Quote from: brg444 on November 18, 2014, 03:13:06 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 18, 2014, 02:33:23 AM

Quote from: brg444 on November 18, 2014, 02:23:41 AM

Quote from: thezerg on November 18, 2014, 01:03:54 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 17, 2014, 08:35:23 PM

my position is that Bitcoin should only be used as Money. all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money. Bitcoin should not have to build in any other services.

is that consistent with your model? it doesn't sound like it.

Hmm... we are lacking the terminology here. Gold or USD is also money. Bitcoin is money with addtl features like guaranteed scarcity and simple transfer. These features make it better money. But exchange is not supported (atomic trustless worldwide). Changetip and lots of other services dont really use it. By this I mean other then the on and off ramp changetip might as well be using USD.

I want BTC to be the universal electronic embodiment of value -- the final money.

To do so it needs to truly be integral to the applications that require value. But I want the main chain to remain the safe low risk equivalent of holding FRNs or gold. I dont want tons of features thrown into the mainchain -- too dangerous. At the same time having every app use BTC equivalently to how it would use USD (centralized offline storage with individuals balance in a DB) is wasting btc's revolutionary technologies. Sidechains are the way to keep the core safe yet allow BTC to assume the role of the ultimate money.

+1 My man. This guy gets it. I don't want it to be money cypherdoc. We need it to be the internet of money.

Quote

all other services should simply use Bitcoin as money.

This 8 words sentence perfectly resumes you.

After nearly 200 pages of discussion on this very issue. You did do not understand that sidechains (whether SPVP or federated) are the most natural and intuitive way to create services that use Bitcoin as money.

They are potentially the optimal way to preserve BTC as a ledger.

The SPVP proposal you so oppose is in reality emerging for the very nature of Bitcoin as a programmable open-source protocol. As stated, the reason its implementation would be ideal is to allow a more secure & decentralized proof mechanism to be available to sidechains that command these properties.

i was thinking today this very point is what distinguishes our philosophies of the pro vs con of SC's

you, zerg, odalv all want to see the Bitcoin protocol encompass all forms of asset trade; stocks, bonds, insurance, smart contracts, etc. you will accomplish by breaking the link btwn the currency unit and its blockchain.

i, and many others on this thread, see Bitcoin as Money only. a digital form of gold. the SPVproof is the key to our opposing views. in our world view, Bitcoin as Money will eventually be used to trade these assets as well. but it will take longer and some patience.

there is good reason for this outlook and desire. the real problem with the world today is with unfettered fiat printing. we need a better money like Bitcoin. imo, Bitcoin is the targeted silver bullet aimed at the heart of central banks at their core function of money printing. Forex markets trade of $5.3T per day. the gold market is $8T. if we can maintain Bitcoin as Money, with time we can subsume both of those markets which will take us to the Moon. but it relies on keeping the sound money function.

there's the problem.

my friend. the cost is not time or convenience but trust.

if you want to maintain Bitcoin as Money only the trust for the ledger matters.

to preserve the trust, you have to, as you say,discourage any inflation and devaluation of its value.

by conceding the handling of transactions and proof verification to anyone but the network you forfeit trust.

by conceding the trust to a significant portion of the economy to off-chain schemes and federation of servers/oracles/voting pools you necessarily create more risk and enable possibilities of fractional reserve schemes.

i agree with your first four sentences, not the last.

it's how to accomplish this where we disagree. by maintaining Bitcoin's bullet proof BTC/blockchain linkage which has been aptly proven over the last 6 yrs, we have accomplished enough trust to attract all the investment we're seeing currently. that is what is important. nothing that happens on gox-like ledgers matters to Bitcoin and its future success. none of those BTC ever left the blockchain and remain in circulation somewhere in someones hands. any scBTC that get lost in an attack or SC failure get lost forever. but the real problem is the offramp; the spvp which breaks the sound money function and ruins everything for everyone.