What about BTC I hold at an exchange? Would I need to move all my BTC to a personal BTC wallet before nucleus?
Yes. The correct way to implement this kind of distribution model is to pick a block number (eg. 290000), and say that bitcoins at that specific block are what gives you aethereum. Otherwise, you can claim some AETH with your BTC, deposit and withdraw from an exchange, claim more AETH, and repeat ad infinitum. For the system to be trust-free and secure, it would have to be based on private key signing, which means that you would have to have them in a personal wallet. If you don't want to set up a new wallet and deal with different addresses another somewhat technical alternative is to use my pybtctool toolkit to generate a brainwallet and put your money all in the one address just before the nucleus happens. Pybitcointools/pybtctool includes Electrum message signing functionality with the "ecdsa_sign" command; here's an example session: vub@shadowcow-200 00:29:41: pybtctool ecdsa_sign hullo `pybtctool sha256 cow`
GykcIAXZ3VxuSUfLBi+FCWnvKlEOmo13ysGfVWVfo2cobJhbWhFqMxrxgVB5cnPax+YUJqB1fk9Hkm8bYjoUuBE=
vub@shadowcow-200 00:29:48: pybtctool ecdsa_recover hullo GykcIAXZ3VxuSUfLBi+FCWnvKlEOmo13ysGfVWVfo2cobJhbWhFqMxrxgVB5cnPax+YUJqB1fk9Hkm8bYjoUuBE=
04334ec322ef674d8a91a5467b78cb12fab3de961aa3d6c2d6afd844526e18c8dd12e9b21d5f9411dfa37689c551d2572465f633df73b0d12015aeb72d423e0d30
You can independently verify that 04334... is the public key corresponding to sha256(cow). Then you can easily sign a transaction to move funds back out. It's literally as easy as a command line utility possibly can be. But I personally would recommend for this group to do something similar to what we're doing and release an application which people can send their BTC to (it's client side so no security risk involved) such that the application signs at the appropriate time and then sends the BTC back out. Having easy-to-use tools for doing this kind of signing would really do a lot to help Bitcoin-based issuance models gain wider adoption. Vitalik, I just noticed nobody responded to your post earlier and want to acknowledge you for contributing your thoughts on this idea despite its potential to undermine your Ethereum project as it stands. As for asking people who would like to claim their 'spin-off' alt coins (ĉther or whichever) to actually move their bitcoins I would prefer an option that doesn't require that if it can be done reliably (such as the block-specifying method you propose). For those with cold storage wallets the private keys of which have never seen the light of day it is (from my limited understanding) less cumbersome to set up a means of temporarily importing a private key to a wipable off-line pc for signing a message to claim the spin-off coins than to require sweeping a wallet then having to generate and create new ones. |
|
|
|
It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.
Quick question: If in the event I've locked a chunk of bitcoins and transferred value into a sidechain alt, would I still be eligible for the whole of my bitcoin holding (including that locked up) or would I lose out from the currently unspendable bitcoins?
You would lose out unless the genesis of the new coin also recognized that particular sidechain keys. Depending on the details of how the two-way peg works, it might be possible to recognize keys from any sidechain that is exchangeable into btc. Thank you. So as with bitcoins on an exchange anyone interested in maximising their claim on the new coin would need temporarily to transfer any sidechain alts back into bitcoin. That is I guess another advantage of sidechain alts over alt alts (or however they will eventually be classified) is that the fixed ratio between sidechain alts and bitcoins means the shift shouldn't have the big impact on demand and price that say moving from original LTC to BTC would in both markets. It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.
I think spin-off is pretty good. Matches the usage for stocks. I like spin-off too. |
|
|
|
|
It is interesting to me that this idea (maybe it needs a nifty name like 'sidechain' because bitcoin blockchain-distributed premine seems cumbersome!) and Sidechain is happening at the same time. I'm liking the sound of both atm.
Quick question: If in the event I've locked a chunk of bitcoins and transferred value into a sidechain alt, would I still be eligible for the whole of my bitcoin holding (including that locked up) or would I lose out from the currently unspendable bitcoins?
|
|
|
|
This is VERY interesting. But I don't think: If there is any value in Ethereum (and I'm doubtful that Turing completeness is anything other than problematic) then it is in the code. But the code is freely available.
Is necessarily true. Value can comme from developpers too. Ethereum team said that everyone can fork the code but it's the devs who bring the value, and the devs cannot be forked. And Ethereum guys plan to keep improving Ethereum with release of new version etherium 2, 3 ,etc. Yes, that's what I mean. Any new value is in the code created by the devs. And this can just be gobbled up by the blockchain-based version of the same technology. The work done by the devs apply to both Ethereum and ĉthereum. The only difference between the two coins is the initial coin distributions. The question is which coin would win? The coin with the more efficient distribution and larger potential user base, or the coin that costs money to purchase, has less users, and very likely has an initial distribution highly favouring the developers? If this were to succeed why what incentive would the original devs have in releasing v. 2, 3 etc? If by making the bitcoin blockchain version available to all bitcoin holders (which I suspect comprise 90% + of those interested in Ethereum) and hardly anyone buys the original, their business model has failed and there is nothing and no prospect of anything from which they can pay themselves to continue with development. |
|
|
|
If they use Bitcoin properly, their money is probably safer than any other asset they own.
From a technical perspective, I agree with you 100%. But you can't with all honesty say that assets stored in BTC are as safe as Fed Bonds. Now before you go and start describing how completely fabricated the US monetary system is, I am not saying it is not as fickle as you know it is. All I am saying, is that there is a lot more power behind one than the other... Assets stored in Bitcoin? Bitcoin is the asset (actually the private keys which allow modification of the decentralized ledger). The above exchange may have been resolved in the last couple of pages but just seeing this exchange made me smile because it is a beautiful illustration of someone trapped by their own paradigm failing to see what the other is trying to say. Sorry CoinDox, kkaspar but if you didn't figure it out in the correspondence since: If Bitcoin is what is valued for what it is (irrespective of how it is valued by others against other measures) then what Holliday says is simply and undeniably true. It is not unreasonable to question whether it is a good idea to value something on the basis of it being able to be stored and transferred securely without a third party even if one day it may be valued so little by others that a massive stash could not buy your next meal, but that's not your argument. And if I recollect from way back I believe Holliday claims to hold PM as assets as well as fiat. Unlike you however, I don't believe he uses his fiat as the means of valuing those assets (nor, I would guess, is his fiat valued in gold troy ounces etc), rather that the asset is valued for what it is (and what it isn't). The market value of each only tells us how others value each relative to one another and is interesting (and necessary for tax reasons) but that's not the same thing. Don't worry CoinDox, kkaspar if the penny hasn't dropped yet. Constructive struggle, cognitive dissonance may feel frustrating but it is an healthy educational process. I do not mean to be condescending but keep up the good work  |
|
|
|
Hi im new here.
yesterday i put short on 520$. I still hope we will see retest at arround 500$.
I hope you lose - not because I wish you badly, in fact I wish you well - but because if it does as you predict you will likely consider yourself clever rather than lucky and as a consequence are more likely to make further ill-thought risky trades that may lose you a lot more money in the long run. Good luck |
|
|
|
he's talking about seizures, problems they've had with banks etc in the past
the coins are gone, 'temporary unavailable' means he hoped he could make it back over time following the crisis strategy
I'm obviously speculating but nobody is deluded enough to think that they can make their entire deposit balance back by trading coins that don't exist. Dont forget people are just trading numbers in a database if that amount is lost then there are no coins to make back. Just talking hypothetically here but if there were some coins and fiat in there assuming no more in and no more out and people are trading numbers on a database, slowly but surely the fees would reduce the amount being traded till it was the amount they had. However in practice this depends on having enough for people to withdraw which means people not to know what is going! |
|
|
|
Live on sky news now
Sky news story was the expected doom and gloom, half warranted, half not. The bitcoin lawyer dude was on it, I'll give him 4/10. Gox story now also incoming on BBC news 24. Urgh. Not a good day to be long and leveraged in the bitcoin futures market. Robert Peston's take is quite interesting though... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-26335547 |
|
|
|
"Visa, Mastercard, we know what they are...." He's saying he doesn't know what bitcoin is. So the fault is not his, it's the network for not asking the question when asking him on. Do you know what Bitcoins is?!! |
|
|
|
The chart in the logo representing goxbux history is a nice touch - from zero up down up higher back down to zero! |
|
|
|
Why would anyone buy goxcoin on bitcoinbuilder when they can just wire money to Gox and buy at a much lower price? I mean if you want to buy lottery tickets, at least don't over pay for them.
I've heard rumour it's now possible to get yen into gox within an hour. If this is the case I would guess we'd start seeing some equalisation between gox and bitcoinbuilder? Or am I missing something? |
|
|
|
Have to say... Gox's trading engine is holding up well  Just thinking the same myself I'm impressed. Looks like they have the makings of a good service there ... or maybe not!! |
|
|
|
The freedom to transmit value instantly across borders, peer to peer, independent of banks and governments? Priceless.
For all else, there's dogecoin.
+1  |
|
|
|
Hi all, after following the recent spike and subsequent crash of Bitcoin on the news I decided to look into cryptocoins and was brought here. Joined yesterday and am really liking this thread.
I am no trader and cannot provide any technical analysis but IMO, BTC will correct further in the coming months, by how much and when I am clueless. I tend to look at Bitcoin as a digital precious metal. Back in August 2011, gold peaked at $1900 before falling to $1500. At the time, many investors thought that the bottom was reached and that the price would rise above $2000 in a matter of months. Over two years have passed and gold is still in a bear market with prices under $1200 and it will very likely correct further before we see a reverse in the current trend. I personally wouldn't be surprised if BTC goes down to the $500-600 range, possibly even $400 but it may take some time. Just my 2 cents.
The only reason gold has been a bear market the last couple of years is because it has been and still is HEAVILY manipulated to prop up the dollar. You can not manipulate a market for so long. It is just an excuse for the failed predictions of the goldbugs. People get uncomfortable with the idea that we are hurtling through space on a tiny rock and we only have the illusion of control. It is easier to make up stories about how some powerful entity is controlling things than to accept the fact that in the grand scheme of things every single human and every single organization created by said humans, is at the mercy of the universe. People get uncomfortable with the idea that there is a God that will punish them for their sins, especially the pride of refusing to give Him control. It is easier to make up stories about how we are some unimportant sludge on a tiny rock hurtling through space so that it frees us to do whatever we want than to accept the fact that in the grand scheme of things every single human and every single organization created by said humans is at the mercy of an Almighty God. I kinda see what you are trying to do here but the inverse falls apart in my eyes. If 'every single human [...] is at the mercy of an Almighty God' how could one 'refuse to give Him control'? I'm not asking you to start quoting me chapter and verse - actually if anything I'd much prefer you didn't  - just pointing out what looks to me like one of the many logical inconsistencies one has to perpetually maintain in one's mind to continue to believe in a god-like character - in particular one of an Abrahamic ilk! It is not surprising to see failure when someone makes an attempt to illustrate 'it takes just as much faith to believe in nature/the universe/that there is no god' etc. as it does to believe there is a god'. Edit: Looking at what you wrote again bch, the more I look at it the more ridiculous a statement it seems - but I don't want to clog up Risto's thread (we may well just be deleted anyway - so if you would like to take this further (I'm more than happy to point out where I see it problematic) we could do so by PM or in the off-topic lounge if you like. Please note whilst I may be seen to be insulting of religion I attempt not to be insulting of the religious and respect anybody's right to believe anything. |
|
|
|
You want to see BTC go to the moon again? Shift the decimal places and make 1 BTC = 0.800 USD instead of using mBTC.
Go ahead. Feel free... ; (I'm saying it's open source so you have as much right to do it as the next. You'll just need to persuade enough to agree with you. Good luck!) |
|
|
|
I see you tend to agree with me about the perception of affordability being a huge benefit of Litecoin over Bitcoin even if it's really nothing more than a perception. People can ignore that fact or they can understand it and in turn profit from it.
I most certainly did not agree that at all. I see no benefit of Litecoin over Bitcoin. What I see is value perpetuated by a misunderstanding, even, one could say, a delusion. The problem for me with delusions is I can't be confident people won't get a light bulb moment and go 'Doh! How come I didn't see that before' and they are deluded no more. And in this day and age it only takes an effective meme for that to spread. Then of what value is Litecoin? If I wrote an informative piece about the refraction of light and said, "The sky is blue but I feel certain it will turn red." Would you feel that I was basing my entire thesis on nothing more than a feeling even after I went further to identify my reasons being the angle of the sun in relation to the thickness of the atmosphere. Would you discount my future opinions based on the inclusion of the simple statement, "I have a feeling?"
Sorry if it came across that way. I was failing to see something substantive. Now I see you believe people's 'persceptions' irrespective of whether they have a basis in reason is a basis on which to invest. We'll have to agree to disagree on that one I'm afraid. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
