Stocks on the rise again
Yeah, don't go short until the DJI breaks its secondary low point. |
|
|
|
sproket, we're coming for you:  |
|
|
|
^A lifetime of organic solvent abuse is catching up to you, cypher. Please head down to the hospital while you can still do it under your own steam  ...
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours. see if your heart can handle the extra load. ... Bitcoin's got a bum liver, renal failure & has been bled out on top of all this. Some additional plumbing is its only hope   Hey sproket, you got problems! http://www.coindesk.com/telecom-giant-orange-to-back-bitcoin-in-silicon-valley/ |
|
|
|
^A lifetime of organic solvent abuse is catching up to you, cypher. Please head down to the hospital while you can still do it under your own steam ...
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours. see if your heart can handle the extra load. ... Bitcoin's got a bum liver, renal failure & has been bled out on top of all this. Some additional plumbing is its only hope sporket, you've busted a sproket. |
|
|
|
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours. see if your heart can handle the extra load. it can't as it is in equilibrium and its capacity is fine tuned for your body only.
Actually (though I don't know if anyone has ever done this on a human), this works fine in mice. Look up 'parabiosis'. Conjoined ( that's conjoined, not coinjoined  ) twins are identical twins[1] joined in utero. A rare phenomenon, the occurrence is estimated to range from 1 in 49,000 births to 1 in 189,000 births, with a somewhat higher incidence in Southwest Asia, Africa and Brazil.[2] Approximately half are stillborn, and a smaller fraction of pairs born alive have abnormalities incompatible with life. Thoraco-omphalopagus (28% of cases):[6] Two bodies fused from the upper chest to the lower chest. These twins usually share a heart, and may also share the liver or part of the digestive system.[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjoined_twins |
|
|
|
^Not for long  I know, I know. I'll be able to get a whole lot Moar! |
|
|
|
...
since you're so into images, NLC, tell me who needed an emergency transfusion?:
[giant pic]
OMG, that really is something, Cypher! Looks like USD is just absolute crap! And yet... USD price continues to rise vis-a-vis BTC BTC is even shittier shit than USD  To fail so hard... Dude, I can get 244 of them for one measly bitcoin! Can you imagine that! |
|
|
|
|
crap, i'm getting on planes all day. seem to get into these discussions at these times...
|
|
|
|
...
try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours. see if your heart can handle the extra load. ... Bitcoin's got a bum liver, renal failure & has been bled out on top of all this. Some additional plumbing is its only hope - since you're so into images, NLC, tell me who needed an emergency transfusion?:  |
|
|
|
In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.
So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.
That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea: we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even easier to facilitate a thousand more at least. but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to! In a SC the value cannot be permanently lost since it is still in the same circulatory system and the pressure (value) can be efficiently transferred around. Comparing a diode to a copper wire is not controversial; one allows current in one direction only, the other both. Or a non-return valve to a tap. I'm not here to convince you btw, but you do seem to be making it harder than it needs to be. The value of the currency unit is not lost but the value of the "system" consisting of the main chain plus the currency unit may be degraded if an alternative chain becomes dominant. The main chain would exist only for the purposes of mining distribution, and then once distribution is negligible or complete, not at all. I see nothing particularly wrong with this, as it is an "upgrade path" but I think cypherdoc sees it as dilutive of the original Bitcoin system (which he would rather see improved-in-place rather than replaced). i can't see how the value of the currency unit is not lost when passing thru to a SC. the combo of unit + MC is what secures its value so w/o the original hashing power of the MC, the unit ceases to have equivalent value. plus, all the risk of moving the unit over to the other side of a high friction 2wp that prevents seamless passage for at least 2d and is based on an spv lookback proof. yes, that is my fear, that SC's dilute the value of the MC and thus the entire Bitcoin system. one of the major purposes of SC's is to enable all sorts of other speculative asset trading. i think that takes away from Bitcoin as an alternative form of money. remember that the fiat money crisis is the major problem we have today and is what is enabling all the trickle down problems throughout the economy. this is why all the "BC-only" crowd are working hard to get you to ignore Bitcoin "the currency". |
|
|
|
In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.
So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.
That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea: we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even easier to facilitate a thousand more at least. but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to! In a SC the value cannot be permanently lost since it is still in the same circulatory system and the pressure (value) can be efficiently transferred around. Comparing a diode to a copper wire is not controversial; one allows current in one direction only, the other both. Or a non-return valve to a tap. I'm not here to convince you btw, but you do seem to be making it harder than it needs to be. try grafting on an additional persons circulatory system to yours. see if your heart can handle the extra load. it can't as it is in equilibrium and its capacity is fine tuned for your body only. i'm making this harder? eye of the beholder. i'd say the Blockstream ppl are the ones making this hard. especially when it comes to expanding the block size. i've even heard one of them wanting to let Bitcoin bump up against the 1MB limit just to "see what happens". a cynic would say it's b/c of their for profit bid on the SC concept altho i'll give 'em a pass on their face value arguments about "dangers" to doing so. if anything, as a vocal Sound Money advocate, you'd think i'd be opposed to increasing the block size to steer Bitcoin towards being a gold like reserve currency which should, in theory, drive its exchange value to the Moon. instead, i'm all for innovation and am willing to compromise with the ppl who envision Bitcoin as a payment network which can only be accomplished by lifting the 1MB limit. that's my compromise for this project as that is how firmly i believe that innovation ought to occur on MC, not SC's. edit: btw, i didn't see your comment on the exchange graphs i posted above showing that Bitcoin is, in fact, suppressing XCP, Bit-X, and MC |
|
|
|
In terms of economic incentives toward SC bleeding value out of MC, which appears to be a major misgiving with SCs; it has already happened with alts less so now (but I think it will accelerate again when a bull phase returns) and also with counterparty, mastercoin and bitshares that are in essence one-way pegged assets.
So we already have it in the protocol to create 1-way pegs, you can't stop that and they have shown how they siphon value out of the main chain, e.g. mastercoin has been many multiples of its btc 'cost' at times. In all probability, making a 2-way peg facility available that makes it more efficient to go in and out of the MC makes it less likely than it currently is for value in total to exit the MC via super successful 1-way pegged assets. Therefore in that analysis, as the protocol currently exists it is more vulnerable than one allowing for 2-way pegs. You could consider it as the 2-way peg closing the economic value loophole for an attack with very successful 1-way pegged assets ... shhhhh. After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.
That is an interesting way to look at it, thanks it sure is. so we have supposedly all these one way 2.0's siphoning value out of the MC, so i have an even better idea: we'll make a change to the protocol to make it even easier to facilitate a thousand more at least. but it'll be better b/c the value can come back if it wants to! |
|
|
|
After a successful soft-fork allowing for 2-way pegged assets any entity proposing 1-way pegged assets will be viewed skeptically and economically disadvantaged by the market perception of losing interoperability with the MC. The market will prefer 2-way pegged assets over 1-way pegged every time, and that is a net benefit to the total value proposition of bitcoin surely.
There is no loss of "interoperability" as long as exchanges (centralized or otherwise) exist. Non-pegged alts have floating value, but they aren't unconvertible currencies. Those are two different concepts. It remains to be seen whether the friction of conversion is preferable to the friction of pegging, but isn't clear in the abstract. 1 way pegged alts also have exchange values facilitating interoperability. i don't see any loss for Bitcoin to these. in fact, i see the opposite:    |
|
|
|
Here's another way to think of bitcoin, and sidechains. Picture that bitcoins are like digital real estate and you can already add features to your plot of real estate; create coloured coins, burn them (lock irretrievably) to prove mastercoin/counterparty ownership, multisig, smart scripting conditions, etc. People are already building things on their bitcoin plots that increase the value of their own piece, but also the whole value. A sidechain is just another "building project" that is anticipated to increase the value of their piece of sand, and most likely everyone elses. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tc_fhTPqbdlvApnWQWsgzG1U6NwN9lgkQsTdm5O-9iA/edit#slide=id.g6eb72e55c_0395see slide 15-19 specifically. i just referenced that talk above. i have a real problem with slide 19 that shows "reversion" or getting your BTC back from the scBTC. as i said above, during a 51% SC attack, the last thing the attacker (miner) will do is include your proof of lock in a block to let you off the SC. he either wants to steal the scBTC or destroy them. most likely the latter, b/c the mere happenstance of the attack will likely destroy all exchange value of scBTC. Without knowing the specific mechanics of the peg it is meaningless to discuss whether or not the reversion would be successful in the case of mining (or other) attacks. E.g. there might be a timelock on the whole sidechain, so that it is like a 10 year or 99 year leasehold arrangement. There are many ways this could go, dismissing SC outright is denying experimenting and innovation that could solve some of bitcoins problems in tangential ways, even if sidechains are never a success. To me, getting militant against SC seems a bit like the goldbuggery with respect to bitcoins being able to have value as a monetary unit. Keeping an open mind can pay huge dividends, dangers and risks can be mitigated when they are apparent, knowable and quantified. fair enough. but the flipside is also true; holding out unrealistic promises & capabilities should not be used as an excuse to block or derail much needed MC development that may in fact be more ideal. it never hurts to discuss these concepts. absolutely, e.g; a chunk of MC dev work is currently being funded by a sidechain research company , and appears to be the only company funding core infrastructure of MC with a long term view (besides Bitpay's jgarzik) and stated commitments to open, permissionless platforms for innovation, in fact, that is their view of what SC will also allow to stop the energy bleed into alts. this makes an interesting listen in retrospect (also before Blockstream was announced or fully gestated i expect) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/e99-sidechain-innovation/well, once again, it's all in the eye of the beholder. in that LTB interview, Adam talks about altcoin dilution of Bitcoin. while true at the time, i believe it has become much less so. many are dying out in this bear mkt w/o SC's and that is good for Bitcoin. also, i don't see Gavin going anywhere despite whatever happens to TBF and he confirms this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/31rgtb/when_the_foundation_shuts_down_who_pays_gavin/cq4cqq5 and i'd bet this applies to Wladimir as well. being a Bitcoin core dev is a coveted position whether you're formally paid or not. if Blockstream weren't a for profit entity that has openly stated a desire to create all sorts of SC's, even for gvt currencies, based on a needed source code change then i might understand the concept. but that's not how it is. and no one can accuse me of being an altcoin proponent as an excuse for my objections. and as far as premature discussions are concerned, it's not like we don't know about the majority of what will be be presented. i mean, Adam was here in this very thread openly discussing all their plans for like a month and a half? we know alot about the concepts involved. why not debate them? |
|
|
|
Here's another way to think of bitcoin, and sidechains. Picture that bitcoins are like digital real estate and you can already add features to your plot of real estate; create coloured coins, burn them (lock irretrievably) to prove mastercoin/counterparty ownership, multisig, smart scripting conditions, etc. People are already building things on their bitcoin plots that increase the value of their own piece, but also the whole value. A sidechain is just another "building project" that is anticipated to increase the value of their piece of sand, and most likely everyone elses. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tc_fhTPqbdlvApnWQWsgzG1U6NwN9lgkQsTdm5O-9iA/edit#slide=id.g6eb72e55c_0395see slide 15-19 specifically. i just referenced that talk above. i have a real problem with slide 19 that shows "reversion" or getting your BTC back from the scBTC. as i said above, during a 51% SC attack, the last thing the attacker (miner) will do is include your proof of lock in a block to let you off the SC. he either wants to steal the scBTC or destroy them. most likely the latter, b/c the mere happenstance of the attack will likely destroy all exchange value of scBTC. Without knowing the specific mechanics of the peg it is meaningless to discuss whether or not the reversion would be successful in the case of mining (or other) attacks. E.g. there might be a timelock on the whole sidechain, so that it is like a 10 year or 99 year leasehold arrangement. There are many ways this could go, dismissing SC outright is denying experimenting and innovation that could solve some of bitcoins problems in tangential ways, even if sidechains are never a success. To me, getting militant against SC seems a bit like the goldbuggery with respect to bitcoins being able to have value as a monetary unit. Keeping an open mind can pay huge dividends, dangers and risks can be mitigated when they are apparent, knowable and quantified. fair enough. but the flipside is also true; holding out unrealistic promises & capabilities should not be used as an excuse to block or derail much needed MC development that may in fact be more ideal. it never hurts to discuss these concepts. |
|
|
|
Here's another way to think of bitcoin, and sidechains. Picture that bitcoins are like digital real estate and you can already add features to your plot of real estate; create coloured coins, burn them (lock irretrievably) to prove mastercoin/counterparty ownership, multisig, smart scripting conditions, etc. People are already building things on their bitcoin plots that increase the value of their own piece, but also the whole value. A sidechain is just another "building project" that is anticipated to increase the value of their piece of sand, and most likely everyone elses. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Tc_fhTPqbdlvApnWQWsgzG1U6NwN9lgkQsTdm5O-9iA/edit#slide=id.g6eb72e55c_0395see slide 15-19 specifically. i just referenced that talk above. i have a real problem with slide 19 that shows "reversion" or getting your BTC back from the scBTC. as i said above, during a 51% SC attack, the last thing the attacker (miner) will do is include your proof of lock in a block to let you off the SC. he either wants to steal the scBTC or destroy them. most likely the latter, b/c the mere happenstance of the attack will likely destroy all exchange value of scBTC. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
