Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 06:14:50 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 05:37:48 PM

that would be true.

i don't have any problem with SC's being implemented thru federated servers as they don't involve changing source code. but as soon as you do change source, as with SPVproofs, all sorts of unpredictable things start happening as i've outlined.

currently, when BTC gets "exchanged" for assets, those BTC just change hands and still exist on the MC and remain secure and can continue to circulate. SC's introduce another dynamic completely. BTC's get siphoned off MC to speculative SC's created by Blockstream for insecure, potentially dishonest entities. it's conceivable these entities will be gvts as Austin has said. in this case, BTC's essentially get converted into whatever asset the SC is offering. this destroys Bitoin's Sound Money principles. the key to this dynamic is the SPV proof.

that's all you got to say on this?

Quote

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 04:14:07 PM

the basis of my argument is that the BTC unit cannot be separated from its blockchain (mainchain) w/o breaking Bitcoin as Money. imo, sidechains allow this and if you read their whitepaper, their core assumption is that they they can be separated.

So which is it? Sidechains are bad or not? Because in reality, changing the source code has no impact on their existence. Implementing SPV proof through a change in the source code is merely an improved feature that allows for more decentralization of the sidechains.

SC's are bad if implemented thru the SPVproof. how many times do i have to say this before you hear it?

Quote

SPVproof does not enable "unpredictable things" to happen. All of these things are possible through the federated model.

they are not. you yourself have said that SC's "need" to move from federated server model to a source code change b/c that will enable security and decentralization. the differences are profound.

Quote

scBTC that represent assets are also merely changing hands and can still return to the MC. I expect that a sidechain for decentralized asset exchange (stock market for example) to be effectively as secure as the BTC mainchain because they are in effect, a utility chain that will generate a considerable amount of transaction from which miners can pull revenue.

backpedaling again? you said several times earlier that MM would only apply to utility chains that enhance Bitcoins Sound Money principles. now, you're trying to imply that all these Blockstream enabled speculative SC's WILL be MM'd so as to give Blockstream an excuse to develop them for profit since they are somehow now secure. so which is it?

Quote

I'm truly sick of your malicious portrayal of the Blockstream developers.

that's b/c you're probably a Blockstream plant. Wink

Quote

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 05:37:48 PM

in this case, BTC's essentially get converted into whatever asset the SC is offering. this destroys Bitoin's Sound Money principles. the key to this dynamic is the SPV proof.

That's simply not true. Again, The SPV proof is a feature of sidechains. Sidechains can exist without it. And so Gvts can create sidechains using the federated model RIGHT NOW.

Considering this, I suggest you sell all of your bitcoins as soon as possible because from you logic we can deduct that Bitcoin is broken because it natively enables sidechains which, by you own statement, "destroys" Bitcoin's Sound Money principles.

wrong. the SPVproof is critical to SC's. if it doesn't get implemented, Blockstream as a for profit fails.