- snip - image of mining rigs (?) in a barn of some sort -  makes post to big -


Gone right in my opinion.  I would feel vastly more confident in my BTC with 10,000 of these spread all over the globe than I would with five of these spread around the U.S. and a few in Western Europe for backup:

I completely agree, I'm sorry if I used a worse wording, I think the problem is I'm not a native English speaker and this has effects

Again, I agree... and "wolves in alpaca clothing" is fantastic I'll take this expression as mine henceforth, if you don't mind

Again, I completely agree.

The problem is that while I understand they can be abused, I also understand that the problem they can create is one of these two types:

1) an altcoin. Yes, that can be a problem, but it's not a different problem than the one we have right now.

2) a service that fails. Let's remember that a 2wp sidechain is a service completely analogous to the one offered today by a coinbase or a mtgox. We know they can add value to the network, and we know they can fail bringing enormous problems to their users, but they can't harm bitcoin, the network. That's why I consider SC an improvement to the actual situation, and it's because we have an algorithm to programmatically move coins between the chain.
And that movement can be done without requesting permission.
That's not a minor improvement: that's the difference between day and night, and one that can solve a lot of problems, like for example the fractional reserve of mtgox.

I agree that caution is reasonable, and I'm eager to understand the failure cases, but simply I don't find any evidence, not from cypherdoc, in any case.

This section 8:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
Referring to the headers.

Apologies if this was answered answered previously.

we still need to see all the details on how these are constructed.

given all the different abbreviations mixed with your english, half the time i don't understand what you're saying, btw.

well now, see, this is what NL was referring to.  hyperbole.

i personally don't think computer's can do everything.  there are going to be times when humans need to intervene.  in fact, computers do what humans tell them to do most of the time and if that is fraud, computers will commit fraud.

these are the things i worry about with Blockstream.  they stand to make alot of money on this.

So I have a hypothetical situation, and I’m interested in this community’s input, this is the economic speculation thread after all.  

lets say someone has 1% of all Bitcoin.
lets say they create a Bitcoin ETF, and sell shares to that ETF on the NASDAQ. It takes off. Over time the holding in the ETF go up and down the total holdings never Drop below 1%
In this scenario the ETF Charter promise to back the ETF with Bitcoin it guarantees on redemption to pay in USD at market rate and only under special circumstances will it pay out in BTC.
---
In this hypothetical situation an SC-coin-it has been created, it is Open Source, it has proven utility and security,  faster transfer times, it is highly liquid, in fact it is the preferred transfer of value coin for salary’s and typical larger expenses like TV’s and high end consumer goods because of its faster confirmation times, People still use Bitcoin for purchases like cars and houses – and even pay their loans in BTC – yacht for BTC are selling will in this hypothetical scenario, in fact BTC is used for larger deals where instant transfer times are not a risk. But the SC-coin-it is the preferred means of exchange for anything of value that is relinquished at the point of sale.    

What happens when the ETF, knowing they have 1:1 2wp redemption capability with the SC-coin-it, and 1% of all bitcoins that are stagnant start to leverage their BTC, they are still in theory backed by BTC, but start lending out SC-coin-it to AAA rated entities, they haven't broken there charter due the technicality that the BTC is secure, and they are not lending their BTC ?  

Yes they have broken their charter because an investor cannot cash out his stake that has been lent and is being used by the borrower.

The BTC is not secure, it can be spent through the use of the SC coin.

I'm curious where the worry about Blockstream comes from.

Everything would be implemented in a completely open-source manner. Blockstream would have zero control to dictate anything.

The only thing Blockstream would have is domain expertise around sidechains. Expertise that anyone else can gain BTW. The only thing they could do with that expertise is to lend it out as consultants to help other entities implement their own sidechains. This is the Redhat model as stated before.

Other individuals or entities could easily replace Blockstream and Blockstream could entirely disappear with no effect. This is the same as Satoshi disappearing. We all agree Satoshi does not control Bitcoin and do not worry about him.

The situation between Satoshi & Bitcoin and Blockstream & sidechains seems the same to me, so why worry about Blockstream? Is there something different missed?

it's b/c they have 5 (?) guys who have commit privileges, 3 of which are core devs and all of which could derail any upgrades to Bitcoin from SC innovations for Blockstream profit motives.  that's if you believe it's not critical that Bitcoin stays around while a SC takes over in the long run.