Quote from: brg444 on November 22, 2014, 08:23:05 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 22, 2014, 08:08:15 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 22, 2014, 08:01:01 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 22, 2014, 07:41:41 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 22, 2014, 07:38:10 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 22, 2014, 07:19:09 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 22, 2014, 07:12:57 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 22, 2014, 07:03:59 PM

We know that Satoshi's vision is one of Bitcoin as Money; nothing else.

From the "Bitcoin p2p e-cash paper":

Smart contract, smart property, autonomous agents, distributed markets will be a staple of the blockchain technology whether you like it or not and sidechains are the ideal and arguably most natural way to implement these.

Fine, you're free to do whatever you want. Just don't force the spvp onto the rest of us.

The SPVP allows for potentially more secure application of those schemes that will reinforce the integrity of the ledger and the network effect.

Any other implementation of these schemes can be considered more risky to Bitcoin.

Step back for a moment and look at what you're advocating from a 50000 ft level.

Separating the unit from the Blockchain, it's main source of security. I don't care that it could possibly be used for experimentation.

Step back for a moment from your delusion for a moment and realize that SPVP is not unique in its ability to create this separation and that native mechanisms that exist already will leverage this functionality whether or not SPVP is implemented.

These federated models will gain considerable tractions once they are properly implemented and so I suggest you get with the program and reconsider your stance because your opposition to that idea is futile. Moreover, the concern should not be whether the unit is separated from the blockchain but whether the value stored can be assigned to a different chain and secured enough so that the integrity of the original ledger is preserved.

There are more realistic and rational concerns to be having than this one.

And you keep making the same twisted FUD argument that both NL and I have called you out for. Goes like this :

You should allow us to institutionalize spvp into the source because federated SC's are coming whether you like it or not. But because they are insecure and centralized and likely to be hacked, you should let us insert the spvp into source so this doesnt happen. lol.

That is precisely why I keep sayin, go right ahead and use your federated servers to your little hearts content. They will fail anyways.

That's absolutely not my argument. I'm only pointing out that you concern is ultimately futile since the seperation is already enabled and possible natively and will most certainly be leveraged.

You have no argument or logic to show for your "they will fail" statement. My best guess is they will actually become a mainstay of Bitcoin and its ecosystem.

I know they're (federated) possible technically. I'm arguing that they won't be necessarily economically viable. Even the SC's Whitepaper warns against their use.

They certainly won't enable the financial success for Blockstream that they seek through the spvp that even you've already admitted to.