Quote from: brg444 on November 22, 2014, 09:45:44 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 22, 2014, 09:32:21 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 22, 2014, 09:21:02 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 22, 2014, 09:16:44 PM

Quote from: brg444 on November 22, 2014, 08:48:02 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on November 22, 2014, 08:35:39 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on November 22, 2014, 08:31:13 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.

The bold part is the only false part of that statement.

This is a classic example of the geeks trying to do too much at one time.

"The geeks fail to understand that which Satoshi hath created"-cypherdoc

Had to tweak it a bit...

Argument: missing.

Show me a better way to implement fully decentralized smart platforms while also preserving the miners' potentially essential transactional revenues.

I know this is still theory at the moment but if the technology in the white paper can be safely implemented than I don't see a better technology on the market, at least presently.

Argument: missing.

Why is it assumed we need to implement fully decentralized smart platforms in the Bitcoin system?

Because Bitcoin is the one & only trusted ledger. If it isn't built within Bitcoin then you sacrifice trust.

Blockstream said it best : Can't be evil

no, he asked why we need these fully decentralized smart platforms in the first place? presumably for stocks, bonds, insur, contracts, etc.

No. Decentralized smart platforms can be used for a plethora of utilities some we don't even know about or can imagine yet.

His question was absolutely why we need these decentralized smart platforms to be within Bitcoin hence my answer.

but it requires changing source by inserting potential malware into the system called spvp. the sanctity of the inextricable link btwn the BTC currency unit and its BC should be maintained at all costs for security reasons as this is what leads to its sound money function. the assumptions behind spvp and MM are so theoretical at this pt, i fail to see how you can be so certain in your claims.

miners have invested large sums of fiat to generate BTC from block rewards and tx fees and suddenly you want to insert an offramp for those same BTC units that had a known and measurable amount of POW invested to generate and secure them? these offramps will definitely change the delicate mining equilibrium that currently exists today.