Quote from: adam3us on January 02, 2015, 02:24:57 PM

Quote from: thezerg on January 02, 2015, 01:47:52 PM

Just like with bitcoin we should evaluate these new opcodes on their technical merit not on who submitted them.

Hey Zerg - no fair - too much signal density (signal/byte!)

This is bitcointalk - where's the trolling, name-calling, ad-hominem or claim of bad faith bias?

cypherdoc - can you do us a favour and redress the karmic balance before the signal gets too high in here? Gotta rev up the flame war, it was fun!

Adam

Adam,

i've been nice to you ever since you entered this thread in a big way. yet this is about the 4th time you've called me a troll despite the fact i even complimented you on your POW work. don't expect that to continue forever. instead, perhaps you might want to answer some of the real questions i've posed to you but you have failed to answer:

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 01, 2015, 05:58:42 PM

Adam,

1. in the WP, you mentioned that it is possible that if a SC became popular enough, then Bitcoiners might have to move all their BTC to the SC. what about those who don't get the memo? this question is similar to the big debate we had a couple years ago about harvesting apparent "un-used" addresses. that was obviously shot down real quick in that there is no way to ever be sure exactly that the true owner was dead or had lost the privkey.

2. philosopically, do you see Bitcoin as Money or as an economic "system" for trading assets of all types?

3. what real difference is there in forcing more transparency (as we are now doing with Merkle root audits, regulation, better VC funded exchanges) on 3rd party merchants vs. using SC's where supposedly we will be able to view the source code to ensure no backdoors (only a select few can do that)? i would argue that the former is no different than the real mechanisms we have today and therefore not experimental or as risky to the degree you're wanting to construct via an unprecedented and untested 2wp. i say risky b/c i am still not convinced that separating the BTC unit from its native blockchain (MC) is a safe economic thing to do. its not safe b/c it requires all sorts of new assumptions/requirements such as no bugs in the spvp itself, 100% MM of the SC to be simply "as safe", no bugs or backdoors in the SC code written by all the unscrupulous altcoin devs that you despise of which only a few in the Bitcoin community will be able to vet via inspection of their code. i expect hundreds of SC's to pop up as a result of your proposal and you yourself said that there are really only a few in the community who could or would take the time to vet potentially malicious code. given this proliferation, if i'm right, how can honest devs ever keep up with this?

4. given that most of the real world already views a fixed supply of any currency as a liability, what feedback effects do you think a continuous destruction of scBTC from failed SC's will have on Bitcoin itself? please just don't say "it will only make our BTC go up!" i think the answer needs to acknowledge that it might be that the market views that negatively as a hopeless downward spiraling deflationary currency that continuously damages the merchant economy by encouraging hoarding. in this sense, i am drawing parallels to gold being a fairly fixed supply that for the most part nevers decreases.

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 01, 2015, 01:40:38 AM

will you sell SC's to govt's if asked?

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 05:53:32 PM

Adam, how can you possibly say you're not "for-profit" when in fact that is precisely what Blockstream is? do you seriously expect us to believe that Reid Hoffman, et al invested $21M while not expecting at least a 10x return on their investment?

you still didn't answer me as to why we should "trust" you and Blockstream when it goes against the very ethos of what Bitcoin is all about.

Quote from: cypherdoc on January 01, 2015, 01:40:38 AM

i posted above that there are several venture funds that have invested. how can they not want the std 10x return of their investment? those fund constituents do not just represent the viewpoint of their founder.

btw, you show your bias when you nitpick my trivial comment to tvbcof here w/o even acknowledging the disgusting, immature video he put up. i suggest it's b/c he supports your view:

Quote from: adam3us on December 31, 2014, 04:15:24 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on December 31, 2014, 02:43:40 AM

you're still that little dog who nips at my trouser bottoms.

I thought you said you didnt do ad-hominems to troll and fan reaction? Just a few posts back too.

Decorum!

Stuff like that is why bitcointroll.org is redirecting here. Also it pushes out more tech focussed people who want some civility and dont have the USENET flame war developed rhinoceros hide and egos to say "fuck you too" and keep talking.

What the tvbcof said seemed pretty reasoned to me, and if you read it neutrally, not to be calling Gavin names, just talking about hypothetical conflicts of interest, independence etc.

I share his view about balance of power helping also, eg you can see that Microsoft & Apple are both pretty world domination evil corporations. And yet the growth of apple's market penetration of OSX has weakened eithers ability to execute on their rent-seeking actions. Thats a pretty conventional understanding of the real-world.

Adam

Quote from: tvbcof on December 31, 2014, 04:58:19 AM

Cypherdoc encounters Coinlock on Reddit:

now that's trolling!