that's BS. they even say in the WP that moving to SPVproof is the preferred outcome. but of course, that is obvious as it institutionalizes the scheme and it forces the entire community to scramble to figure out all the changed economic assumptions this malfeasance has produced. especially those due to the conflict of interest monetary incentives that are created by Blockstream
It is not. It is a very intuitive and quite logical assumption.
The necessary level of MM required to provide secure infrastructure is not guaranteed and hardly attainable unless a chain gets the support of the whole network.
What other option exist then to secure your chain? Federated servers. They are the option of choice for any actors willing to excercise more control and oversight over their sidechain.
Until you argue against this I will consider this fact.
fine. LET THEM USE FEDERATED SERVERS. are you deaf? that won't hurt Bitcoin like the SPVproof.
And stop uttering meaningless words like "institutionalizes" and what not. This is open source software we are talking about. SPV proof is indeed the preferred outcome for the reasons I have stated : more decentralized & conservation of miners incentive.
i highlight this b/c i don't want you changing your position yet again. you're a chameleon and everyone can see it
The BS is your pathetic attempt at moving goal posts and inability to properly address every one of your arguments. You are a sad, sad person.
ftfy. don't be fooled by this guy.
Blockstream will be pretty good a creating sidechains, I agree. Fortunately, because of... you know... OPEN SOURCE, millions of developers will also have their hand at it.
well, there you go. devs gotta dev; and get paid for it.
never mind that Bitcoin as Sound Money is our first chance at monetary freedom
ever and that it should be viewed as a public good not to be messed with by vested interest groups and devs seeking profit at any costs. i can see you don't care about any improprieties that exist.