Quote from: Zangelbert Bingledack on November 20, 2014, 05:41:23 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 20, 2014, 05:00:26 PM

sorry, but i don't agree with his assessment. precisely b/c it leaves out an understanding that the money function will get deprecated in deference to the speculative assets riding on the SC's which distract from the mechanism which has brought us to where we are today. the BTC price will drop if SC's are implemented, imo.

If by mechanism you mean mining I can see the possibility of harm and I've generally been on board with the trepidation on that front. But simply having stocks or whatever denominated in Bitcoin ledger units (whether actual bitcoins or perfect you-can-never-lose-the-2wp sidechain coins) seems fine since that's part of what money/ledger is supposed to do. I don't know that it's necessary for people to understand sound money in order to benefit from it, as long as it does take over. Anyway, if the pile on the right in the pic you've been posting (money, store of value, Forex) is way bigger than speculative assets, how can such distraction really happen?

is it what Bitcoins ledger was designed to do? this is why i put this post up earlier. granted, it doesn't say it WASN'T designed to do it either but my point is that we risk everything if we're wrong:

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

i'm glad everyone's been talking about Satoshi recently. that stimulated me to go back thru his whitepaper to see if there were any references to any of the speculative SC's functions that are being proposed by the SC proponents in this thread and elsewhere. those being listed below. they claim that SC's are a "natural and logical extension" to Bitcoin and that if Satoshi was able to be asked, he would love SC's. well, i see no indication that this wild claim is valid. see that none of these speculative assets were ever mentioned:

0 asset
0 stocks
0 bonds
0 insurance
0 smart
0 contracts
0 sidechain
0 offchain
0 separate
2 gold
5 money

it's clear to me that Satoshi intended for Bitcoin to be a new form of digital money, or currency if you will, that mimicked gold in all respects and improved upon it. i'm only aware of one isolated forum post where he mentioned the addition of smart contracts, etc but that was in the context of adding them to the MC protocol. never was there any mention of SC's nor the quack idea of separating the BTC units from the blockchain. and understandably so. by breaking the inextricable link btwn the two, you break security and therefore break Bitcoin as Money. this is so obvious. the last 200 pages have clearly demonstrated a myriad of ways things can go wrong with the SC proponents morphing their vision of how SC's will play out to satisfy any specific concern while promising us the moon.

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.