Sellers are going to be completely butt-hurt next week. If you can't see the change in sentiment, media exposure, awareness...then you don't deserve to hold coins
I truly hope you are right but we've seen this before. A rally to 400+ and as soon as the buying stops and the dumpers start dumping as if their life depends on it. Unless the buying continues these monkeys will take us down to 350 or worse in no time. And i think this is the situation we are in now. Another failed rally. Another 2 months of downtrend. you need professional help |
|
|
|
brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?
They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized. but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest. Server centralization is a very real risk. Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown. As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers. How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough. So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?
The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."
That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).
It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts). Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions? Again, how is the federated model centralized? To answer your question, bitcoin is primarily a wealth storage system and requires a much stronger security model. Utility, such everyday transactions don't require as much security. I did not say it was centralized. But we have the opportunity to make every platform as decentralized (or close to) as Bitcoin is, why not look into it? |
|
|
|
You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad
but it's a good question, isn't it? if, as you say, their only interest is to make profit from expanding Bitcoin's potential and not profiting from Blockstream, then why not make Blockstream a non-profit? Of course they have an interest in profiting from Blockstream. I'm not so naive. The point is hurting Bitcoin has a direct impact on the core of their business model. Additionally, as we seem to have agreed, most of Blockstream's creations will not compete with Bitcoin's money function so I can hardly see how one of their sidechain could be a menace to Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?
They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized. but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest. Server centralization is a very real risk. Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown. As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers. How is the federated model so centralized? Couldn't you use a set of semi-trusted oracles like Gavin has described. This model may not be completely decentralized, but may be decentralized enough. So... could we take that interesting idea and map it onto Bitcoin? Could somebody create "Bit-thereum" on top of Bitcoin as it exists today?
The answer is "yes," if we're willing to replace "verified by the entire network" with "verified by a set of semi-trusted 'oracles'."
That's cheating, though, isn't it? We're not entirely decentralized if we are trusting eleven contract-verifying-services not to collude (or all get hacked) to violate conditions encoded in some contract(s).
It is cheating a bit... but all of the really interesting complex contracts I can think of require data from outside the blockchain. Like the BTC/USD exchange rate on some future date (for blockchain-enforced futures contracts). Then I ask you what is the point of Bitcoin's proof of work right? Why not use semi-trusted oracles to verify transactions? |
|
|
|
brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?
They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized. but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest. Server centralization is a very real risk. Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown. which make them all that more dangerous
As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.
in the world of money where the competition will latch onto every inconsistency in Bitcoin philosophy, i foresee this one becoming a headline. The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other. well then, why not make it a non-profit? because development comes before success and development needs money. |
|
|
|
|
You really need some dose of rationality. You're an intelligent person but the way you're looking for ghosts everywhere will drive you mad
|
|
|
|
brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?
They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized. but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest. Server centralization is a very real risk. Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown. which make them all that more dangerous
As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers.
in the world of money where the competition will latch onto every inconsistency in Bitcoin philosophy, i foresee this one becoming a headline. The money incentive IS Bitcoin. If Bitcoin thrives then every Blockstream guy gets rich. They're not working against each other. |
|
|
|
wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme. looks like all maybe lost: Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.
"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't. Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though. you'd have to assume he would not be privy to the title of the article. he must have said enough to give the author that impression.  Cause it would be the first time journalists use quotes out of context or fit them to their narrative right? |
|
|
|
wow, even Garzik is onboard with the irrelevant currency meme. looks like all maybe lost: Forget currency, bitcoin's tech is the revolution.
"Bitcoin is a token, a currency, but that's not all it is. That's the first of many many applications of this blockchain technology," said Jeff Garzik, one of five bitcoin core developers who have taken over maintenance of the technology from mysterious creator Satoshi Nakamoto. "[Currency] is not the killer app, it's just the first app."http://www.cnbc.com/id/102178309I don't think you can interpret from such small excerpt that he believes the currency to be irrelevant. I'm sure he doesn't. Now I will respectfully disagree with him that currency is not the killer app though. Man these articles are irritating, these people really don't have a clue what is coming.  It's a good thing we are at that point though. At least they're starting to admit defeat and recognizing the technology is useful is their first step of "acceptance". Justus put it in a nice way on twitter "it's the bargaining part of grief for people who did not buy Bitcoin earlier" |
|
|
|
brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?
They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized. but at more risk from unknown side effects and conflict of interest. Server centralization is a very real risk. Unknown side effects are exactly that, unknown. As for the conflicts of interest, they might exist but I really don't believe and foresee how they could be used to effectively damage Bitcoin in the long run. I'm sorry but I think your theory of core devs negatively influencing the development of Bitcoin in the favor of Blockstream is bonkers. |
|
|
|
brg444, so why can't core devs confine their testing of fast tx or anon using the federated server model with 2wp as opposed to changing source code via SPVproof?
They could, but SPVproof is conceptually more secure & decentralized. |
|
|
|
well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).
You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset" My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC. So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain. but of course, my question doesn't apply to your "utility" chains where there is no new asset/coin generated. but just to finalize and be clear, by "blockchain", you mean SC. Sorry, yes. |
|
|
|
brg444, what larger economic/political effects do you think a Silk Road SC will have on Bitcoin?
Positive economic effect. Irrelevant politically. Are politicians getting after TCP/IP because of Silk Road? Comeon now, you know well we are creating the internet of value here.Like the internet politicians will quickly realize they are powerless in the face of innovations built on top of the Bitcoin protocol. |
|
|
|
well, we know i must be correct about this b/c the whitepaper talks specifically about how other assets can be created on the SC that are independent to the scBTC emerging from the peg but are not interchangeable for scBTC (which would allow them to leak back into BTC).
You're speaking of two different scenarios and, I believe, getting confused by NL's use of the term "SC asset" My impression is he is in fact referring to what we refer to as scBTC. So you cannot generalize the process as BTC--->scBTC --->CC. This situation only applies to issued assets on top of the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run.
I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives.
i just want to make another point here. the only part of the SC process that we should expect to be OS is the 2wp or SPVproof itself. OS is not required for the way the SC decides to run itself which is dependent on its developer. for me, thinking of these for profit SC companies as circles helps envision a self encapsulated, potentially closed opaque system within which rides an unknown blockchain ledger to which your valuable BTC will be transferred at your own risk. Not required, maybe. Expected? certainly. The point is people can now choose between transparent and opaque systeme without any tradeoff in feature. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think the majority will willingly transfer their wealth to a system that essentially recreates the closed, centralized financial institutions/services that the openness of the blockchain as made irrelevant. |
|
|
|
I watched that twitter dialog. They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:
1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).
So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages? No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC. In our long used sequence as above, perhaps I should have clarified that the scBTC that emerges from the peg can ride the TC SC for as long as it wants before converting in some unknown ratio to CC? That makes it conceptually correct, right? [/quote] But I don't think that is the case no. I believe the process NL is describing above : 1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset). ..is completed automatically in a "seamless" matter. What I mean by that is I don't believe the user gets to choose whether the SC asset is created or not. Maybe I'm wrong and then someone can correct me.. |
|
|
|
I watched that twitter dialog. They sure got grumpy quickly.
Only two chains are required. It can be more chains, and more transactions but the minimum would be:
1) a transaction on the MC locking the assets
2) a transaction on the SC whose inputs contain a cryptographic proof that the lock was done correctly (and thereby creating the SC asset).
So, BTC--->scBTC --->CC is the correct way to think about it as we have consistently been doing here for the last 200 pages? [/quote] No, not in the way you suggest where everyone on a sidechain could either hold scBTC or CC. |
|
|
|
in my Twitter conversation with @Truthcoin today, it's so clear that all he wants to do is tap into "mobile Bitcoin" for the value sapping. he doesn't care that the BTC converted to Cashcoin or whatever shitcoin is involved with Truthcoin is put at risk. he sees SC's as a way to exploit Bitcoin.
i suggest every other altcoin will attempt the same bolt on strategy.
I also have the feeling he is using the peg as a "risk-adverse" aspect when in fact he has no plan to peg 1:1. Oh well... fools.. money..parted as contentious as our debates got, you have helped me crystalize my understanding of how SC's are going to play out. i totally agree that the best use of SC's for Bitcoin are as development tools for your "utility" chains as you call them. the only problem with that is they will only be applied and developed for those specific uses that help Bitcoin as Money. and as you have said, this will probably only include those related to fast tx and anonymity and those will be the only SC's that garner BTC use and MM. but that is very limited and highly focused. they will be devved out of the public good as that will increase Bitcoin value even while not paying devs directly. but that won't stop all the thousands, if not billions, of "companies" that will bolt onto the MC via the 2wp in an attempt to suck out BTC value. i no longer conceptualize SC's as blockchains or ledgers running parallel alongside Bitcoin's blockchain. i think of them as circles (for profit companies) with small unique ledgers within them that will have just as many different rules and manipulations that go on in fiat companies. think of the TC diagram. and they all will advertise with over-the-top claims to fame just like TC. whether or not BTC holders can resist speculating in these companies should require exceptional diligence but i don't for a minute believe ppl will be able to resist. in that sense i still don't think SC's are a good idea in that those highly focused utilities should be able to be developed on MC. I think what you tend to forget is open source democratizes that process and bad actors will get weeded out. that's quite possible but you yourself said the current altcoin problem is getting worse (?) i think it's slowly getting better but if we go with your opinion then its quite clear that bad actors aren't getting weeded out. as Melbustus quoted before, Poelstra and all of us have been more than surprised.
Can you present an example of such companies that will attach to the mainchain and how they would go about devaluing the units locked into their sidechain?
i think the #'s and types of these for profit are only limited by your imagination. as long as there are dishonest ppl in the world there will be companies that will attempt to attract Bitcoiners. i think ALL the current altcoins will transform themselves into SC's and play the "decentralized exchange" card and the "Bitshares, CP, Ethereum all wrapped into one" card. or "Bitcoin 2.0-Sidechain Enabled".
I'm sorry but TC is a pathetic example and an obvious scam that will attract so much suckers before it gets exposed.
ordinary follow on adopters of Bitcoin and even current Bitcoiners love to speculate. TC/SC Enabled Prediction Markets actually sound pretty good! i might even want to try it out. even if it tries a little inflation of Cashcoin or whatnot, if it enables features that can't be found in Bitcoin proper, then it will attract Bitcoiners who aren't too bothered with that. ppl think differently and have different opinions. i think it's important we recognize and accept this. Of course but no matter the wants or need of people, open source will allow for whatever option that fills that niche in the most legitimate way to win over the userbase in the long run. I understand your concerns but at the end of the day my bet is the value created will far outweight the negatives. |
|
|
|
|
that 3D green dildo is looking alright
|
|
|
|
|
Is Bitstamp dry?
I can't imagine what will happen tomorrow when deposits get it
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
