Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 07:02:54 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 14, 2014, 06:51:40 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 14, 2014, 06:31:05 PM

then by all means, implement it as a federated server model. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.

just don't change the source code to favor a for-profit company called Blockstream.

So you basically admit you were wrong the whole time?

How can you say you have no problem with that when sidechains running on a federated server model enable this detachment of the BTC asset from the mainchain you so clearly oppose?

Fact: Sidechains are enabled natively and can be created right now.

Can you get through your head that the proposition to change the source code is merely a proposal to improve the current sidechains technology?

Do you recognize that Blockstream do not have monopoly over the creation of sidechains and therefore the change to the source code benefits not only them but ANYONE willing to build on top of sidechains?

Do you understand that it is likely competitors to Blockstream will arise built on the same exact business model that will also benefit from more efficient SPVproof sidechains?

all your questions and points have been answered by me, multiple times, yet you persist in screaming in desperation that i have not answered them.

your employer is going to be sorely disappointed in your performance.

No, in fact you are unable to answer them because they clearly demonstrate that all of your delusions are false.

But please, for the sake of entertainment. Please make an attempt at this one :

Quote

How can you say you have no problem with that when sidechains running on a federated server model enable this detachment of the BTC asset from the mainchain you so clearly oppose?

or this one

Quote

Do you understand that it is likely competitors to Blockstream will arise built on the same exact business model that will also benefit from more efficient SPVproof sidechains?