that BTC can access SC

In bitcoin participants will send bitcoins to some addresses. Side chain will observe if all transactions were sent and every tansaction has enough confirmation.

You can try to spin this anyway you like but the SPV proof construction requires a change to the source code to make it happen.

There is only one change that is required. Extension to script which can recognise and validate(not create) SPV proof from SC. To withdraw bitcoins back. If we want fully decentralized SC.

But today we can use N of M signatures from trusted entities or oracles.

why do we need to make that change given the risk to the economics that make Bitcoin?

What is wrong with Oracles like OT?