Quote from: Adrian-x on November 02, 2014, 04:04:13 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 02, 2014, 12:30:45 PM

Everyone needs to read and digest this thoroughly.

One grammar error is that I believe you meant SC proponents think BTC and Blockchain are "separable".

I think there is a distinction. Bitcoin proponents who are enthusiastic about SC believe BTC the currency is inseparable from the value in Bitcoin the blockchain and don't see the threat.

Where many Proponents pushing for protocol changes actually see them as separate and have devised a mechanism (SC) to do it.

The community enthusiasm for SC is evidence people overestimate the resilience of Bitcoin.

I forgot to add that miners if for profit only ones without Bitcoin savings should welcome MM SC as they get a better return on there mining investment and would be handicapped if Bitcoin diminishing block rewards were limited to Bitcoin the dominant Value Chain.

Looking at examples of past pool operators one may even be incentivized and financially motivated to lock value in the side chain with an attack on Bitcoin.

Thanks for reading cypher these ideas are not mine but to be distilled built on or disproved.

there are so many good points here.

most small miner are unprofitable currently. many large miners are too. all these will be happy to have a SC to move to. but i guess that is what SC proponents are banking on. but it comes at an expense. the MC has a real and present danger of being replaced.

Bitcoin is hard. it's not meant to be an easy money making scheme. it's hard to understand, it's hard for investors b/c of volatility, it's hard for miners b/c of intense competition, and it's especially hard for techno geeks who can't keep their hands off and who fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created.

they think b/c it is source code, Bitcoin belongs to them. they think that they should be allowed and have the right to fiddle, tinker, and be paid for devving. "devs gotta dev". what they failed to realize back in the early days when i got involved in Jan 2011, and still fail to realize, is that investors such as myself saw something they didn't and poured significant amount of fiat into the system back when they thought it would go nowhere. they thought it would go nowhere b/c they failed to understand what would eventually drive the price skyhigh. and that is that Bitcoin is about Sound Money. not stocks, bonds, assurance contracts, smart property. that is what the blockchain was designed for; to secure bitcoin as money. it HAS accomplished this b/c the protocol has not once failed us. yet they want to tinker, fiddle, massage, even build for-profit companies around a unique fork designed to benefit their business model. what i saw was that Bitcoin is a self contained financial system. what that meant to me was that BTC was to forever only travel on it's unique and sole blockchain forever secured by an escalating hashrate from miners.

the reason this thread was established and has become so popular is b/c everything is working according to plan. the price of gold is plummeting and just broke intermediate term support and is headed even further down. i believe Bitcoin is destined to replace gold as the digital gold of the new millenium. tinkering with the source code, which was donated by the way by Satoshi, risks this whole new paradigm in money.

as i said, it's up to SC proponents to prove to the rest of us, as close to a shadow of a doubt (b/c they are risking our entire market cap), that their significant complexities they want to implement to the source code not only technically but economically won't do harm. i saw not even one economic analysis by a third party in their proposal. the fact they didn't provide one indicates to me they never got one. who here really trusts GM's and LukeJr's economic views?