Quote from: Adrian-x on November 16, 2014, 08:32:16 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 16, 2014, 07:55:42 AM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 16, 2014, 07:49:06 AM

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

p

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

They're one and the same point, I don't understand your pitch?

My pitch?

My pitch is that cypherclown has been championing the danger of breaking the holy link between the BTC unit and its blockchain for the past 50 pages but now that he FINALLY realizes federated server sidechains creates this exact mechanism and that these are implementable natively he has yet again moved the goal post to another fallacious argument.

There is a big difference between on and off chain transactions don't confuse the two.
And cypher's position has dealt with just 2 issues, you've avoided both of them.

1. A change to the protocol that alters the incentive structure that makes Bitcoin a hard money.
2. Is it ethical for a for profit company to motivate and fund those changes.

You've effectively spent 200 pages not 50, trying to discredit those two facts by denying them,

1) The incentive structure has nearly zero to do with the 'hardness' of the money. But if you want to talk incentive structure, talk about block size since it is completely related to transaction fees. That is one of the reasons why I consider the block size to be a very significant system level change which influences both the defensive capability of the system and it's economics. Much bigger than a soft-fork script extension which nobody is forced to use an which does not alter the basic operating principles of Bitcoin almost at all.

2) Seems at least as ethical as the Bitcoin Foundation charging $100,000 for a seat at the big-boy's table and paying one of the principle developers. Or BitPay paying another. As long as there is transparency I've got nothing against these kinds of things. TBF leaves a lot to be desired vis-a-vis transparency and the status as a trade group makes this lack of transparency much more problematic to me.

As far as I'm concerned brg444 has been quite clear in most of his arguments (note that the above are my own...I'm not trying to re-iterate his.) Indeed, his grasp of Bitcoin is suspiciously good for a newbie which is the only argument I can see for cypherdoc's meltdown into raving paranoia.