this is actually very bad news for all the doom and gloomers; the Dow Theory non-confirmation that was never confirmed, didn't get confirmed, and in fact is off the table. sorry, no Armageddon:  |
|
|
|
imo, once again, this will be good for Bitcoin. just be patient!:
I hope so, but to me they seem more positively correlated than not. i won't deny that, lately. but the long term divergence is still present and we're still all the way up at 339 which is pretty good depending on your entry point. think of it this way; some how the world economy continues to progress and develop despite all the shenanigans going on with the world elite and financial system. i think they will have to resort to greater efficiencies enable by Bitcoin to keep the whole game rolling forward and avoid Armageddon. gold and silver plunging tells me that this will happen; eventually. |
|
|
|
flat out, no holds barred, sell signal. gold breaks the intermed term, multi month descending triangle to the downside on high volume. imo, once again, this will be good for Bitcoin. just be patient!:  |
|
|
|
... techno communists.
 Yeah the term is really funny  I can't take credit for it. Got it from JR. Although quite appropriate. And for once, i like the picture Lamb chop! |
|
|
|
Smells like the infamous "blood-in-the-street" time begins.
It's much worse than that for Gold as money. The GDX & GDXJ are signaling much more down side. If only Bitcoin could shed its techno communists. |
|
|
|
|
Gold collapsing. Bitcoin being assaulted by SC"s.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin miners merely have to check that you have an SPV proof that goes back to the hash you provided when locked the coins and allow time for someone to contest it with a higher value SPV proof.
this caught my eye. what happens if someone who really owns the SPV proof doesn't respond with a higher value proof b/c they're not monitoring the blockchain? |
|
|
|
well, if that's all true, they should consider hiring you for marketing.
Well to be honest I won't act like I would say no  you could use this thread as your resume. |
|
|
|
that wasn't a response to your admission.
it's just that you popped up here in this thread with a vengeance the day the whitepaper was released and have countered every single one of my posts and any other negative post in this thread.
it's odd b/c i know for a fact that the Blockstream ppl knew ahead of time i was going to be trouble given my vocalness about SC's going back months to its original announcement. in that sense, i'm not surprised by someone like you popping up here.
but geez, you are persistent! you'd think alot of money was involved!
oh come on now. if you really wanna know I'm 24, I have a pretty shitty job right now and close to all of my personal wealth is in BTC at the moment so if for a second I thought sidechains would be a menace to Bitcoin I for sure as hell wouldn't be "defending" it. because indeed "alot of money is involved" you are right that I rarely show up to comment in this thread, that's cause I mostly prefer to lurk and most of the time I agree with the content being discussed here. but when it comes to the truth and fighting off misinformation I can indeed be very persistent. I don't think you're generally ill intented but I found discomfort and unfairness in your witchhunt so I had to address it. What I realize is most of your arguments all boiled down to misunderstanding of the new dynamics at stake. Which is okay, because I admittedly have made a couple of ignorant mistakes myself throughtout the argument. Fortunately, this whole discussion has been very educational for me and for that I am god honest thankful to you and everyone who has been participating. just to fuel your paranoia though I have to say I'll be in Montreal tomorrow. you know where Blockstream is incorporated right  well, if that's all true, they should consider hiring you for marketing. |
|
|
|
looking forward to tomorrow's end of the week for gold, you can see we are going to generate a weekly/intermediate term sell signal, already. that's really bad for gold and even weaker than i expected as you all know i covered my gold and silver shorts (ZSL & DZZ) right before the very short term bounce (weep). in fact, you can see a very bearish large, multi month descending triangle forming:  |
|
|
|
no offense. but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts. you're everywhere with everyone.
you complain even when I admit I was wrong?  that wasn't a response to your admission. it's just that you popped up here in this thread with a vengeance the day the whitepaper was released and have countered every single one of my posts and any other negative post in this thread. it's odd b/c i know for a fact that the Blockstream ppl knew ahead of time i was going to be trouble given my vocalness about SC's going back months to its original announcement. in that sense, i'm not surprised by someone like you popping up here. but geez, you are persistent! you'd think alot of money was involved! |
|
|
|
I only half joke, but seriously SC are the technical manifestation of "the blckchain the ledger is separate from Bitcoin the currency."
Who can predict how this ends and what SC will manifest.
If money is memory then the ledger is the money.
The ledger is shared between chains. Sidechains are digital fiat to Bitcoin's gold. Only with the advantage of no counterparty risk and therefore no central bank inflation. I will predict that no matter how this end, there will forever be a limited supply cryptocurrency as long as there are libertarians walking the earth. no, they are distinct ledgers with different properties +/- a sidecoin. the SC initially will be inherently weaker and therefore less secure from MM. this is a given since not all miners will agree to MM the SC. they are not shared when firewalled off from one another. sorry, you are right. that was indeed an incorrect statement. the ledger is not shared between sidechains but all 1:1 sidechains abide by its entries. no offense. but one could mistake you for a gmax sock puppet given the pervasiveness of your posts. you're everywhere with everyone. |
|
|
|
There are no block reward issued coins on a 1:1 sidechain, only coins that are locked by their owners in that chain.
it doesn't have to be that way. which is precisely why SC's are a prelude to a shit fest with all sorts of blossoming SC's even worse than the altcoin explosion. |
|
|
|
I only half joke, but seriously SC are the technical manifestation of "the blckchain the ledger is separate from Bitcoin the currency."
Who can predict how this ends and what SC will manifest.
If money is memory then the ledger is the money.
The ledger is shared between chains. Sidechains are digital fiat to Bitcoin's gold. Only with the advantage of no counterparty risk and therefore no central bank inflation. I will predict that no matter how this end, there will forever be a limited supply cryptocurrency as long as there are libertarians walking the earth. no, they are distinct ledgers with different properties +/- a sidecoin. the SC initially will be inherently weaker and therefore less secure from MM. this is a given since not all miners will agree to MM the SC. they are not shared when firewalled off from one another. |
|
|
|
my man, I have to say you almost had me. I, for one second, had the impression I was conversing with a smart fellow. You should be ashamed of such deception. your argument is GOVcoin, with inflationary features and corporate sponsors will kill Bitcoin? well my friend, this is the beauty of cryptocurrency. the democracy of money, where people vote with their $ (or BTC) and may the best man win. let them have their attempt at GOVcoin and the free market will decide who the winner is. I, for one, will have no part in it but I wish them luck. they will need lots of it. I only half joke, but seriously SC are the technical manifestation of "the blckchain the ledger is separate from Bitcoin the currency." Who can predict how this ends and what SC will manifest. If money is memory then the ledger is the money. yep, +1 |
|
|
|
I'm going to quote Justus again  Currencies only have value if people use them, so there is no way for Bitcoin to have / behave as a store of value in the long term except as a direct consequence of its use as a medium of exchange.
...
Using a properly implemented sidechain IS using Bitcoin. +1 you sure are one desperate dude. |
|
|
|
those who actually use BTC on a daily basis, as opposed to those hodling, will be encouraged to move to the SC's to perform their tx's b/c of the innovations of privacy and microtransactions. those miners on the SC's will be the one's getting paid the tx fees from these users instead of the miners who elect to stay behind on the BTC MC. that's not good for Bitcoin. that's where the draining the life out of Bitcoin comes from as miners will have to defect to the SC to get paid over time.
...
i think he's saying, and correct me if i'm wrong, that it's unethical for Blockstream to capitalize on Bitcoin's success by creating SC's as a competitor effectively. especially when the SC's have the chance to destroy the MC.
Then Bitcoin becomes the central clearing house, reserve & store of value chain while other chains are left to operate daily transactions for better efficiency. how do you propose the Bitcoin miners get paid over the long run on the MC when the block rewards have been diminished and all the tx's are occurring on the SC's?
People have been proposing this very idea for awhile but assumed the transactions would be handled off-chain by semi-centralized entities. Sidechain removes the need for that.
actually, SC's will exacerbate the problem of tx fees moving off the MC due to the risk free put. at least when they're handled at a centralizaed entity like Coinbase, there is some fear their accts may be seized along with all their BTC, like what happened with Silk Road. at least we have a dampener effect there.
Miners can mine BTC & the sidechain. I'm not sure where you get the idea they have to choose between the two.
over the long run they will have to as block rewards diminish and all tx's are occurring on SC's
As for your last point, I categorically disagree. Sidechains are a neutral, technological proposition. If Blockstream profit from them it is because they will have shown to be considerably useful for the development of blockchain platforms, not because it competes with Bitcoin, this makes no sense.
if they were neutral, they wouldn't be insisting on a change in the source code which uniquely benefits their for profit business model. |
|
|
|
above is the reason, I disagree with what you are suggesting, bitcoin is the asset ledger, money is not the token but memory, you don't own bitcoin, you control a % of the asset ledger. Balance in value and security is maintained by miners making economic value judgments. For PoW to be rewarded appropriately to preserve the network and the distributed allocated of control, miners need to be incentivised . Nodes are incentivised to preserve the ledger because they have value in it, Miners are incentivised to wright to that ledger in lieu of a Block rewards.
this is a dynamic equilibrium but in general if the Bitcoin network grows (number of users) one can expect the utility to grow as it has, (thanks Peter-R) according to Metacafe's law if it grows faster then the mining reward diminishes, then one expects competition in mining to produce coins (miners - create "credit" in the immutable memory ledger called the block reward). What is expected to happen is: 1) innovation in mining efficiency to make better use of the limited and costly resources and energy; 2) miners will use any increase in efficiency to consume all available resource - Jevons paradox gives us a hit of what could be. if not for diminishing rewards to eventual just the cost of writing tx.
in short efficiency in mining innovation is responsible for the hashrate, and the price of bitcoin is reasonable for the amount of energy burned. (energy being important as it is the root of all economic activity and productivity) PoW efficiency is a highly contentious issue among many in other threads, and there too the economics is also not well understood as opponents argue the energy burned and wasted while its clear to those who see it it is is not wasted and the dynamic and economics are sound.
If you tie other assets to the blockchain, by locking bitcoin in, you in effect are reducing bitcoins network and growing another network the SC, what happens then is the value grows in the other network, according to Metacafe's law, and the Bitcoin network is diminished. The result is lower block rewards, and less incentive to mine, all the while bitcoin holders can exchange into the new network further reducing Bitcoins value.
Bitcoin is a success precisely for all the reasons that make it, but a AltChain that leverages the value out of bitcoin, by differentiating bitcoin the currency form bitcoin the ledger, is created not as a competing innovation but as a for profit idea. truly competing ideas compete 1:1 head to head like alts, they dont peg 1:1 and drain the life out of the host.
We have the tech to do secure trust less off Blockchain micro transaction with technologies like micro payment channels, and we have the ability to create secured trust free BTC funds in an exchange or contract environment.
Now, that, is a well opinionated, sensible and valid argument for the danger of SC. I had never considered it from that angle and it does make a lot of sense. None of that conspiracy theory, whale speculative attack, developer collusion tinfoil hat type of stuff. I do have some questions though The result is lower block rewards, and less incentive to mine, all the while bitcoin holders can exchange into the new network further reducing Bitcoins value. How do you explain lower block reward? My understanding is block reward remains the same no matter the size of the mining infrastructure. what he's saying is that over the long run, Bitcoin miners will have to make the transition from depending on block rewards to that of being paid in tx fees. that is b/c of he block reward halving every 4 yrs. this dynamic has a chance of avoiding the Tragedy of the Commons if Bitcoin can attract enough users in the future to increase tx fees in aggregate to compensate for the block reward halvings.
Also, I don't see how 1:1 peg drains the lift out of the host. Think of the main chain as a reserve account and sidechains as checking account. A well designed, 1:1 peg of Bitcoin that works in synergy with the main chain does not diminish the network IMO. These chains are effectively sub-chains.
Here is a rational proposition :
You have the Bitcoin main-chain and two sidechains : one for privacy and one for micro-transactions. Do you not agree that these can work in synergy and ultimately add value to the network by being supported by the same underlying currency (or technically BTC and BTC-peg). In fact, there is more incentives more miners to mine considering the expected increase in transactions and effective use of the network.
those who actually use BTC on a daily basis, as opposed to those hodling, will be encouraged to move to the SC's to perform their tx's b/c of the innovations of privacy and microtransactions. those miners on the SC's will be the one's getting paid the tx fees from these users instead of the miners who elect to stay behind on the BTC MC. that's not good for Bitcoin or those miners as the block rewards diminish. that's where the draining the life out of Bitcoin comes from as miners will have to defect to the SC to get paid over time.
From my point of view it certainly is more beneficial to BTC than having Bitcoin and two other alt-coins that serve these features. I also fail to understand your arguments that these chains (in my example) would work as "for-profit" ideas.
i think he's saying, and correct me if i'm wrong, that it's unethical for Blockstream to capitalize on Bitcoin's success and their privileged position as maintainers of the source code to create SC's as a competitor. especially when the SC's have the chance to destroy the MC. |
|
|
|
Of course the only thing protecting bitcoin from losing its MC status is the block subsidy, so there is real risk that over time bitcoin could cease to be the main chain.
so then you're effectively saying we have to have inflation in BTC for the Bitcoin MC to survive/compete over the long run when put up against a SC issuing a sidecoin and accepting scBTC. i don't desire that and i certainly don't want to be moving my BTC to a SC. You either risk a side chain overtaking bitcoin or an alt coin overtaking bitcoin. With the side chain you have the risk free put to take advantage of if the side chain wins out. The alt coin would have a harder time winning without the risk free put, but it could happen. Pick your poison. you're presuming it is impossible for Bitcoin to upgrade itself. that's incorrect. we've seen it upgraded many times in the past several years. Gavin and Wladimir are working on some very valuable upgrades as we speak. what's the rush to implement something that could destroy the whole system? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
