Community Directory


Go back

User Activity

Forum Posts

  • Replies: 1,764
  • Topics: 216
  • Likes Received: 1,244
  • Re: Token Controlled Access and the Lightning Network

    Thanks for the comment Robert, I'm more looking for ideas that we can pound on but i'll keep that in mind.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @omniedge Your answers lead me to suggest that you should consider to openly support one of the proposed Bitcoin core BIPS. Seems BIP 101 (bigger blocks and it includes a scheme to gradually increase the blocksize) works for your need. The majority of developers are not against bigger blocks. They just can not come to consensus with how much and when. There are different BIPS on the table with different proposals for bigger blocks. Other stakeholders such as LTB should express what BIP they prefer. The Core developers are sensible to the Bitcoin community in case they clearly support a BIP proposal.

    I don't want to take a stand on it because it's not my place, I'm not an expert or a developer and I don't want to jump in front of any parade. I just want people to be able to talk about these ideas as we're doing here and for those discussions or the understanding that results from them to guide our course.

    I am not more important than anybody else, I should not have to advertise my opinion as a flagging mechanism for others.

    Jumping to BitcoinXT in the name of preparedness feels excessive. As Charlie Lee stated: "the reason why BitcoinXT is dangerous and irresponsible is because it could potentially destroy Bitcoin and split the userbase into 2 separate Bitcoin networks". Clearly demanded BIPS by the community will avoid that split.

    The thing you're missing is there is no trouble to jump or we wouldn't bother and no trouble to jump back. If the problem gets solved through the normal process, we'll change back and if it doesn't we won't.

    We have no ability to control this process nor is it our place to so we're just acting in our own best interest, not being shy about what we perceive that to be and why that is so. LTB/Tokenly/AdamBLevine are not "leaders" in the community, just participants playing by the same rules as everybody else.

    It is good that Bitcoin can fork when faced with hard choices that have both sides arguing from what they perceive to be the best perspective and neither of them are wrong because they have opposite needs. Whether it's this time or five proposed forks from now, the bitcoin network will eventually come to a problem that neither side is willing to cave on and we'll have two bitcoins at least for a while.

    I am not afraid of that and you should only be afraid of that if the reason you're in bitcoin is because you want it to make you rich.

    By the way, Love the work you are doing and understand your need but please reassess your judgement that BitcoinXT is the only solution.

    Thanks - I don't believe BitcoinXT is the only solution as I've explained in the last few posts.

  • Token Controlled Access and the Lightning Network

    Hey everybody,

    As many of you know, Let's Talk Bitcoin incorporates many experimental bitcoin technologies and one of them is Token Controlled Access or TCA (read about how it all got started here

    Basically you prove to the website, platform or app that you own a certain bitcoin address. The platform then associates that address with your username on the website and grants you permissions or access to content or whatever, based on what kind of tokens are contained at that moment within your address.

    So the problem is that all of this assumes that a user has a unique address which contains their tokens and those transactions happen on transparent, neutral and auditable bitcoin blockchain.

    So here's the issue - The lightning network is an off-blockchain solution, and the world it's seen as a solution is one where bitcoin transactions are very expensive because they are only used for settlement of these payment channels. People talk about fees becoming as high as 10 or 15 dollars per tx since they are really being used to settle thousands of transactions.

    If you just want to trade that might work well, but from what I can tell it will not work at all because in order to actually get the use out of the token you purchased, it needs to be in a wallet whose private keys you control.

    Spells of Genesis would not be able to develop their game in the way they are planning, instead they would need to become a hub themselves and then all players would deposit their cards into spells of genesis, which is exactly the sort of centralized issue we've had all along.

    I haven't had a strong opinion about the bigger or smaller blocks until this came up but if the lightning network can't support token controlled access that pushes me hard towards on-blockchain solutions that can.

    If anybody has a solution or ideas, let's talk.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @omniedge @adam You leave the technical details to @cryptonaut which is ok but I am certain your understanding of Bitcoin-core essence and concept is quite clear. You have spent a lot of time on the topic of bitcoin and other alternatives. You have been exposed to many different sides of the ecosystem. So to just say you trust your technical team to change Bitcoins reference client to BitcoinXT could be perceived as naive or you already made up your mind in favour of XT.

    As a normal user of bitcoin technology, XT or not doesn't matter to me. I care about reliable, inexpensive and timely service. I do feel like i'm quite familiar with the Bitcoin Core vs XT argument and I can see valid arguments from both camps, which i've expressed on the show when talking about the blocksize debate

    https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/lets-talk-bitcoin-231-diversity-and-consensus

    As a founder of Tokenly which is focused on Token Controlled Access technologies I find that I am strongly in favor of doing something to increase block sizes because the lightning network will not work for the ways I want to use bitcoin. Lightning makes things cheaper and smaller by essentially being a trustless debt transfer mechanism that is settled periodically, only settlement generates transactions on the bitcoin blockchain or balance transfers on the bitcoin blockchain.

    Token controlled access relies on a user actually taking possession of their tokens and those transactions being recorded on the bitcoin blockchain and that ongoing possession being recorded and reflected accurately on the bitcoin blockchain. It will not work with Lighting or any other off-chain solution.

    If you want a more comprehensive, better explanation of why token controlled access just won't work in a 1MB block limit ecosystem please read this very insightful reddit comment from someone who listened to the last episode of LTB on the topic https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hnbkv/4430_you_realize_that_you_just_described_a/cu92sil

    So generally I find myself in favor of bigger blocks although I don't have an opinion about the specifics, schedule, etc.

    Its been made clear at least to this point that at this point the core developers are not interested in raising block sizes or moving in that direction until it's absolutely needed. I'd rather we have a plan we're executing, is predictable and can be incorporated into our strategic planning.

    Bitcoin satisfies so many needs and it's ecosystems is quite diverse. A neutral tool facilitating trade and adopted by Cyberphunks, capitalists, libertarians, geeks, consumers, providers, public/private institutions to mention a few is amazing by itself.

    What I am trying to say is that some technical changes do impact this whole dynamic and identity of what Bitcoin represents. Reality is that apart from from bigger blocks it also includes includes de-anonymizing and transaction blocking features!

    BitcoinXT is splitting the community and it becomes important that "big deals" like yourself and other Bitcoin related enterprises start expressing their point of view. The miners (full nodes) are only interested in economic incentives so to leave it to them is not really representative of the community.

    BitcoinXT offers this functionality along with some things I think are good ideas like nodes relaying doublespends so that a merchant can see if they are being attacked instead of the core behavior of hiding doublespends so only people who are attacking using modified clients can see.

    It also has some bad things in it like moving Mike Hearn into the deciders role.

    The only thing driving XT is that it addresses the block size issue with an existing bip when the alternative is to not deal with it. This fork isn't even possible until January so it's not like anybody is holding a gun to the heads of the core developers, they could cut the legs out from under this completely by adopting BIP101 into core.

    Bitpay recent statement by Stepher Pair is in favour of Bip101 and not BitcoinXT: "As we considered the implications of a block size increase, preservation of the decentralized nature of Bitcoin was the most important consideration. If decentralization is ever compromised, Bitcoin will eventually perish.

    Currently, my assumption is that LTB is in favour of XT due to the simple fact that it is running XT. Is there are formal stand from the LTB on this topic?

    I think you've assumed incorrectly.

    For the reasons I laid out above, it's likely (although I haven't confirmed this so I could be wrong) that all the co-founders of tokenly are in favor of bigger blocks but again, we don't care whether the solution is in core or xt we just don't want to have our services disrupted.

    We're planning to switch to XT at some point in the near future (I don't think we've done it) because there is no downside for us - If the fork happens we'll be compatible and won't have any problems, if it doesn't happen we'll be compatible and won't have any problems. If we don't upgrade and the network does, we won't be compatible and our software will choke on every block over 1mb.

    This is not a political statement, its preparedness.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @cryptonaut

    @brighton36

    As for r/buttcoin, don't take it too seriously - a lot of bitcoiners (myself included) go there to make fun of ourselves. I don't think that's so real a community these days as it once was. In fact, I may go there and link to this very post :)

    Oh I don't take /r/buttcoin seriously at all, I know what you mean. It's all good entertainment

    I suspect what will happen is that the core devs will raise the block size, as expected, and on a reasonable time scale. At which time, adam levine will announce that this was his intent the whole time, and switch back to bitcoind.

    You can blame me for the switch to XT actually, Adam doesn't know much about that stuff nor handle it. Currently waiting to port over the addrindex patch before really switching though since all but one of my nodes is also used by counterparty. I don't see any compelling reason to switch back to bitcoind afterwards since it's already just Core but with a few additions. That can change at any time though, I hold no loyalties.

    Yup, I've got no attachment to XT, I delegate technical decisions to Nick and Devon.

    I don't know why you think I'm such a big deal @brighton36, or why you seem angry all the time when you're talking to me lol?

    Good of you to take time out of your factom investigation to chime in, i'm still looking forward to seeing your evidence.

  • Re: Interview Request: Rusty of Blockstream - Lightning Protocol

    @ademczuk Any other questions? @pinheadmz is on the board, honestly I don't know a thing about the lightning network beyond the basic pitch and means of operation

  • Re: Interview Request: Rusty of Blockstream - Lightning Protocol

    @ademczuk It appears this idea has been pilfered. Sorry @adam & @epicenterbitcoin

    We actually have Rusty scheduled, Matthew Zipkin is going to be interviewing him.

  • Re: Upcoming Bitcoin Hard Fork & /r/bitcoin censorship

    @cryptonaut

    @ivanb "If 90% of /r/Bitcoin users find these policies to be intolerable, then I want these 90% of /r/Bitcoin users to leave." -Theymos

    It's consistent with the way he acts, but wow...hard to believe that we have 'leadership' like that in the Bitcoin community. Keep it up Theymos - you might actually push more people to run to XT and a different way of thinking than if you had just allowed discussions to take place.

    Yeah, I think his time is coming to an end finally. You can see the subreddit subscribers slowly dropping down lol.

    I don't suppose many people remember but Theymos actually didnt start r/bitcoin, it was a 17 year old libertarian who called himself Atlas and who was the owner of r/bitcoin through its first 10,000 or so subs. He was fiercely libertarian, liked to play devils advocate and debate abstract concepts. One day he got really discouraged after being trolled a bunch of time and felt that he no longer deserved to be the "owner" of the community, and so gave it to the more responsible Theymos.

    Not trying to say anything with this, just noting the wheel continuing to turn.

© Copyright 2013–2016 The LTB Network. All rights reserved .