still, you have the problem of convertability. if Alice wants to move 1 BTC to 1 pegged XYZ, there has to be a counterparty moving from XYZ to BTC.
The idea of this proposal is for the protocol serve as a permanent counterparty by accepting bitcoins into what is in effect a collateral account on the main chain and substituting what is in effect a tradable redemption receipt on the side chain, and then reversing this transaction later. This process is said to be slow so you may prefer to trade with someone already holding a receipt (your liquid bitcoins for their redemption receipt). |
|
|
|
|
Sunday sale. Selling 10 million for 1.0 BTC, which is a price of 0.1 uBTC/BCN. PM me or reply here.
|
|
|
|
If you look carefully at the decode above it is pppe not ppe. That is assuming that gwywlf is the correct parse and not something longer.
If that is the case then PPPE // Point-to-Point Protocal over Ethernet That's normally PPPoE Compare "+pppe router" to "+pppoe router" in google. The former has exactly one hit, probably a typo. |
|
|
|
thru a technical attack on a sidechain, any bitcoins caught on that sidechain will be lost according to Adam.
That sounds great to me. My bitcoins become more valuable. yeah, i thought about that too. but i know you're smart enough to know there could be other unpredictable knock on effects such as loss in confidence in the system not to mention feedback technical effects unforeseen. I worry more about the changes needed to bitcoin to support side chains than whatever it is that side chains do. They don't seem trivial enough for everyone to have high confidence in the firewall. I'm not sure they will ever get adopted for that reason, or that if they do it won't have negative affects on bitcoin deriving from the loss of confidence in the security. But assuming the changes do get adopted and assuming the firewall is actually secure, then I still agree with you there could be less obvious knock-on effects. Then again, those could be positive. That's a big part of the intent of the proposal after all. |
|
|
|
Nope. "centosorgwywlfpppeyourbcnaddress" was exactly the answer I got yesterday. I even found a user on centos.org named wywfl that I private messaged my bcn address to. So far no "prize". Haha
So I have been doing some random digging with what peices of the code we currently know. centosorg wywlf? ppe // Pseudo Random Permutation Ensemble ?? Crypto related terminalogy ppe// Power Processor Element Or more puzzles that lead to items related to a book? https://www.google.com/#q=centos.org+wywlf+ppeThis is all that I could really dig up. If you look carefully at the decode above it is pppe not ppe. That is assuming that gwywlf is the correct parse and not something longer. |
|
|
|
What would give a coin more value: a) dedicated dev team that can expand and elucidate on the coin's feature set or b) some cloner?
Neither. From the users' point of view they are the same. In principle. But in practice the human perception of one as the clone and the other as the original could be a factor. I don't know - I sort of like the idea as a service for coin developers, but reading the posts it looks like you guys are more delighted by the threat aspect of the scheme, and this for me is a turn-off, and I may not be the only one. I'm all for developers doing innovative things. Pre-mines that attempt to line their pockets from day zero whether or not they actually add any value to the project going forward not so much. There are better business models, and I hope developers adopt them. |
|
|
|
What would give a coin more value: a) dedicated dev team that can expand and elucidate on the coin's feature set or b) some cloner?
Neither. From the users' point of view they are the same. |
|
|
|
another issue this raises is what happens if it happens? There are now fewer backing btc on the blockchain than on the sidechain. like musical chairs the last one to spend back into btc blockchain loses. this could trigger a run on the sidechain.
Side chains that want to avoid this had better be transparent and verifiable in some way. This takes nothing away from the idea of having a (relatively) low barrier to creating side-chains. If a particular side chain can't convey sufficient confidence, no one will use them. Would you move your coins to a side chain knowing there were only a (say) 80% chance you could ever move them back? If not, then no coins ever move to the chain and it doesn't even matter whether the chain exists. For this reason, I have some question as to whether the 1:1 side chain proposal can even work. There will always be some doubt as to the security of any side-chain, so it is irrational to ever move coins there at 1:1. But perhaps with a subsidy added by a third party, or a bond, this barrier can be overcome. |
|
|
|
thru a technical attack on a sidechain, any bitcoins caught on that sidechain will be lost according to Adam.
That sounds great to me. My bitcoins become more valuable. |
|
|
|
Where are you located? If in the US .7
US. The OP says "US only" (second paragraph). |
|
|
|
|
Cancel previous
Sell 3m for 0.39 (0.13)
|
|
|
|
Out of stock at Bitmain? No problem. One more used (but working perfectly) AntMiner S1 being auctioned off here (US only). The last one I auctioned off went for <0.7 BTC! |
|
|
|
|
Selling one AntMiner S1. This is an early December batch with bundled PCI-E adapters. It has been mining for four months with no problems, never overclocked. Works perfectly.
US only.
Shipping is NOT included in your auction price. Please do not bid with shipping included or your bid will not be accepted. Shipping will be added to the winning price, with your choice of shipping method, assuming it requires a signature. Too many people have too many different opinions about how they want things sent to include shipping.
I don't have a picture, but I may add one to the thread tomorrow. It looks like an S1.
Auction will end 48 hours after this post or 5 minutes after the last high bid, whichever comes later.
Bid away.
|
|
|
|
|
Cancel offer of 5 million for 0.8 btc (0.18)
I'm now offering 3 million for 0.45 btc (0.15)
PM if you want to trade. Willing to discuss all kinds of deals.
|
|
|
|
How will you prevent multiple addresses signing on the same coins?
There will be a specified block number. The address holds the coins as of that block number is the one that gets to redeem. |
|
|
|
There needs to be one change to bitcoin to support all side chains but then you can have as many side chains as you want and the side chains can do whatever they want, including risky things. Who would define which chains are those which allowed to inter-operate? bitcoin-devs would effectively have to select side-chains / teams who are allowed to participate. There hasn't been a comprehensive white paper, etc. so it is unclear what the requirements will be. It has been promoted as allowing freer exploration, and it has been stated that the security firewall will be that no more coins will ever be allowed to return from the side chain than were sent to the side chain. If that requirement is enforced within the bitcoin chain, then allowing free (or nearly free) experimentation in side chains may be possible. Beyond that we will have to see, unless one of the developers is prepared to explain this aspect of the model here. |
|
|
|
Did you try the reset button? Hi,
Today I received 14 antminer S1 units. I'm having trouble with 2 of them. 1 unit the fan is set to high and I cannot figure out how to set it to auto. The other unit has a sticker on it unlike the others in that it is much bolder print with the ip 192.168.1.99. I cannot locate this unit on the network while the others showed up just fine. The lights are lit on the ethernet jack, but the unit is not connecting because it just flashes a green light on the hashing board instead of quick flashes like when it is hashing. Any ideas or help would be appreciated.
I've posted this to bitmaintech, but thought I'd check here to see if anyone else has had these issues and knows how to resolve them.
Thanks,
b.
|
|
|
|
the argument for side-chains is that everyone should use the hashing-power of Bitcoin.
That is not really the argument. The argument is for other developers to adopt the scarcity model of bitcoin, or alternately for the population of developers who have adopted the scarcity model of bitcoin to be able to innovate in a larger space (compared to the status quo where it is very hard to innovate anything in bitcoin). well, you still need consensus for a new potential feature which carries risk. and those who have a stake in bitcoin likely don't want to take too much risk. That's not how the proposal works. There needs to be one change to bitcoin to support all side chains but then you can have as many side chains as you want and the side chains can do whatever they want, including risky things. People who don't participate in the side chain are not exposed to the risk. In theory. I'm not sure what you mean by scarcity model. The scarcity model meaning the total supply is limited to 21 million tokens (bitcoins). With side chains, those 21 million tokens can be used in all sorts of different ways, without creating new tokens (coins). If somebody issues any coin the market values that coin. Alt-Coins are not inflationary at all. there are 100+ coins and most of them are worthless bits.
That's a different scarcity model from the side chain model. I'm not placing a value judgement on the matter, just explaining it. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
