if we want to have an honest debate, to recognize that the link between the BTC and the blockchain will inevitably be "seperated", sidechains or not, and one could argue this whole mechanism has existed ever since the introduction of off-chain schemes.
The longer this debate goes on the more obvious to me how idiotic you are seeing that this separation can or should occur "somehow" to help Bitcoin. To my mind it will simply break bitcoins sounds money function via decreasing security and to what end? To insert an offramp into the protocol to allow speculation that nobody wants? Surely Wall Street will never allow their stocks, bonds, insurance, etc to be traded on your pitiful SC's until Bitcoin proves itself to be a viable major competitor on the global scene as a non state supported currency unto itself. To do this Bitcoin has only 3 advantages in the scheme of things. Fixed supply, security, and popular support. By decreasing security, you'll destroy the other 2. MM'ing can't possibly be extended to more than maybe 2 SPVProof enabled SC's due to resource constraints. The others that Blockstream has a huge financial incentive to sell will be highly risky. All this serves to degrade and dilute the money function which Satoshi envisioned and will take us right down into a simple trading platform that nobody will want. In what way is Bitcoin's security endangered by sidechains? The one argument you have running for you is a change to the miners incentive and whether or not this change is for the worst is debatable. The insertion of SPVP into the protocol allows nothing else but a different mechanism for proof validation. Plenty of "off-ramps" already exist to enable speculation on top of the Bitcoin protocol and many more will be created. They are a product of the overwhelming demand for such schemes. Fortunately, this speculation you are so obsessed with is in no way the only use case for sidechains. This max of two SPVProof you are pulling out of your ass I assume. The others will be no more risky than any conventional federated model that already exist. |
|
|
|
 How many times are we going to tell you that the unit (value) will be seperated by multiple different schemes whether or not SPVP is implemented. Also, it matters little what happens of the unit. The concern is where the value is assigned and whether that value is safely stored and congruent with the ledger. Sound Money is a function of the ledger. If the ledger is distributed on multiple blockchains but is kept intact and secure then the Sound Money property lives on. Lets set aside whether "the ledger" can be coherently discussed as being on multiple block chains for now. I'll continue to think of it as reconcilable multiple ledgers (via SPV), and you can think of it as only one. We both know what the other means now, I think. A single block chain is not always "congruent" with itself. When that happens, we call it a reorganization, or at a smaller level, we get orphaned blocks. When these reorganizations occur, what remains is the longest chain and a log entry, and life goes on. Usually when it has happened it is just a few blocks. On a faster chain it happens more frequently though. One of the highly sought after SC is for faster transactions. Merge mined chains are more vulnerable than those that aren't. The kept intact and secure part is going to need some work to manage what happens when there is a reorganization occurs that bridges outside the confirmation period. The Blockstream whitepaper gives this period a day or two. That may be sufficient to make it mathematically impractical (maybe even if it is merge mined), or it might not. Or other folks might compete with Blockstream and offer SC with a shorter confirmation period. There is a lot of flexibility here, a SC can be most anything. These single-ledger sound-money links can break. They may not do so anytime soon, but it is one of those risks we want to address. +1 And I trust that the Blockstream team will proceed with caution when comes the time to implement the public sidechains. As ZB has pointed out anyway, it seems it will take a good amount of time and community vetting for anyone to feel comfortable enough to transfer his holding to a sidechain. I'll continue to think of it as reconcilable multiple ledgers (via SPV), and you can think of it as only one. We both know what the other means now, I think. That is indeed one other way to put it although it sounds to me like ledgers that reconcile effectively form one master ledger and thus the sound money property is safe (in theory) I'm all for discussing point of failure but I would appreciate if cypherdoc would leave some place for rationality in his arguments |
|
|
|
How many times are we going to tell you that the unit (value) will be seperated by multiple different schemes whether or not SPVP is implemented. Also, it matters little what happens of the unit. The concern is where the value is assigned and whether that value is safely stored and congruent with the ledger. Sound Money is a function of the ledger. If the ledger is distributed on multiple blockchains but is kept intact and secure then the Sound Money property lives on. edit : maybe you want to adopt the more reasonable or rational stance related to the danger of changing mining incentives. that is at least a defendable opinion. There is no we, just an insolent you. I think it is pretty clear that multiple people in this thread have supported this opinion and illustrated why cypher's "theory" holds no ground. I'm quite sure even yourself have come to that conclusion and would agree to an extent. Of course you have your own concerns but I think it is necessary, if we want to have an honest debate, to recognize that the link between the BTC and the blockchain will inevitably be "seperated", sidechains or not, and one could argue this whole mechanism has existed ever since the introduction of off-chain schemes. |
|
|
|
How many times are we going to tell you that the unit (value) will be seperated by multiple different schemes whether or not SPVP is implemented. Also, it matters little what happens of the unit. The concern is where the value is assigned and whether that value is safely stored and congruent with the ledger. Sound Money is a function of the ledger. If the ledger is distributed on multiple blockchains but is kept intact and secure then the Sound Money property lives on. edit : maybe you want to adopt the more reasonable or rational stance related to the danger of changing mining incentives. that is at least a defendable opinion.
|
|
|
|
Did gold stop being "Sound Money" when promissary notes arised?
comparing gold to Bitcoin is like comparing a horse buggy to a Ferrari. I don't know. I'm just playing the empathy card and placing myself in your clown shoes.  Maybe then I can understand your SC breaks BTC "Sound Money" theory |
|
|
|
|
Did gold stop being "Sound Money" when promissary notes arised?
|
|
|
|
would you prefer that Bitcoin particpate in the coming Currency Wars or get bogged down in trading SC speculative assets directly within the protocol? remember, you want all this fiat to have to "buy in" to BTC, the currency unit:
Stocks denominated in and tradeable in BTC. Everybody wins. You speak as if it can't accomodate both aspects. Stubbornly dishonest you are, cypher. no, the SC stocks would have their own market exchange prices in USD which would detract from that fiat going straight into the BTC currency unit itself. they're dilutional to the BTC price.  How exactly then do you propose that stocks be issued or bought in your schizo-utopia? how the hell do i know? Blockstream can't or won't issue a business plan. it's up to them to figure out how to provide the 10x return to their $21M investor money by selling SC's to all manner of buyers including gvts. remember? I was referring to your plan, genius. When BTC wins and kills fiat currency. How do you trade stocks? Do they stop existing because they "dilute" BTC price? if Bitcoin ascends to the throne of global reserve currency, stock sales may be denominated in BTC. Sounds goods. Looks to me like sidechains could be the ideal crypto-platform for such BTC denominated stock market! |
|
|
|
would you prefer that Bitcoin particpate in the coming Currency Wars or get bogged down in trading SC speculative assets directly within the protocol? remember, you want all this fiat to have to "buy in" to BTC, the currency unit:
Stocks denominated in and tradeable in BTC. Everybody wins. You speak as if it can't accomodate both aspects. Stubbornly dishonest you are, cypher. no, the SC stocks would have their own market exchange prices in USD which would detract from that fiat going straight into the BTC currency unit itself. they're dilutional to the BTC price. How exactly then do you propose that stocks be issued or bought in your schizo-utopia? how the hell do i know? Blockstream can't or won't issue a business plan. it's up to them to figure out how to provide the 10x return to their $21M investor money by selling SC's to all manner of buyers including gvts. remember? I was referring to your plan, genius. When BTC wins and kills fiat currency. How do you trade stocks? Do they stop existing because they "dilute" BTC price? |
|
|
|
would you prefer that Bitcoin particpate in the coming Currency Wars or get bogged down in trading SC speculative assets directly within the protocol? remember, you want all this fiat to have to "buy in" to BTC, the currency unit:
Stocks denominated in and tradeable in BTC. Everybody wins. You speak as if it can't accomodate both aspects. Stubbornly dishonest you are, cypher. no, the SC stocks would have their own market exchange prices in USD which would detract from that fiat going straight into the BTC currency unit itself. they're dilutional to the BTC price. How exactly do you propose that stocks be issued or bought in your schizo-utopia? |
|
|
|
would you prefer that Bitcoin particpate in the coming Currency Wars or get bogged down in trading SC speculative assets directly within the protocol? remember, you want all this fiat to have to "buy in" to BTC, the currency unit:
Stocks denominated in and tradeable in BTC. Everybody wins. You speak as if it can't accomodate both aspects. Stubbornly dishonest you are, cypher. |
|
|
|
I've been looking everywhere for this and someone finally found it for me. Thanks! That was a brutal demonstration of heavy handedness displayed by those guys, gmax and lukejr. Fortunately, they were proven wrong in the end. The bitcoin.org press center they were promoting got shot down, Ver got added to Andreas' new site, and Matonis went on to serve 2y as TBF head. Justice got served. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin.org/pull/162#issuecomment-17151432lol, they were not only you have been proven wrong endless times Edit: - greedy clown - stupid idiot getting mad - dick Odalv, you been drinking again? I like to troll you. You are my favorite clown :-) Actually, I'd start drinking too if I realized the SC scam I was pushing so hard for was going up in smoke: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2mxa9s/gavin_andresen_bitcoin_foundation_pivot_wont/cm98ofnnothing in that link supports your hyperbole. you look a little panicked cypher. maybe you need to dose your med. this stress is doing you no good. |
|
|
|
I stand corrected. By that document, that company has mined ~13300 BTC to date, and is holding ~8500, so it has dumped only ~4800, or about 1/3. EDIT: Actually they claim to have sold ~6200 on the table. Whatever. Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added. But they did sell more (up to 50% of mined amount) when the price was a bit higher. Note that, for digitalBTC, "reserve bitcoins" means "the bitcoins that we did not sell yet". Does it mean the same for BitFury? Terpin polled the crowd by asking how many sell a certain percentage of their bitcoins for fiat currencies like the dollar. One only miner raised their hand when Terpin asked if they sold 100% of their bitcoin for dollars, and about one-third of the crowd indicated that they don’t sell any of their generated bitcoins. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-mining-las-vegas-convention/So 1 miner sold 100%, 1/3 of the miners sold 0%. What about the other 2/3? The folks at Hashers United conference were not selling
Without an official balance like that of digitalBTC, I don't know whether to trust these statements. Obviously it is their interest to say that they believe that the price will go up, hence they are holding. Anyway, like the folks at digitalBTC, they may be only hoping/waiting for the price to rise again to sell. So the data seems to say that miners are selling at least a sizable fraction of their mined bitcoins. Obviously it is in your best interest they are selling and that your interpretation of clear-cut counter-indicative comments and official releases is the correct one. I don't know whether to trust these people or JorgeStolfi from bitcointalk.org. Bottom line is you're wrong In short, the answer is "no, there is no evidence that miners are holding".
|
|
|
|
I stand corrected. By that document, that company has mined ~13300 BTC to date, and is holding ~8500, so it has dumped only ~4800, or about 1/3. EDIT: Actually they claim to have sold ~6200 on the table. Whatever. Vavilov told CoinDesk that it decided not to tap its bitcoin reserves as it remains bullish on the long-term value of bitcoin.
"We believe in the long-term perspective [the price of bitcoin] will grow and we decided to not to sell [our bitcoin] at such a low price," Vavilov added. http://www.coindesk.com/bitfury-raises-20-million-asic-development-mining-output/Bitfury is not selling. Terpin polled the crowd by asking how many sell a certain percentage of their bitcoins for fiat currencies like the dollar. One only miner raised their hand when Terpin asked if they sold 100% of their bitcoin for dollars, and about one-third of the crowd indicated that they don’t sell any of their generated bitcoins. http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-mining-las-vegas-convention/The folks at Hashers United conference were not selling |
|
|
|
I take issue with this notion : Blockstream now has a $21 million incentive to influence Bitcoin Core in ways that benefit their business model at the expence of other approaches. How does adding SPVP comes at the expense of other approaches? |
|
|
|
oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol!
who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol!
Yes I said and I can repeat - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people)) - "spin-offs" inflates money. spin-offs only allow innovation to percolate through the scam coin cloud. the ones that survive add value, the ones that dont cause no damage, there is no inflation. It seems to me there absolutely is. Money base is expanded 2x. Ledger is debased. |
|
|
|
oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol!
who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol!
Yes I said and I can repeat - "spin-offs" is not fair scheme. (but I agree, it is profitable for you (and for me too ... only I do not like it b/c I do not scam people)) - "spin-offs" inflates money.  this is too good. |
|
|
|
yes, offchain tx's take away from mining fees. but SC's will open up a whole new avenue of risk by not only competing at the mining level for tx fees but also competing for BTC units and competing for new investment fiat that now suddenly has a whole menu of assets from which to choose from when contemplating investing into the "Bitcoin trading platform".
I don't know what you mean by "competing for BTC units" since the chains don't really "get" the BTC units, more like just babysit them (unless the SC breaks). i view the 2wp as a "pass thru" from which scBTC arise on the other side. these can then ride the SC themselves or be converted to InflataCoin or whatever. in that sense, scBTC cannot be harvested for tx fees on MC.
As far as competing for investment fiat, aside from just the tx fees which are negligible right now, this seems to also apply to Counterparty. A stock, for example, by nature involves investing in a company rather than in bitcoins (or dollars). Someone could buy ASICMiner shares for fiat or buy paper DOW stock certificates for yuan, but I don't know if that's a bad thing for Bitcoin or the dollar, respectively. Sure the money doesn't go into the ledger, but eventually just having a stock market running on the ledger, at bottom, should bring a lot of value to that ledger.
maybe. i just don't see it. the other 6 billion just want stable money with SOV. i know i do. the deflationary nature of BTC itself means once fiat starts moving into Bitcoin it should send us to the moon. that is the asymmetric bet most ppl are focused on when they say that. it is a money thing. i simply find all these other things incredibly distracting and risky. and SC's violate "my" definition of the inextricable link. It seems you are only interested in profit gains and how rich Bitcoin is going to make you. Yes, he wrote spin-offs is better than SC. Bribe him and suddenly inflation is not problem. :-) (give him LTC, NXT and he will be alt-coin fan)
it's funny b/c in my mind i see Peter's proposal as better than Sidechains for now. but i should reserve judgment until there's more info. if endentyrell is to be believed, however, there is much complexity involved in setting up Sidechains that could put Bitcoin in jeopardy. Adam has admitted that there is risk in being caught in a Sidechain during an attack. this automatically makes those BTC less valuable on the open market than those on the mainchain.
Spin-offs would be much safer, simpler, and cheaper if it works as a way to deal with altcoins/altschemes.
oh wow! i'm guilty of inflation! lol! who said spin offs are inflationary to Bitcoiner's? you? lol! they are |
|
|
|
Not sure who put "Legendary" on my name I'm just supporting the crypto economy not NXT specifically. The NXT idea is similar to out current Fiat system, if Bitcoin succeeds we all succeed. My support is to take a whack a mole approach to Alts. Bitcoin is the pilot people in the alt space work for Bitcoin, the stupid ones sell it.I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.
I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity.
What's confusing? Just look at the market price it was stupid to sell. Hindsight is 20:20, I'm more referring to the Altcoin proponents that drink there own koolaid. And cash out there Bitcoin. Sure  I think maybe you got just a little drunk on your own "sidechains doomsday" koolaid |
|
|
|
Not sure who put "Legendary" on my name I'm just supporting the crypto economy not NXT specifically. The NXT idea is similar to out current Fiat system, if Bitcoin succeeds we all succeed. My support is to take a whack a mole approach to Alts. Bitcoin is the pilot people in the alt space work for Bitcoin, the stupid ones sell it.I had to sell some, Gavin talking about a fork not an evolution, and this this is devastating IMO.
I've been buying every dip untill the release of this paper my support has switched I'm now a net seller and will be untill there is more clarity.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
