You're some special kind of stupid aren't you?

The basis for your argument is that sidechains enable the BTC asset to be seperated from the BTC blockchain. This, you suggest, breaks "BTC Sound Money principle".

Now would you explain to me how federated server model is not doing exactly that? What difference does it make that they use federated model other than less decentralization?

Sure, decentralization is important and that is why Blockstream propose to implement SPVproof to make the model more efficient. But what is stopping anyone, right now, to seperate the BTC asset from the BTC blockchain through the federated server model?

What are you gonna do to stop it and how does this not result exactly in your biggest concern?


Of course they are. Every possible scheme implemented on a sidechain supported by SPV proof can be replicated on a federated server model.

Decentralization is merely an adoption incentive. As you've been persistent in saying, some people will not care about lesser decentralization if they find considerable utility or speculative value in the sidechain. Furthermore, as some people were quick to show me, federated server can be considerably trustable and efficient.

Security is relative then if you accept and trust the federated server because they can be considered more secure than MM sidechains.


No, my point, which you are evidently too dense to understand, is that Blockstream will mostly not be building speculative SC's booted on top of malicious schemes. There are limitless possibilities of applications sidechains that can be built that are not speculative. This is what Blockstream will be doing.

You're acting as if any scammer off the street will be able to hire Blockstream to develop their scammy sidechains. Hopefully you don't really believe that. Blockstream will deal will large corporations that have a desire to decentralized certain infrastructure of their business so as to make them more efficient or create additional value.

What you fail to consider is that Blockstream will likely be responsible for only a minority of the sidechains that will be created


Prove it. Explain to me how they can not adapt their service to a federated model when in fact they have considered it and suggested the federated model could be good enough if properly implemented.

So how do you explain this


You have no problem with a federated model that "breaks the legitimate inextricable link btwn the currency unit BTC and its blockchain" and will "destroy Bitcoin"?

As long as Blockstream is not profiting from it, right ?

Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.

Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork).  My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid).  What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.

As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof.  All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A).  The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B).  So we get a forked blockchain…

Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain.  When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B.  Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain. 

However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.   


TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision.  It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).   

You did not answer the question.

How can open-source code be constructed to assure domination of one entity?

brg444 did tell you 1000 times that building CENTRALIZED (FEDERATED) 2wp for GOVERMENT and LARGE COMPANIES is much more PROFITABLE than create SPV proof for free.

Federated server model will see limited use only as a testing tool because of centralization and insecurity.

Blockstream desperately needs SPVProof for their business model to thrive. If they are successful it "implies" the community at large and especially the mining community endorses or approves of the conflict of interest business model they are attempting to push through. Yes, I'd have to live with that if I don't sell all my coins first. And I'll continue to voice my objections to that conflicted model.

You're a troll who can't hear. I've explained a thousand  times. By using their 40% core dev plus 3 top committers to jam through a source code rule set change that specifically favors their business model over that if others who already committed millions to alternative plans and so will lose as a  result,  then setting up a for profit to benefit from said rule chang,  and then on top of all that refusing to step down from their conflicted position so that they can block any future competition.

Although it's true that any miner can choose to support SPV proofs (OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY), my current understanding is that the "locked coins" will only be secure if the majority of the hashpower also supports OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY.

Remember, only the soft-forked nodes can discern a valid proof from an invalid proof--the older nodes accept all proofs as valid (that's why it's a soft fork as opposed to a hard fork).  My interpretation of this is that the "locked coins" are only "locked" according to the new protocol rules--according to the old rules the coins are free for the taking (i.e., old nodes accept all "proofs" as valid).  What this means is that unless the majority of the hashpower supports the change, SPV proofs are useless because they won't be enforced by the longest proof-of-work chain.

As an example, imagine that a miner who doesn't support sidechains (and running the pre-SPV-proof code) publishes a block where "locked coins" are unlocked without a valid proof.  All the other pre-sidechain nodes will interpret this block as valid and will begin mining on top of it (let's call this Chain A).  The nodes that support OP_SIDECHAINPROOFVERIFY, however, will interpret this block as invalid and will continue mining on top of the previous block (let's call this Chain B).  So we get a forked blockchain…

Now, if >50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then eventually Chain B will become the longest proof-of-work chain.  When this event occurs, the miners and nodes running the pre-sidechain code will abandon Chain A in favour of Chain B.  Chain A will get orphaned and Chain B (where the sidechain coins are still locked) will become the main chain. 

However, if <50% of the hashpower supports SPV proofs, then Chain B will grow at a slower rate than Chain A, and the two chains will remain forked.   


TL/DR: I think network support for SPV proofs is still a political decision.  It's just that instead of requiring support from a super majority of the community, it requires support from a simple majority of the hashpower (which is perhaps easier to obtain).   

I'm cool with being forced temporarily into a federated model because it will provoke developments and relationships needed to make it a credible defense mechanism.  As such, it has the realistic potential to thwart various kinds of superior resources attacks (specifically 51% types and global network attack forms) as well as judicial ones.

And that is exactly what Bitcoin is going to have to deal with add a result : thousands of not billions of entities using the federated peg to siphon bitcoin away from MC thus destroying is Sound Money function by providing an off ramp to new assets be they speculative, nom speculative, or even altcoins as in TC