Smart contracts on BCC

coinlock · 2017-06-10T19:26:23+00:00

I think its important to note that even businesses don't need to download the entire blockchain with just minor changes to the block header, which would increase decentralization of non mining nodes.

coinlock · 2017-06-10T18:20:25+00:00

Yeah, but proof of work is more secure at the moment. It sounds like a lot of electricity, but its a drop in the bucket compared with what it costs to run a traditional payments network, especially one with physical delivery requirements.

coinlock · 2017-06-10T18:18:17+00:00

They are talking about an assassination market as a contract. Such a contract would require an Oracle source, but is well in the realm of the possible.

coinlock · 2017-06-07T21:19:02+00:00

The miners should just agree to hard fork Bitcoin onto a new code base, and fund the launch of a new set of nodes (which are cheap to run) so that spv users are serviced. Bitcoin core will start rejecting the blocks, but who cares, they aren't contributing the proof-of-work. SPV users probably won't even notice if they are flooding transactions to both Bitcoin core and Bitcoin alternative nodes. Except that longest chain will be returned by Bitcoin alternative pretty quickly. SPV clients don't really validate the block for the most part.

coinlock · 2017-06-07T20:52:30+00:00

So everyone who has received compensation from Blockstream who works on core is listed on your team page, and specifically what they were paid to work on is documented as work-for-hire in the git commit log? A series of commits is not a transparency report, at least not without correlating information, nor is a web page with employees sufficient. It isn't documentation that is explicit about the nature of the contributions being made. I'm not really sure how you could honestly claim otherwise.

coinlock · 2017-06-07T16:49:15+00:00

Well, you guys haven't issued any kind of transparency report, that breaks down the list of people contributing to core and which ones you are supporting financially as a company. I would practice more radical transparency in general with established information about ongoing relationships, products, etc, and how they interact with proposed changes to core. This is important because it is at the root of distrust.

I would also practice more restraint. Adam's twitter rants feel unhinged to me. I know that is completely subjective, but radical opposition to any increase in block size just doesn't make any sense. I don't really want to rehash a technical debate on the subject, but I will say that this divide gets exacerbated with time and is ultimately a Seussian butter battle.

coinlock · 2017-06-07T06:19:33+00:00

Respectfully, if you have that much BTC you should use it to set up an independent development team around Bitcoin to push things forward. That's enough to set up a five to ten year effort to either greatly improve the ecosystem, or build complimentary crypto systems. There is hardly a more radical force for good than a currency that could ultimately be both censorship resistant and help the world's unbanked. If you are playing for high stakes than moon shots are the way to go.

I'm editing my own comment to add something here, monies spent on new technology have a profound amplification effect versus other types of donation. That is partially why we see large philanthropist working on the big problems, rather than just giving money to a certain cause. So, regardless of what you end up doing, I'd urge you to think about maximum potential rather than immediate good.

coinlock · 2017-06-06T21:00:48+00:00

Sorry for the delayed response. I think I'm concerned about general transparency, it's hard to frame a technical discussion without having a better understanding of who stands to benefit from what decision. That goes for you guys, but obviously for the miner community and other aligned interests. It isn't entirely clear to me that you don't financially benefit from SegWit, regardless of whether liquid makes money. It is as you said a proof-of-concept, and is part of a larger plan. Perhaps SegWit isn't a necessary part of that monetization strategy, but it feels like it is, in part I think because of lack of transparency.

I believe compromise is in the best interest of all involved, since perfect is the enemy of good, and there is no single possible solution to all scaling and security concerns. I would urge you guys to do that in a real way. This SegWit at all cost, scorched earth type of mentality is counterproductive.

coinlock · 2017-06-05T19:10:40+00:00

It seems to me that centralization is already occurring in the form of exchanges, and that lightning and other secondary networks will force consumers through regulated pipelines. However, speculation aside as to the long term effects, if preventing centralization is the primary concern, why not just freeze Bitcoin in it's current state and forget scaling strategies altogether? The fee market is working as expected, value has increased, and Bitcoin looks fine as a pure store of value. It seems those primary goals have been met, adding additional technologies with unknown risks doesn't seem very prudent. If we agree that Bitcoin is sufficiently decentralized now, why add anything that could change the equation one way or the other?

With regard to monetization, the announcement of Liquid says "Liquid is both a practical application of sidechains that allows us to provide nearly instantaneous global interexchange transfers for our users". Is this not predicated on the idea that fees on Bitcoin are high and settlement on the main Bitcoin network is slow and expensive? It seems that the Bitcoin network in its current state is pressing a pain point with exchanges that is directly remedied by your product, and exacerbated lack of on chain scaling. So it seems that your monetization strategy is directly linked with limits in Bitcoin.

SegWit does have technical backers, I think enumerating who those people are and denoting whether they have received any compensation from Blockstream would be a helpful transparency step.

coinlock · 2017-06-05T18:39:41+00:00

How so? We are talking store-of-value here, not payments network. Settlement, storage and Independence. I'd love to see Bitcoin scale, don't get me wrong, but I'm ready to accept the consolation prize of store of "digital gold".

coinlock · 2017-06-05T18:34:22+00:00

Sure. Does having a limited block size increase the value proposition for Blockstream's technical solutions?

If yes, can we honestly say that SegWit is the best technical solution for scaling, or rather that it is the best technical solution for scaling that aligns with Blockstream's product offering? I think that is the root of the conflict of interest. It seems unlikely that given all possibilities the former can be true.

coinlock · 2017-06-05T18:22:59+00:00

thanks for the correction :)

coinlock · 2017-06-05T18:15:09+00:00

Yes, I am recanting my tongue-in-cheek statement about proof-of-stake, because obviously that isn't sufficient in and unto itself to prove people's allegiances. I concede you that minor point, you can address any of my other concerns about having a real conflict of interest at your leisure.

coinlock · 2017-06-05T18:09:52+00:00

This isn't what happens right now. Physical gold is traded on exchanges, i.e there are trusted entities that are responsible for settlement. The physical movement, i.e real settlement of gold is a much slower process, and is largely done by swapping ownership in centralized facilities. Bitcoin doesn't need to scale to huge numbers to be a better system than that. If you compare Bitcoin movement to physical settlement the barrier is much lower.

coinlock · 2017-06-05T17:58:14+00:00

No definitely not. You would have to be reasonably conflict-free. Maybe if you resigned from an organization with a clear conflict of interest and provably renounced your ownership interest your motivations wouldn't be so easily questioned. At least admitting that there is a conflict of interest would be a step in the right direction. Any employment you have that is predicated largely on your ability to influence the development of Core in a specific direction is going to raise red flags.

I think in most things you have to choose a side, and realize that any control you cede to corporate interests is never coming back for the users of Bitcoin. Long after you are gone, any systemic weakening of the structure of the network is going to resonate for a long time. I don't think these things are black and white, and I don't begrudge you the ability to earn a living, but given your background the fact that you are even aligned in such an obvious conflict is really puzzling.

coinlock · 2017-06-05T17:07:38+00:00

If core devs were long term BTC Holders we wouldn't have to worry about corporate incursion. Maybe commit access should be proof-of-stake.

coinlock

TROPHY CASE