Quote from: brg444 on November 16, 2014, 07:28:56 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 16, 2014, 07:23:42 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 16, 2014, 07:19:07 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 16, 2014, 07:07:51 AM

in this entire 200 pg discussion, my arguments have centered on the SPVproof mainly b/c that is Blockstreams main goal; to insert SPVproof into the source. even they say federated servers are an interim insecure, centralized step. i agree, i discount them as any real long term implementation of SC's for exactly those reasons. the real meat of everything i've argued has and always will apply to SPVproof as it systematizes the SC concept and implies that a community consensus has been reached regarding these things.

stop pretending that i'd be upset at the federated model as you keep gloating and screaming about as above. i could give a shit b/c it's not a threat and should NOT be a reason for us to scream in fear "OMG, give us SPVproof!"

So this:

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.

Was some kind of delusion of yourself that never happened? The "basis of your argument" is no more the "basis of your argument" because you cannot defend it anymore?

I'm very sorry but federated servers supported sidechains are ABSOLUTELY part of the future of BTC. Do you not remember those scary opaque, centralized sidechains you make nightmares about? You think they're gonna hand over control of their chain to miners? Hell no! They will most certainly use federations/oracles to verify their chain.

Which leads me back to what I have tried to explain to you repeatedly. Most of the sidechains created by Blockstream for clients will be booted on top of federated model servers. They cannot afford the uncertainty of MM and its consequent insecurity.

SPVproof are effectively our best ally against any of these opaque, centralized/off-chain schemes. The market should absolutely demand algorithmically pegged sidechains. They are the most certain and secure way to prevent the inflation of Bitcoin through off-chain fractional reserve.

Of course they come with a whole lot of implications that should be considered. Others have done a great job at pointing these out, in a couple of posts at that, while you've been witch hunting for the last 200 pages without any valuable contribution.

so your argument has morphed from SC's solely being implemented as utility chains, to maybe a NASDAQ stock SC being great, and now to all these Blockstream, IBM, Google created federated server SC's that we all should fear! lol!

go right ahead and dream that fantasy b/c i don't fear them at all. let 'em do it.

as long as they don't change source.

Should we really run a list of your argument beginning at the start of this discussion?

Do you even remember this one?

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.

What you don't care about Bitcoin's Sound Money principles anymore Angry

How dare you ! Cry

you can't stop ALL ppl from doing stupid shit. plus, federated servers don't change the source code and force all of us to scramble to adjust our strategies based on a disruption of the mining equilibrium as well as user disincentives to further utilize Bitcoin as Sound Money as it will have been broken by an SPVproof.