Winklevis orchestrating a pump ?  |
|
|
|
No. There is no new token, their "token" is Bitcoin.
Sidechains are described in this way: "The sidechains ideas is this.. Send your Bitcoins to a specially formed Bitcoin address. The address is specially designed so that the coins will now be out of your control… and out of the control of anybody else either." further on, they are described like this: "If the second blockchain has agreed to be a Bitcoin sidechain, it now does something really special… it creates the exact same number of tokens on its own network and gives you control of them." After sending your bitcoin to a "specially formed Bitcoin address", what do you own? A bitcoin? A token? To be fair you own a token whose value is cryptographically pegged to its equivalent in Bitcoin. While it isn't factually true to say that the units being moved around sidechains are bitcoins the arrangement makes it so that the scarcity of the ledger is preserved and the amount of tradeable units within the ecosystem remains the same. |
|
|
|
My criticism of sidechains is based purely on them being to convoluted and complex, and also there's the fact that the door is left open for bitcoins to be lost on sidechains which of course would reflect badly on Bitcoin, and be used by the media to launch another tirade of negative propaganda
Also, if the overall goal is for exchanges to become more transparent, then these same exchanges being able to use such a sidechain achieves the opposite. Transparency will bring many obvious advantages for bitcoin
VeritasSapere I think you logged into the wrong account. |
|
|
|
Peter R. Rizun "Peter_tRoll" is a charlatan of the highest degree. I don't remember who first called him that but it's extremely accurate. Charlatan.
I'm gonna go ahead and claim this one |
|
|
|
In fact Core has just released a new version of core to deal with this issue where ? they suggest to raise minimal fees to relay ... i don't want do this. default fees for relay : 0,00001 BTC. i prefer a purge of the mempool like the XT system ... mempool is a P2P memory shared between nodes (working nodes ...). why do i want an unlimited mempool on my node when the CPU freezing because of the rejecting job ? (already spend, free rate limiter, etcs ...) the next evo of the XT can be based on the auto-purge of the mempool in regard of CPU usage (or ping of the RPC server) : https://github.com/bitcoinxt/bitcoinxt/issues/82Did you miss the part that says XT's "solution" is to drop random transactions which would undermine Matt Corallo relay network and cause orphan. Are you really suggesting miners are running this half baked workaround at the cost of their own profits? |
|
|
|
Yes, the correction is responsible node management and a simple adjustment of minrelaytxfee. In fact Core has just released a new version of core to deal with this issue while the actual proper mempool fix is being developed and progressing. As for XT's "solution":  Regarding "miners go slowly to XT":   |
|
|
|
Maybe my post should have given you a hint to double check some of your assumptions? Here goes:
Sidechains as they are currently implemented in Liquid make use of Bitcoin script features and some fancy programming that required absolutely zero change to Bitcoin.
Saying that the implementation of Liquid should have been decided through consensus is the equivalent of suggesting the economic majority should approve of every Bitcoin companies out there. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.
Moreover the issue you refer to in regards to Mike's stubborn stonewalling of BIP65 is completely irrelevant to sidechains.
Mike was banned from the IRC chat room for being a dick and distracting the development process with his political bullshit.
Sidechains are indeed a complex matter as it stands at that is why they are not open yet to the public and general user. Once they are this complexity will have been abstracted considerably and their security vetted by peer-review. The lost bitcoin concern is not reserved to sidechains but mostly every service that does not involve purely peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin (web wallets, exchanges, etc.)
From an exchange stand point it might not be an improvement on transparency yet it definitely does not make anything worse. As for your inability to understand the importance of privacy in these scenarios it just reflects on your poor imagination.
No one has suggested Liquid, or sidechains for that matter, were scaling solutions so your are just attacking a straw man here.
As far as I understood it, it is a small change that needed to be made to Bitcoin in order to allow the side chains to function. As far as I understand furthermore this change within BIP65 deals with nLockTime which is the variable that deals with and is very important for side chains. I might not be a coder myself however my friends who are coders have explained this to me very thoroughly. Wrong, the Liquid sidechain, as implemented, required no change to Bitcoin. As for BIP65 and nLockTime (which is not yet implemented) it helps with a host of use cases (sidechains & Lightning being one of them). This is certainly not a function that is being pulled into Bitcoin Core only to serve sidechains. I am indeed saying that the implementation of side chains should have been decided by consensus, even though it represents a minor technical change, from an economics perspective however among others it is a huge change, which should have been decided by and through consensus. You are working from an assumption that is wrong: implementing BIP65 is a whole different debate than sidechains. Moreover sidechains are not implemented into Bitcoin, they are created out of existing Bitcoin features and script language. They are a voluntary service that is not being force onto Bitcoin users therefore it makes absolutely no sense to propose that we need consensus to allow them to exist. What you propose works precisely against the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin. The same criticism holds for web wallets and exchanges however some people might see side chains as being a part of bitcoin and might falsely equate the two more then they would with web wallets and exchanges. So creation of web wallets and exchange require consensus? I think that Bitcoin should be simple, in its basic fundamentals, I can explain Bitcoin in a its basic form to a ten year old I can no longer do that if side chains become an intrinsic part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. So yes I am skeptical in part purely because I think there is to much complexion. So multi-signature should not exist because it is a complex use of Bitcoin's scripting language that has become an intrinsic part of Bitcoin? I do oppose implementing increased anonymity in Bitcoin, you can say this is because of my poor imagination, however I have good reasons to stand on this believe. I do think there is a need for anonymous cryptocurrency in the world and I even support projects like XMR, Dash and SDC. I think that Bitcoin however should serve a different purpose and arguably a more important purpose by staying transparent and allowing the advantages that it brings to be maximized.
No one is proposing to implement anonymity into Bitcoin, at least not yet, so you are again attempting to fight a straw man. If sidechains do not require nLockTime and BIP65 then I was wrong and I can accept that, it is wisdom to recognize when we are wrong. Some might do, not all of them. Are you aware that BIP65 is not yet implemented ? |
|
|
|
I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus [...]
IMHO not true nobody can force you to use a sidechain. if you do you should be aware of the risks (and you cant blame bitcoin for your own mistakes) i very much welcome sidechains and i think its wonderful that they are possible without changing bitcoin. if bitcoin would need to change to support them it could be that i am against them (depends on the specific implementation). bitcoin needs to stay strong. any change has risks which needs to be weight against the benefits. It did require a change to Bitcoin in order to support side chains, I just think that this change should have been implemented through consensus. This is setting a bad precedent for making changes to Bitcoin, which should be discussed and evaluated by the larger community as opposed to just being implemented by a small group of Core developers. Especially important changes like the implementation of side chains. Please accept that you are just utterly confused. Once again: side chains are not implemented into Bitcoin they are a superficial layer making use of Bitcoin's existing scripting language. |
|
|
|
Maybe my post should have given you a hint to double check some of your assumptions? Here goes:
Sidechains as they are currently implemented in Liquid make use of Bitcoin script features and some fancy programming that required absolutely zero change to Bitcoin.
Saying that the implementation of Liquid should have been decided through consensus is the equivalent of suggesting the economic majority should approve of every Bitcoin companies out there. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense.
Moreover the issue you refer to in regards to Mike's stubborn stonewalling of BIP65 is completely irrelevant to sidechains.
Mike was banned from the IRC chat room for being a dick and distracting the development process with his political bullshit.
Sidechains are indeed a complex matter as it stands at that is why they are not open yet to the public and general user. Once they are this complexity will have been abstracted considerably and their security vetted by peer-review. The lost bitcoin concern is not reserved to sidechains but mostly every service that does not involve purely peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin (web wallets, exchanges, etc.)
From an exchange stand point it might not be an improvement on transparency yet it definitely does not make anything worse. As for your inability to understand the importance of privacy in these scenarios it just reflects on your poor imagination.
No one has suggested Liquid, or sidechains for that matter, were scaling solutions so your are just attacking a straw man here.
As far as I understood it, it is a small change that needed to be made to Bitcoin in order to allow the side chains to function. As far as I understand furthermore this change within BIP65 deals with nLockTime which is the variable that deals with and is very important for side chains. I might not be a coder myself however my friends who are coders have explained this to me very thoroughly. Wrong, the Liquid sidechain, as implemented, required no change to Bitcoin. As for BIP65 and nLockTime (which is not yet implemented) it helps with a host of use cases (sidechains & Lightning being one of them). This is certainly not a function that is being pulled into Bitcoin Core only to serve sidechains. I am indeed saying that the implementation of side chains should have been decided by consensus, even though it represents a minor technical change, from an economics perspective however among others it is a huge change, which should have been decided by and through consensus. You are working from an assumption that is wrong: implementing BIP65 is a whole different debate than sidechains. Moreover sidechains are not implemented into Bitcoin, they are created out of existing Bitcoin features and script language. They are a voluntary service that is not being force onto Bitcoin users therefore it makes absolutely no sense to propose that we need consensus to allow them to exist. What you propose works precisely against the permissionless aspect of Bitcoin. The same criticism holds for web wallets and exchanges however some people might see side chains as being a part of bitcoin and might falsely equate the two more then they would with web wallets and exchanges. So creation of web wallets and exchange require consensus? I think that Bitcoin should be simple, in its basic fundamentals, I can explain Bitcoin in a its basic form to a ten year old I can no longer do that if side chains become an intrinsic part of the Bitcoin ecosystem. So yes I am skeptical in part purely because I think there is to much complexion. So multi-signature should not exist because it is a complex use of Bitcoin's scripting language that has become an intrinsic part of Bitcoin? I do oppose implementing increased anonymity in Bitcoin, you can say this is because of my poor imagination, however I have good reasons to stand on this believe. I do think there is a need for anonymous cryptocurrency in the world and I even support projects like XMR, Dash and SDC. I think that Bitcoin however should serve a different purpose and arguably a more important purpose by staying transparent and allowing the advantages that it brings to be maximized.
No one is proposing to implement anonymity into Bitcoin, at least not yet, so you are again attempting to fight a straw man. |
|
|
|
Gemini is the reason
gemini low volume suggest the opposite, i bet my ass this is the same pumper that is taking advantages of good news to pump the price a little, and force the other to follow so he can dump later at 280, and cash out his profit, repeat from 230 or lower I think you guys are a bit stuck on "the manipulator" theory. While this was true in 2012, the market is simply too large to be manipulated by individuals these days. Even back in 2012, I remember Bitpay handing it to pirate for tens of thousands of dollars one night when his manipulative efforts were discovered. I believe it was that night "the manipulator" died. The market bubbled from $2 up to $1,050 and then capitulated down at $180. It isn't hard to see the trend changes... i was thinking, if everyone is holding, and only few people are playing the market, it could be easy for a rich bitcoin guy(one of those 100k guy in the top ten) to manipulate the market, no matter how large bitcoin is or will be Those top 10 guys are companies, not individuals. Their "manipulation" attempts are merely them converting to fiat for operating costs. It isn't a conspiracy.  Where do you get this idea from? Are you saying all top Bitcoin holders are miners? |
|
|
|
I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus, which is why Mike Hearn was so vocal about this change needing to be implemented in a hard fork instead, so that the economic majority can decide whether they want this feature implemented or not. This is in part why he was banned from the developer chat.
My criticism of side chains is based on them being to complex, and on the possibility of bitcoins being lost on side chains which would then in turn reflect badly on Bitcoin.
Exchanges being able to use such a side chain is also not an improvement if our goal was to have more transparent exchanges. I also do not think that anonymity should be implemented in Bitcoin either, because of the advantageous that transparency can bring.
The idea of paying a monthly subscription fee to a centralized company in order to transact in Bitcoin to me seems completely antithetical to the principles of Bitcoin. This should not be considered as a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly, since this is quite obviously not the case.
Thank you for making it clear from the first sentence on that you have no idea what it is you are talking about. I could have already guessed, that you would have been opposed to people having the freedom of choice. At least you are consistent.  Maybe my post should have given you a hint to double check some of your assumptions? Here goes: Sidechains as they are currently implemented in Liquid make use of Bitcoin script features and some fancy programming that required absolutely zero change to Bitcoin. Saying that the implementation of Liquid should have been decided through consensus is the equivalent of suggesting the economic majority should approve of every Bitcoin companies out there who make use of the code in the protocol to fit their product. It's pure, unadulterated nonsense. Moreover the issue you refer to in regards to Mike's stubborn stonewalling of BIP65 is completely irrelevant to sidechains. Mike was banned from the IRC chat room for being a dick and distracting the development process with his political bullshit. Sidechains are indeed a complex matter as it stands and that is why they are not open yet to the public and general user. When they are this complexity will have been abstracted considerably and their security vetted by peer-review. The lost bitcoin concern is not reserved to sidechains but mostly every service that does not involve purely peer-to-peer use of Bitcoin (web wallets, exchanges, etc.) From an exchange stand point it might not be an improvement on transparency yet it definitely does not make anything worse. As for your inability to understand the importance of privacy in these scenarios it just reflects on your poor imagination. No one has suggested Liquid, or sidechains for that matter, were scaling solutions so your are just attacking a straw man here. |
|
|
|
I think that the implementation of side chains should have been decided through consensus, which is why Mike Hearn was so vocal about this change needing to be implemented in a hard fork instead, so that the economic majority can decide whether they want this feature implemented or not. This is in part why he was banned from the developer chat.
My criticism of side chains is based on them being to complex, and on the possibility of bitcoins being lost on side chains which would then in turn reflect badly on Bitcoin.
Exchanges being able to use such a side chain is also not an improvement if our goal was to have more transparent exchanges. I also do not think that anonymity should be implemented in Bitcoin either, because of the advantageous that transparency can bring.
The idea of paying a monthly subscription fee to a centralized company in order to transact in Bitcoin to me seems completely antithetical to the principles of Bitcoin. This should not be considered as a way to scale the Bitcoin blockchain directly, since this is quite obviously not the case.
Thank you for making it clear from the first sentence on that you have no idea what it is you are talking about. |
|
|
|
From the department of lulz : "Miners care about XT, they just don't understand how to express their support."  |
|
|
|
You almost feel sorry for these people, if they weren't dangerous. https://archive.is/O3TYZ"Are XT miners or mining nodes getting DDoS'ed? Did some pool stop supporting XT? Did XT just lose support from miners? I wasn't expecting XT to get enough mining support to get a few blocks, then have its hashrate just evaporate a week or two later." Oh... but we're the community! they are a... loud minority of evil North Koreans in positions of power... why is it that in any measurable terms we're absolute nobodies??!! Life is just not fair, or is it?! You'd feel worst if you happen to come across some of the posts on their bitco.in forum. The cargo cult delusion over there has truly reached manic levels. It really is a sad sight to observe some posters who used to be reasonably sane on here (ZB) seemingly afraid to speak up against some of the downright outrageous things frappucino & his cohort propose over there. Their latest obsession, Bitcoin Unlimited is some of the most stupid stuff I've witnessed in my time in this community. |
|
|
|
Its wrong to say sidechain/LN is the solution.
Its wrong to say increased blocksize limit is the solution.
Its equally wrong to argue that either one of those things won't help. Equating either solution to some absurd extrapolation is bad form on both sides.
+1 also Furthermore, the two are related. Rusty Russell has said that even though Lightning is super thrifty with block space, all that will do is make it popular to run and use. Massive pressure on blockspace will inevitably ensue (but much more space efficient than doing every individual latte on-chain), so it's blocksize increase whichever way you look at it. Unless someone devises something more cunning (which I wouldn't rule out; doubling the rate of blocks was one proposal in the blocksize debate that didn't attract much discussion, but it has merit if it didn't impact orphan rates too badly) |
|
|
|
|
This is so ass backward I don't even....
|
|
|
|
looks like a centralized, private, permissioned, plain multisig driven transaction log sink for me.
what kind of innovation i am missing here, the mutation into blockripple/ripplestream?
the first private blockchain with cryptographically enforced proof of reserve pegged to BTC. sounds good but also a pretty bold statement for something like liquid and i am not sure it is the first of it's kind btw. however, soon we will see how the real beef looks like i guess Pretty sure it is the first blockchain with homomorphic encryption (Confidential Transactions) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
