you're missing the overall pt. it doesn't matter what the feature is that gives the SC an advantage. first off, the advantage could be gained b/c the Blockstream core devs have preferentially worked on that feature for the SC as opposed to the main chain. then if that SC takes off, as JR said, they might block that feature from being incorporated into the main chain. the problem is that there are too many of them working under the same roof. the scenario where that might happen is if that SC has its own altcoin that they've invested in that's riding along with the transferred BTC.
anything i say has bias as i'm invested in Bitcoin just like most everyone else around here. the difference being, that i'm not the one recommending changes. i invested under one set of assumptions and imo, this changes things potentially.
Everything they are developing is open source. They cannot block implementation of anything. It seems disingenuous to me, considering some of the answers given in the AMA, to suggest the BTC main core devs would implicitly hurt Bitcoin's development in favor of Blockstream's business. Additionally, any indication of unethical behavior by them could certainly lead to them losing their position as BTC main core developer. They have specifically stated in the AMA they will NOT create their own altcoin or currency. Also, your concern of financial incentives corrupting their actions is misguided. Do not forget that ALL of them have vested interest into Bitcoin already. They stand to make considerably more money creating sensible SC features that improve the Bitcoin economy. |
|
|
|
trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past. I hear alarm bells whenever people start talking like this. The people who communities blindly trust because "they've always served us in the past" are exactly the kind of people who become prime targets for blackmail, extortion, etc. Do not spin my words around. Giving the benefit of the doubt to well respected members of the community is NOT blind trust. It is called exactly that, respect. It is perfectly fine to consider what COULD go wrong. It is another thing to imply conspiration to damage Bitcoin when there is NO signs and incentives of doing so. |
|
|
|
lol, none of them wanted to tackle 3 of my questions and they got downvoted. granted the last one was speculative but still:
[–]cypherdoc2 -1 points 2 hours ago
is there such a thing as overdevelopment?
Bitcoin has so much potential to change the world simply as it is: a new form of money.
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -2 points 2 hours ago
let's say one SC gets popular, say from faster tx times. it becomes apparent that you should move to the SC. now all the ppl who have cold wallets scattered round the globe have to go dig them out and make a special tx to transfer them to the SC. this is not only a hassle but a potential anonymity risk. after doing so, a non economic actor decides to take advantage of the fact that this merge mined chain is worth destroying. they might be successful especially if there's a transition in hashing protection going on simultaneously.
how would you address this concern?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
[–]cypherdoc2 -4 points 2 hours ago
i keep saying this but i don't think the market will like a constant loss of BTC over time from Sidescams. we already have a perception of not having enough coins from mainstream economists. just heard one say this last weekend at Hasher's United.
it could cause a paradox in price action; down. is this what we're seeing right now?
permalink
save
edit
delete
reply
not sure where you're going with this. if the faster tx is made more useful for certain type of transactions, people will be transferring an according amount of BTC they want to use for this purpose from their hot wallet. if related SC offers faster tx without compromising security why then would the feature not be integrated to BTC core? your first question seem contradictory with the second. assuming the value proposition of Bitcoin is fine as is right now, why then would "people from all over the world" want to transfer all the BTC from their cold wallet to a faster TX SC. I generally appreciate your contribution to BTC related matter but I can't shake off this strange feeling of dishonesty that I get from reading some of your comments since yesterday. It seems as if you're trying too hard to attach ill intentions to a group of people that have generally served us well in the past. |
|
|
|
At Coinsummit, Marc Andreesen & Balaji Srinivasan were discussing the idea of creating a Red Hat for Bitcoin, I think Blockstream could achieve this.
A "Red Hat for Bitcoin" headquartered in the US would be a disaster. FWIW, I think they mention in the AMA they'll be based in SF, Montreal & Malta. Will be interesting to see where they decided to incorporate and have their headquarter edit : actually they confirm here they are incorporated in Canada and Malta, not in the US http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhocei |
|
|
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2k3u97/we_are_bitcoin_sidechain_paper_authors_adam_back/clhoo7dWe think there is a tremendous business potential in building and supporting infrastructure in this space, some connected to Bitcoin and some not. E.g. by acting as a technology and services provider for other businesses in helping them migrate to a more Bitcoin-like way of doing business.I got chills reading this. I have been thinking about this idea for awhile but didn't have a clear idea for how to implement. I am so excited to see such a solid team working on this. At Coinsummit, Marc Andreesen & Balaji Srinivasan were discussing the idea of creating a Red Hat for Bitcoin, I think Blockstream could achieve this. |
|
|
|
Who are buying bitcoins now? Or do you wait for the price to even be lower or do you sell out everything? I've seen people saying that they fear the fall and end of BTC but many people just claim things they aren't so sure about. I mean that there are companies that does accept bitcoin and I am sure many more will, in the future. They aren't spending money, fiat, on something they don't belive in right. But what do they know that we dont know lol.
For months all the idiots here were praying for cheap coins. Every crash was amazing news. Best thing ever. They expected that as soon as they bought a few "cheap coins" the price would move to 1k again. Now they found out those days are over and the price isn't going anywhere but down. People are getting out. There are no big players waiting to get in. There is no Wallstreet. There is no secret accumulation. It all turned out complete bs. Bitcoin is dying. The party is over. The only thing it's good for are daily pump and dumps. Nobody in real life is interested in Bitcoin. Apple pay did in a short time what Bitcoin couldn't achieve in years. Unless you want to send money overseas and often there is no reason to use Bitcoin. Average Joe doesn't give a shit about fees or decentralization and all the other Bitcoin selling points. It's over. While you're over here worrying about your measly investment in Bitcoin. These people, some of which certainly could've been earning 6 figures salaries in traditional fintech companies, are betting their career on a new Bitcoin venture. They are not early Bitcoin adopters. They are traditional finance vets who can see the bigger picture and realize where the future is headed. Do you think they care about the price? |
|
|
|
Yes, I'm if the belief that if Bitcoin fails, they all fail: alts and SC's.
In fact. I believe the price drop we've seen in the last 24h since the SC announcement is a direct vote of non confidence in what they're doing. I've been very vocal since I heard about them doing this project with a for profit company. The dangers of this are so obvious, Austin Hill's response to me on Twitter giving a hint. Can you imagine him saying that to me after SC's have been established and I inquire about some major change they want to implement that might profit their company? I think the market is worried about this very thing.
this is bold, pun intended  Not really. Think about it. What they're proposing makes me nervous. Why? Because they're monkeying with my money as if they somehow know better. Nobody wants that. They want certainty and confidence that this won't happen. In fact, the " bargain" I signed up for was exactly this. Yet here we are with a group of core devs et al who feel Bitcoin isn't good enough for them. And they think their for profit company is perfectly ok way to go about changing the bargain. Almost sounds like your new Fed. Respectfully, I don't think you've got your head on straight in this one. These people are acting to preserve the value you have on the Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin HAS issues, with micropayments, with anonymity, with atomic exchange, and with the simple issue of having to run a full node (and all the CPU, network and disk that implies) just to accept payments (ok I know about bitpay, coinbase, but then you aren't actually accepting payments are you? You are trusting a third party). Without sidechains it is very likely that altcoins will be eventually successful in filling these and other application specific roles, which will have a slow but ultimately very significant effect on the Bitcoin price as "value" is put into these other altcoins. Or centralized solutions will be successful in filling these roles. These places will inevitably go fractional reserve, increasing the effective (if not the actual) number of Bitcoins and depressing price. Additionally, they will periodically do a runner and engage in all the other practices that Bitcoin was made to avoid. Essentially, if centralized solutions are needed to fulfill functions other than fiat-BTC exchange then Bitcoin has failed.TL;DR: Sidechains preserve the value of your coins by encouraging limited supply. PS: And as others have said, nobody can use side chain technology to steal your coins if you don't put them on a side chain in the first place. I expect cryptographic proof of reserve to be mandatory for any centralized solutions in the future |
|
|
|
Winklevosses, Draper, Horrowitz, Wilson, the list goes on and on and only serves to show: The establishment in Silicon Valley is already on board of Bitcoin, and they will never allow the price to get too low (long-term) as long as they haven't cashed out yet. If they wanted, they already have not only the financial but the legal means to prevent new lows. It's completely legal to manipulate Bitcoin prices.
nah, these guys loses millions in order to make millions, they don't profit in every single investment they make, they allow a really good amount of failure chance before investing, even Marc Andreessen admitted it last time when he was asked " do you allow for the fact that you could be wrong about Bitcoin?" you can watch his answer here You don't understand the premise here. They can literally control this market at their whim. It is not a coincidence that most major VCs are betting on Bitcoin. Of course the politically correct thing to say is they could be wrong but in the back of their head they have a pretty good sense that they're right. Marc Andreesen also said they would be developing a 100 million dollar fund around Bitcoin/blockchain in the coming years. That doesn't appear to me like someone who truly thinks he could be wrong. Everything is based on risk/reward. If someone gave you 3-1 on a coinflip you would accept it instantly, but you could easily lose. Moreover, if they demanded you wager your entire net worth, the math would direct you to decline the offer. the risk is increasingly becoming NOT to invest in BTC  |
|
|
|
Let us make an offering at the temple of MACD and genuflect before him. The sun will shine, the rain will tend the earth and our crops will grow to the skies. All hail the mighty benefactor of the harvest and spread his prophecies unto the unconverted. 2011-10-29.  so you had to go back 3 years, when 3 day trading volume was less than 500 BTC  |
|
|
|
The lulziest one. The one that took Bitcoin to ATH, persuading some lunatics that it wasn't a fluke but a reasonable "investment."
To this day some refuse to accept their pathetic predicament, clinging clumsily to their (grossly devalued) coin in hopes of Fortuna smiling upon them again.
But, just like me, she responds only with guileless, childlike laughter.
 can't wait for the next fluke |
|
|
|
...
One could suggest they are responsible for current price action.
... One could, if one was really desperate. You would know about desperation |
|
|
|
Not only can they prevent new low, they can also launch a new rally on a whim whenever it best fits their plans.
Someone give them a call. Price action says they are needed pretty soon. One could suggest they are responsible for current price action. Someone is not done accumulating at these cheap prices |
|
|
|
Another thing that really irks me about TA is that it's not just a grandiose waste of money, but also of time and energy. Let me explain what I mean: Picture yourself on a boat on a river, during a job interview. You urgently need that job because you just threw all your money out the window, based on a hunch you got from TA. "But the 3d MACD indicated this was the direction the market would be moving!" you try to justify yourself. Now you start sweating profusely. Also, you are wearing a goofy hat and a comically oversized bow-tie. The interviewers ask if maybe you have acquired any kind of useful, special skill that you could add to their business. Your face lights up euphorically and you go: "Well, I spend a lot of time drawing lines on charts and watching indicators turn green. Do I have the job?". Yeah, that's not going to fly, sorry dude.  As if there's not a bunch of people on Wall Street making 6 figures salaries drawing lines and watching indicators at every banks' trading desk This hole you are digging, it is deeper and deeper. |
|
|
|
Winklevosses, Draper, Horrowitz, Wilson, the list goes on and on and only serves to show: The establishment in Silicon Valley is already on board of Bitcoin, and they will never allow the price to get too low (long-term) as long as they haven't cashed out yet. If they wanted, they already have not only the financial but the legal means to prevent new lows. It's completely legal to manipulate Bitcoin prices.
nah, these guys loses millions in order to make millions, they don't profit in every single investment they make, they allow a really good amount of failure chance before investing, even Marc Andreessen admitted it last time when he was asked " do you allow for the fact that you could be wrong about Bitcoin?" you can watch his answer here You don't understand the premise here. They can literally control this market at their whim. It is not a coincidence that most major VCs are betting on Bitcoin. Of course the politically correct thing to say is they could be wrong but in the back of their head they have a pretty good sense that they're right. Marc Andreesen also said they would be developing a 100 million dollar fund around Bitcoin/blockchain in the coming years. That doesn't appear to me like someone who truly thinks he could be wrong. |
|
|
|
Winklevosses, Draper, Horrowitz, Wilson, the list goes on and on and only serves to show: The establishment in Silicon Valley is already on board of Bitcoin, and they will never allow the price to get too low (long-term) as long as they haven't cashed out yet. If they wanted, they already have not only the financial but the legal means to prevent new lows. It's completely legal to manipulate Bitcoin prices.
This has been my thinking as well. Not only can they prevent new low, they can also launch a new rally on a whim whenever it best fits their plans. |
|
|
|
price seems very stable. in the next month there will be an opening of an etf and we will see a new bubble  . however, don't sell now. How the ETF is going to push the price up ? Winklevoss already owns a shitload of coins that will be liquidating at that ETF, with this kind of really slow demand and with the amount of coins they own it will be a long time before anything could happen, them holding that shit load of coins is one of the reasons the price is still holding. Beside, don't even mention wall street and this ETF until we see how the Bitlicence is going to look like, if it will be remotely close to what the regulators of NY state are aiming for, then you just kiss wall street and that ETF goodbye. Exchange demand != actual demand ETF also create gateway for unseen amount of investors liquidity the type of which has never had access to bitcoin before. Also, the ETF does not depend on the BitLicenses to operate. See, I think some of you don't even really read the whole post, demand is not going to effect the market for long time, because Winklevoss got a shitload of coins that needs to be liquidated.... and yes, the Bitlicense is going to effect this ETF if it is going to operate in New York... I wont even start with wall street. The Winklevoss ETF is not a money transmitter. They don't fall under the BitLicenses regulation |
|
|
|
price seems very stable. in the next month there will be an opening of an etf and we will see a new bubble . however, don't sell now. How the ETF is going to push the price up ? Winklevoss already owns a shitload of coins that will be liquidating at that ETF, with this kind of really slow demand and with the amount of coins they own it will be a long time before anything could happen, them holding that shit load of coins is one of the reasons the price is still holding. Beside, don't even mention wall street and this ETF until we see how the Bitlicence is going to look like, if it will be remotely close to what the regulators of NY state are aiming for, then you just kiss wall street and that ETF goodbye. Exchange demand != actual demand ETF also create gateway for unseen amount of investors liquidity the type of which has never had access to bitcoin before. Also, the ETF does not depend on the BitLicenses to operate. See, I think some of you don't even really read the whole post, demand is not going to effect the market for long time, because Winklevoss got a shitload of coins that needs to be liquidated.... and yes, the Bitlicense is going to effect this ETF if it is going to operate in New York... I wont even start with wall street. I think some people are questioning your definition of "shitload" and "long time". They have over 1 million bitcoins, sure, which will be 5 million "shares" according to their filings. A lot of people think an ETF will bring in multiple millions of people into the market. Those 5 million shares won't last a "long time" if 2% of the US population says to throw one of those Bitcoin shares into my 401k. Sure that is hard to imagine, and borders on the absurd give the current state of things, but its just as valid a speculation as yours. The Winklevoss actually own not much more than 100k coins I believe which is a drop in the ocean of liquidity made available by the ETF |
|
|
|
|
OP strangely ressemble a LambChop clone
|
|
|
|
price seems very stable. in the next month there will be an opening of an etf and we will see a new bubble . however, don't sell now. How the ETF is going to push the price up ? Winklevoss already owns a shitload of coins that will be liquidating at that ETF, with this kind of really slow demand and with the amount of coins they own it will be a long time before anything could happen, them holding that shit load of coins is one of the reasons the price is still holding. Beside, don't even mention wall street and this ETF until we see how the Bitlicence is going to look like, if it will be remotely close to what the regulators of NY state are aiming for, then you just kiss wall street and that ETF goodbye. Exchange demand != actual demand ETF also create gateway for unseen amount of investors liquidity the type of which has never had access to bitcoin before. Also, the ETF does not depend on the BitLicenses to operate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
