you're continuing to use selective memory loss.

if you go back, i've acknowledged Adam's contributions many times in this thread.  i'm not sure about Austin's.

the only reason we're talking about these "contributions" is b/c you brought their names into the recent discussion as examples of the only ones we should be listening to in regards to SC's.  you've also given preference to dev opinion as more important to Bitcoins success.  this is wrong as this is a community you know and involves much more than just code.

Bitcoin's killer app is SoV, those who have put cold hard cash create the liquidity we all so value, those are the heroes. Businesses who look to find win win and tax us are welcome, but businesses who want to change the rules of the game, so they can extract value and influence the network growth, at the protocol level need to stand up to a whole new paradigm of scrutiny.  Who cares if its open source, we'r talking about the rules, it has as much value as saying its a free market and sure anyone can start a bank and compete in this open market under the rules of the FED, and if you dont like the rules start a political campaign and change them when you have a majority.  

The parallels to the banking collapses in the late 1800 and early 1900 and the failed Bitcoin companies, and the Bitcoiners attitudes are uncanny, and to top it all off the solution is comparable to the FED backing banks but only this time its a network backed by the worlds greatest Network tightens, and if you hadn't realized Bitcoin is a network, not a bank.

 

brg444, your insolence is backfiring. I for one posted a very benign assessment of some concerns I has with the SC proposal on the day it was released, it didn't result in a discussion in the tread, but a PM telling me I was full of BS and clueless.

Naturally I wanted to know why, so I followed the discussion, anyone cowardly to attack me with a PM but not reply to my post made me think there is a problem here. So I looked, and sure enough this idea has problems, I don't hold all the same concerns as cypher, but I can't dismiss them either he is just exploring the defects to there very probable outcome, so I do see his points and can even imagine that many of the probabilities have higher odds of success than say Bitcoin did in 2010.

FYI if you weren't so closed minded I wouldn't have explored ways to engage with you, so thank you for that, the results are below.

It seems someone thought it a good idea to post my comments and cyphers on r/Bitcoin

I was surprised to see the community over there overwhelmingly 83% of over 300 votes feel we have valid ideas.  (that's about a 33% voter participation if you follow r/Bitcoin a lot.)

AFAIK, none of these others have a mining implementation yet in practice, do they?

I'll vouch for Cypher's influence during that time. I remained a bull through that drawn-out bust, and Cypher helped me and others continue to stay on track with that position. Those not involved in the community during that period might be tempted to think "oh, it was just another bear market like today, easy enough to wait through if you see bitcoin's potential." Well, yes and no. Bitcoin was a toy in 2011. We were all fascinated with the technology and talked about how it could change the world, but *nobody* else cared. We believed what we were saying, but the disconnect between what we saw in this community and the rest of world was ridiculous. There was no VC money, the 3 or 4 mainstream news stories that happened that entire year were negative and treated bitcoin as a brief curiosity, the ecosystem sucked, people were scammed and hacked right and left, everything was a giant pain to use, and it was really difficult to talk about bitcoin in polite company without seeming like a total freak show. Couple that with a 90%+ drop in price from your first purchases (my case, anyways), and a total market-cap deflating to less than the value of some people's houses, and it really seemed like bitcoin might just go away. Granted, it was clear that the technology was important and would eventually, somehow, be influential, but it was very much rational at the time to think that the probability of bitcoin, as it stood, to succeed was pretty low.

Contrast that to the present bear market. We have more VC money than the internet in 1995 being pumped into the space. Bitcoin is being debated by top officials at major financial institutions, central banks, and all sorts of government bodies. We have some of the smartest people in the world, with reputations to protect, advocating for it publicly. Even the hard-line skeptics now mostly ack that at least the technology is potentially world-changing. And while we still get our fair share of terrible media pieces, we also get good ones, with no shortage of coverage in general. *This* bear market is a breeze.

So to Cypher's point... It doesn't take much vision to be excited by cool technology; "devs gonna dev". But in the environment we had in late 2011, it did take vision to see that this stuff is world-changing, and to put a significant portion of your net-worth where your mouth is.

http://web.archive.org/web/20120403154846/http://bitcoinmedia.com/bitcoin-vs-metals




I honestly don't know where I land on this stuff yet. I see that there's potential for a number of economic dynamics which we do not understand at first glance, and I personally need to think about how this all plays out with merged-mining a lot more. The spv op-code addition itself, though, I see as more a potential governance precedent issue than a technical problem (since OT can implement sidechains with the same economic implications (assuming that assertion is correct)).

However the idea you note above, that sidechains potentially changes the narrative from sound-money to something else, is a new viewpoint for me in this debate. I would hope, as do sidechains supporters, that the new narrative is *additive* to the old, not mutually exclusive, but I don't know yet.

I was looking into it to see if I could use it for solo mining, I believe it is on par as a node, and as you point out probably better and continued support seems inevitable, but if I recall correctly I was looking at just a development road map and it didn't seem like there was demand to support the mining functionality, going forward I felt it wasn't worth risking if a block didn't propagate so I am not sure it will be used for mining.  

this is really encouraging.  we owe it to ourselves to further investigate the capabilities of btcd as an alternative to Core.

Thanks for this, I recall there was support for mining, my question was about implementation.  Our friend was looking for something to do to contribute.  How much hashrate is implemented, what miners use it?

we are on our way boys to consuming the Forex fiat currency market:

“By making bitcoins a recognized payment instrument, Finland has pushed it towards being regarded as a formal currency," said Asquith.

http://www.coindesk.com/finland-classifies-bitcoin-vat-exempt-financial-service/

let's not fuck it up, please.

Is there any ETA for the first attempt to plug a sidechain?