Quote from: brg444 on November 20, 2014, 04:46:32 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 20, 2014, 04:24:58 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 20, 2014, 04:12:53 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 20, 2014, 04:02:32 PM

by breaking the inextricable link btwn the two, you break security and therefore break Bitcoin as Money.

Bitcoin should continue to focus on what got us to where we are: the Money function. that is where the problem lies today in the world of fiat and central banks. this is what i saw back in January of 2011, Bitcoin as a poison dart aimed at the heart of central banks. the problem is not stocks, bonds, insurance, contracts. those all function reasonably well. the problems we've had with them in the past, such as in 2001 and 2008, were fiat printing enabled and backed by central banks. w/o the ability to print at will to bail out bad actors, Bitcoin as Money seeks to clamp down and eliminate this moral hazard. and the network of money is ripe to be disrupted. and rightfully so. THAT is where the money is. the Forex is the biggest in the world as i've shown. the gold market is huge as well. if Bitcoin can crack those markets we will go to the Moon. Bitcoin should stay simple and non complex. it has evolved to that of a public good. no one should be allowed to corrupt its primary function of money. let alone profit off it.

leave the source code alone.

Persistingly wrong.

How many times and how many people need to point out the fallacy in your argument for you to finally understand that sidechain DO NOT inherently, "break Bitcoin as Money"?

When are you going to address the fact that any centralized off-chain solution is considerably more dangerous to Bitcoin as Money than sidechains are?

Are you going to admit that SPVP proof is just another verification model by which the allocation of coins to other chains is potentially safer and more decentralized than current solutions that exist?

The Bitcoin money is its ledger. Sidechains are effectively the most secure way to accomodate any transactions that can not be processed on the mainchain while preserving the integrity of the ledger.

If you are honestly worried about corruption of Bitcoin as Money, centralized off-chain solutions should be the biggest of your concerns.

why should i admit that centralized offchain solutions are dangerous to Bitcoin? based on what evidence? Gox? Bitcoinica?

c'mon, that would be to neglect the greater understanding that has been achieved by such unfortunate events. it is growing up. do you expect perfect behavior from children? Bitcoin is inherently a p2p money and encourages us as individuals to take greater responsibility for our money. those hard lessons have gone a long way towards strengthening Bitcoin, not endangering Bitcoin. look at all the improved security measures that have grown out of those events. we "need" those events to teach us how to interact with Bitcoin and further strengthen it. SC's are an excuse to not deal with these hard problems esp when it comes to MC development. instead of Blockstream breaking off with 40% of core devs + 3 top committers in a bid to make $millions/billions, why don't those guys work with Gavin to implement MC improvements? or if they insist on attempting to make $millions/billions off of Bitcoin, at least step down and allow some non-conflicted core devs to take over. or reorg as a non profit.

Blockstream is just another for profit company that was established at the beginning of the year and is jockeying to modify the core protocol to its advantage so as to give them an edge over other companies or products like CP, Bitshares, Mastercoin, etc.

What an hypocrite.

Do I understand that SCs can not benefit also from this "educational" process?

You are really trying to write-off Gox as irrelevant when nearly a year later we still hear about constantly from mainstream media. Are you suggesting this had no impact on Bitcoin's reputation?

yes it did. but it didn't kill Bitcoin which is what is important.

Quote

What I want you to admit is these offchain solutions are inherently more dangerous to the integrity of the Bitcoin ledger (Sound Money) than any form of sidechains.

sorry, i will never admit that. you're talking about something totally separate from the sound money function; reputation which is an emotional response and immaterial to the math.

Quote

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 20, 2014, 04:24:58 PM

we "need" those events to teach us how to interact with Bitcoin and further strengthen it.

And that's exactly what sidechains propose.

Note that when speaking of sidechains I am also referring to federated models.

at this pt in the debate, i understand exactly what you're talking about.

Quote

I am going to repeat this ad nauseam until you get it : Blockstream's business model is not dependent on SPVP and its core integration and neither is this proposition conferring them any advantage whatsoever considering its neutral, open source nature.

You are as stubborn as a mule...

talk about a contradiction. you're like a chameleon:

Quote from: brg444 on November 19, 2014, 05:30:02 AM

In that sense, you are right that SPVP is crucial to their success because it is the only way they can create these ambitious extensions of Bitcoin I'm sure they have in mind.