Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 06:41:43 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:24:02 PM

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

You're some special kind of stupid aren't you?

back at you bro

Quote

The basis for your argument is that sidechains enable the BTC asset to be seperated from the BTC blockchain. This, you suggest, breaks "BTC Sound Money principle".

Now would you explain to me how federated server model is not doing exactly that? What difference does it make that they use federated model other than less decentralization?

Sure, decentralization is important and that is why Blockstream propose to implement SPVproof to make the model more efficient. But what is stopping anyone, right now, to seperate the BTC asset from the BTC blockchain through the federated server model?

What are you gonna do to stop it and how does this not result exactly in your biggest concern?

very simple. the SPVproof institutionalizes or systematizes the SC concept and the risks it brings and is a stamp of approval type change at the level of the source code which forces "everyone" to scramble to adjust to its implications. clearly, the federated server model is a choice made by a highly concentrated, small group of ppl that the community won't even know about, as you and Odalv have been so quick to point out. this doesn't hurt the entire community as would the conflicted interest model that for-profit Blockstream brings to the table.

Quote

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:24:02 PM

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.

Of course they are. Every possible scheme implemented on a sidechain supported by SPV proof can be replicated on a federated server model.

Decentralization is merely an adoption incentive. As you've been persistent in saying, some people will not care about lesser decentralization if they find considerable utility or speculative value in the sidechain. Furthermore, as some people were quick to show me, federated server can be considerably trustable and efficient.

Security is relative then if you accept and trust the federated server because they can be considered more secure than MM sidechains.

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:24:02 PM

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?

No, my point, which you are evidently too dense to understand, is that Blockstream will mostly not be building speculative SC's booted on top of malicious schemes. There are limitless possibilities of applications sidechains that can be built that are not speculative. This is what Blockstream will be doing.

You're acting as if any scammer off the street will be able to hire Blockstream to develop their scammy sidechains. Hopefully you don't really believe that. Blockstream will deal will large corporations that have a desire to decentralized certain infrastructure of their business so as to make them more efficient or create additional value.

it matters not who they deal with. the point, which you love to ignore, is that their biz model depends on siphoning off BTC into the SC ledger of whatever entity decides to implement SC's. this breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain (MC). that, in itself, will destroy Bitcoin.

Quote

What you fail to consider is that Blockstream will likely be responsible for only a minority of the sidechains that will be considered.

i highly doubt that. with 40% of core devs and 3 of the top committers along with the fact that they refuse to step down, they have constructed a scheme which virtually assures they will dominate.

Quote

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:24:02 PM

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

Prove it. Explain to me how they can not adapt their service to a federated model when in fact they have considered it and suggested the federated model could be good enough if properly implemented.

then that's what they should do; use the federated model. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

it's so obvious to any lame brain around here that the SPVproof would be a force multiplier to their for profit model via systematizing the entire SC concept.