The 3D RSI on stamp has double bottomed. It fell below 30 in Sept and then again in Oct and now we are rising. This has NEVER happened before with BTC.
Never, huh?  |
|
|
|
Isn't the point of SCs to allow Bitcoin to scale by mitigating its transactions through other chains? if that is the point, it won't work. Sidechains only have SPV security. If the entire main chain network does not validate a particular sidechain, then the resources required to produce fraudulent SPV proofs that redeem sidechains units for locked bitcoin are fewer. If every node in the main chain network needs to watch every sidechain, there is no scalability improvement. If every node on the main chain network does not watch every sidechain, then the security of the sidechains is low. The onus of SPV security is on the person risking their bitcoins. Bitcoin users don't care if the side chains succeed or fail. i very much do b/c for each failure and loss of scBTC, an owner has to take a loss. the bigger these losses multiplied by thousands of SC's, the greater the setup in terms of public perception. we don't need that.
Bitcoin users don't care if those bitcoins go back to transacting or are lost forever. If the sidechain security is poor then the market will choose a better side chain. Bitcon doesn't need to see what is going on in the side chain, it only needs to see if it is broadcasting bitcoin transactions, which it should only do rarely.
it's your responsibility to secure your own house. that's why you don't leave your front door wide open all the time. But it is also why you only put your belongings in a house that you've checked is secure. I think somehow you believe that side chains are making actual bitcoin transactions, when they are actually just artificially Bitcoin flavored altcoins with a magical bridge to Bitcoin.
huh? there are real tx's with fees going on on SC's. my fear is that they stay there when the fees generated from those tx's are badly needed back on MC (in the situation where there is no MM). |
|
|
|
scenario: SC + sidecoin + innovation + MM + scBTC
is it possible for scBTC to take advantage of the innovation or is that impossible b/c the SC MM is specific to sidecoin?
I do not understand how creating more units (sidecoin) can be advantage. I think SC + innovation + scBTC is better chain. And if it is better than MC then innovation will be implemented into MC. How about answering the question? What about telling me what innovation is ? and what this innovation will do with current Bitcoin. Yes there can be innovation what kills bitcoins with or without SC. (Bitcoin already has SCs ... How do you stop them ? ) for example: I think that SC with QC innovation can save Bitcoin from disaster. QC? |
|
|
|
|
We can't have democracy without choice. I have one legit chain to point my hardware at. I would love to continue to mine Bitcoin, but also be given the choice to support other chains at the same time if they can work synergistically with Bitcoin. There is a higher bar for sidechains because it is so very obvious that it is a waste of time if it doesn't gain at least a solid niche use. As a miner, I would want to thoroughly vet a sidechain before I would give up known Bitcoin rewards for transaction-fee only sidechain blocks. If merge mining were used, we would be pushing the 1 MB limit before long as every chain would want their block hashes on the bitcoin blockchain, so I'm not terribly keen to support that route unless perhaps after a sidechain has proven itself by mining fee-only for some time.
|
|
|
|
|
Instead of fearing what sidechains might do to bitcoin's value proposition, let's take a look at what is broken and how sidechains could help. What has been the lesson of software monoculture time and time again? Software monoculture increases the attack potential by ensuring high value for any found bugs/attacks. This is right in line with the reasons for decentralization in the first place. Worse than at a software level (which is actually fairly diverse and getting better), Bitcoin relying on one public key curve with a single set of parameters, with one single hashing algorithm used for mining is a disaster looking for a place to happen. Sidechains would allow for innovative new ways of locking and unlocking coins according to more complex scripts, without exposing bitcoin itself to a turing complete scripting system. 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. The sidechain itself can implement different cryptography, time locking with m-of-n early release capability, smart contracts, or many other possible innovations. Bitcoin will remain the backbone value and transactional network, while we will be able to use our bitcoins in new and exciting ways without needing to resort to centralized services to implement these features for us.
Enough FUD, if you're that insecure about your bitcoin position, I suggest you sell. Sidechains can't be stopped anyway... Even if the majority of miners refuse, it can be implemented by replacing a NO_OP, so the blocks will still be valid, just not standard. It will just drive up transaction fees, which will give the miners who do support sidechains a premium.
|
|
|
|
Triangles are terminal moves, it is a rule that has never failed me.
Well then you are clearly new to Bitcoin. In past ramps up, there has been triangle after triangle all breaking to the upside for months without terminating the trend. Maybe that has changed now that the market is much larger, but I'd be careful having such certainty about any pattern. the demands of ew triangles are different to those simple wedges you are referring to. I am not new to bitcoin. Then can you please enlighten me as to what the difference is between a wedge and an "ew triangle"? |
|
|
|
This thread is awesome now.... I love FUD based in misunderstandings. It is way cooler than global economics and the interplay between gold and bitcoin.  |
|
|
|
Triangles are terminal moves, it is a rule that has never failed me.
Well then you are clearly new to Bitcoin. In past ramps up, there has been triangle after triangle all breaking to the upside for months without terminating the trend. Maybe that has changed now that the market is much larger, but I'd be careful having such certainty about any pattern. |
|
|
|
Why speculate?
No one knows what will happen. You know no more than myself or my equally clueless wife. All we can do is best guess.
Well, to be fair, myself does know a lot. I don't know who knows the most, but it is certainly not me. |
|
|
|
As a computer scientist, allow me to break this down a bit for users who might otherwise be impressed by words they don't quite understand. Hi everyone
I've had some PM's asking for clarification about the algorithm, so I can follow up with this (with partnership with the developer of the algorithm).
Please feel free to ask any follow-ups.
Thank you.
* Algorithm has been under development for the past 12-24 months. Initially, our job was just collecting data from the exchanges, although a partnership has been agreed - pending IPO - with one of the major exchanges - which currently accounts for 20-30% of global bitcoin trades, to purchase data on trades, including the account sizes of individual traders (that may be utilized for finer detail of the algorithm).
"We will be attempting to front running trades on some shady-ass exchange who is willing to hand over details of their user's accounts." Due to NDA signed between ourselves and the exchange, I'm not able to disclose the exchange but this deal was agreed thanks to a personal relationship we have with one of their investors. This agreement is in writing pending IPO. This agreement was signed in July 2014. A 3rd party notary will provide notarization of this document for investors to examine prior to IPO.
"Naturally we can't tell you who because this is probably illegal as fuck in most jurisdictions." Part of the IPO funds will be utilized to pay for and finally obtain this data.
* There is a plan in place to roll out the algorithm to a datacenter in Burlington, MA USA to gain the lowest latency to Bitstamp. Discussions are also being made with Huobi and BTC-e to place similar instances in their datacenters
"We want to be as close as possible to the exchanges so that we can fuck the other investors without inside information as hard as possible." * Pattern-matching features incorporate a partly-complex Bayes Classification P(A|B) = P(B|A)P(A) , that operates to 3 degrees of freedom. Developer has plans in the pipeline for further quant add-ins to the algorithm, including Monte Carlo calculations and Binary Tree methods. We also have obtained Java libraries including Bates Model, Quant Lib and Apache Cassandra
"We use frequency counting methods and simulated trades on historic data to guess what might happen next in the real market. We do this using open source software that we are going to pretend is proprietary by using the phrase 'we have also obtained'." * "Object orientated" code utilizes semafores, encapsulation and multi-threading
"While we do properly modularize our code, we are doing parallel computing in the most difficult way possible. Not only does this waste programmer resources, it dramatically increases the likelihood our code will contain hard to detect errors that may only show up in production no matter how much testing we do." * Multiple redundant servers are located in Virginia, USA and Singapore, allowing for reduced global latency
"Again, we have to be first in line to maximize the advantage our inside information gives us." * The algorithm is fully compliant with big data
"Big data. Yeah, I've heard that a lot. Throw that in there".... Big data is marketing speak, not a standard that someone can be "compliant" with. |
|
|
|
I don't understand how the peg will work.
Let's say 10 000 BTC are locked and give access to a SideChain, if that Sidecoin is more succesful than BTC then the Sidecoin could be sell for more than the peg on the open market. If the sidecoin fail than the sidecoin holder can exit the sidechain and retreive their old BTC.
So basically a sidecoin is an option and there is a massive incentive to leave the BTC blockchain to the sidechain and enjoy you free option, so basically this will destroy Bitcoin. What I don't understand?
If you leave to the sidechain, there is a chance the sidechain will explode in your face and take all BTC that have been moved to it it with it. |
|
|
|
I still haven't heard a good excuse for core dev concentration in one for profit company other than "trust us".
These are two perfectly good reasons and really the only reasons you need: 1) open source code 2) consensus execution of that code by miners voting with their processing power Again, why wouldn't we expect a SC fork of bitcoin with perfect anonymity to take over?
This is not so black and white. I suppose there could be a real threat of a side chain taking over if there is little to no perceived risk by the market to move from chain to chain, but if the market perceives little to no risk then maybe there is little to no risk. Savers will likely park their money in the safest chain, i.e. the chain with the highest hashrate and bitcoin could cease to be the dominant chain at some point. I don't see why it couldn't happen. Neither do I. And it would be very disruptive to hodlers who make up most of bitcoin today. And it could be a never ending transition add new innovations take place. Some of us would rather just leave our coins in cold storage for a few decades. brg444, I'm past the part about core dev altcoin implementations. I do see how it would be a hard sell for them although not impossible to sell to noobs. You forget that we are witnessing the power of what they can do RIGHT NOW with this SC proposal. They've banded together precisely to push this proposal through as a for profit company which requires a fork for them to be successful. It's not a wild thought imagining them trying to implement a new currency some day. LukeJr has talked about demurrage coin on reddit. Why? I could see a day where he starts one on his own and claims its just him personally, not Blockstream. Unlikely but possible. On planes all day so in and out Altcoins can be created as an easy way for governments to create a Bitcoin backed fractional reserve coin. Perhaps Blockstreams's customer base will be governments that can force their acceptance. At least with a guaranteed percentage fractional reserve in Bitcoin it will appease their largest stakeholders. If they are trying to deceive the general public, then they will be exposed. Only governments are allowed to do that and get away with it. I could go for that. Smooth is right. SC'S are just sophisticated forms of altcoins. They can be. BTW, the white paper lays it out pretty simply if you ignore the fallacious arguments. I mean, the paper is highly defensive and biased. The core idea is okay, but too vague to glean much useful information. It's nothing that hasn't been discussed for years. The idea of replacing Bitcoin by merge mining and legacy support has been around for years. I just can't wait to see a truly 1:1 SC coin that is able to magically convert bitcoins back and forth. well hey, devs gotta dev and devs gotta get paid. so in that sense, we've made some progress. but as i said, my concern is trying to figure out if there is some edge case that can hurt Bitcoin. I think in this situation, the price of BTC would be zero, assuming all miners have left the bitcoin main chain for the SC and all the BTC have been converted to scBTC. and that's because there would be no miners left to perform the proof to get from BTC to scBTC. And even if so, the tx cost would be prohibitive.
What about the coins not converted? If miners abandon them then what makes you think they won't abandon your coin? No. Miners want to preserve the coin integrity they built. They will hold your coin hostage and deny it's existence if you try to break Bitcoin because you will give them 51% control by your abandonment. Then you will have an orphaned altcoin with no more security than any other altcoin. miners could abandon my SC that offers perfect anonymity. and that would be for another SC that takes my SC with perfect anonymity and adds even better functionality on top of that. then i'd have to move my SC coins yet again! what a hassle and potential security risk. if the SC tech is in fact better, BTC hodlers would have to defect. as they defect, miners would have to follow. no? money always seeks the place that treats it best. I really doubt anything will come along that is considered "better" for everyone. Anonymity, for example, is well below scarcity, security, and historical record on my list of priorities. But the thing with SC as opposed to altcoins is that bitcoin the currency stays the same. It is only bitcoin the blockchain that is in danger of being replaced. And even if it is replaced, bitcoin the blockchain will still be mined heavily at least until the subsidy dries up because new coins can be moved to whatever chain is successful. SC also provides a way forward scalablilty wise that doesn't require a VERY controversial hard fork. In the end, any opposition is irrelevant. This is a soft fork change, which means any single miner can choose to adopt it and remain compatible with the existing infrastructure. Other miners won't add the new transactions since they are "nonstandard", but they will validate blocks containing them. If use increases to the point that they are missing out on fees, you bet your ass they will jump on board. |
|
|
|
- private sidechains
- sidechain what lives only 1 working day(any duation) - no need to store full transaction history because bitcoins are transfered back to main chain
So essentially, they want to move towards using the bitcoin blockchain as a timestamping service? You publish block header hashes and bitcoin timestamps them. If a court ever needs the records, they can prove that they are unaltered. |
|
|
|
If I want to buy something online I will only pay in Bitcoin unless it's not available with a merchant who accepts Bitcoin.
I buy on Coinbase and then use those Bitcoins to pay for my order. I think there's a large enough community where if more did this it would greatly affect the Bitcoin economy.
Honestly I think Bitcoin can easily hit $125,000 per coin in a few years. Considering the sheer size of the mining infrastructure, the scope of the new innovations on the horizon, the ones that we know about...
I think the exchange price is irrelevant right now; it doesn't reflect any weakness or limit it's potential growth.
I guess we'll see how it turns out. I wish I had the opportunity to get in when you did. I hadn't even heard about Bitcoin until November 2013...
Paying for stuff with BTC does NOT help at all. Because the retailer or merchant simply dump that BTC into the market and covert it back into fiat. The only way BTC will go up is when the people who you pay with BTC, once again use it to pay others and a proper cycle is formed. Tipping with BTC helps since there is a chance that that person will once again rotate BTC to someone else. The day we see people getting PAID in BTC as salaries is when it becomes a real currency. But then again, the price of BTC will not be so low like as well. So now is a good time to buy BTC! This. The only salary you can make with BTC now are laughable, like sig campaings and what not, waste of time unless you are in a 3rd world country or something. You can make more flipping burgers in any developed country. OP has been spot on. The only way Bitcoin can take off now is it simply gets trendy as fuck with correct marketing and so on, if it becomes a "cool" thing to own/use, because for the common folk it's pretty pointless, unless it's cool. I make good money programming computers and I'm paid in BTC. Really? tell us more. What do you mean with programing computers? and who runs the business, how much do they pay... tell us how it works? most people aren't paying in btc, thats the minority. I know I'm in the minority, but there are jobs available out there. Take a look around the services subsection of the marketplace sometime. And no, I'm not going to tell you who I work for or how much I make. That's none of your business. But I can tell you it involves web development in the Ruby language. It works like this: I work, I earn an hourly rate in $. When I get paid, the dollar amount I've earned is converted to BTC (whether an actual exchange takes place is up to my employer, they hold BTC as well) and then sent to me. |
|
|
|
If I want to buy something online I will only pay in Bitcoin unless it's not available with a merchant who accepts Bitcoin.
I buy on Coinbase and then use those Bitcoins to pay for my order. I think there's a large enough community where if more did this it would greatly affect the Bitcoin economy.
Honestly I think Bitcoin can easily hit $125,000 per coin in a few years. Considering the sheer size of the mining infrastructure, the scope of the new innovations on the horizon, the ones that we know about...
I think the exchange price is irrelevant right now; it doesn't reflect any weakness or limit it's potential growth.
I guess we'll see how it turns out. I wish I had the opportunity to get in when you did. I hadn't even heard about Bitcoin until November 2013...
Paying for stuff with BTC does NOT help at all. Because the retailer or merchant simply dump that BTC into the market and covert it back into fiat. The only way BTC will go up is when the people who you pay with BTC, once again use it to pay others and a proper cycle is formed. Tipping with BTC helps since there is a chance that that person will once again rotate BTC to someone else. The day we see people getting PAID in BTC as salaries is when it becomes a real currency. But then again, the price of BTC will not be so low like as well. So now is a good time to buy BTC! This. The only salary you can make with BTC now are laughable, like sig campaings and what not, waste of time unless you are in a 3rd world country or something. You can make more flipping burgers in any developed country. OP has been spot on. The only way Bitcoin can take off now is it simply gets trendy as fuck with correct marketing and so on, if it becomes a "cool" thing to own/use, because for the common folk it's pretty pointless, unless it's cool. I make good money programing computers and I'm paid in BTC. |
|
|
|
|
Why would it matter which puppet manufacturer we choose for our next puppet when the puppeteers will remain the same?
|
|
|
|
...
"Analysis never ends" - Is this only for EW? If so please accept our apologies for the inappropriateness.
Have to agree with lebing, more or less. I posted some charts and lines in here as well, but usually as a question to lucif. In general, it's better to keep this thread uncluttered as quite a few people like to know what OP thinks. Also, terminology suggestion: "hourly 200day Bollinger" sounds weird... You are tracking a 200h SMA/BB, I would say  Thank you for your comment, The Middle 200day BB and the 200MA or SMA (simple moving average) lines are the same. Hourly refers to the 1HR time interval candlestick chart. In other time intervals the, 200MA / Middle 200day BB, produce different values. 200 days != 200 hours  |
|
|
|
"Bearer shares" are not lawful in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
Hmm, bearer shares are quite common. Of course, at certain moments the company learns who it's shareholders are at that time. What do you think listed shares are? Prove it. Cite one example of a jurisdiction where companies can presently issue bearer shares. I think there may be some tax-haven type locations where it's still possible, but that's hardly "quite common." The Netherlands. It's a common term at Investopedia: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/bearer_share.aspIt's a common term because bearer shares were used in the past and some are still in circulation. Here's an excerpt from an IMF report regarding the status of bearer shares in the Netherlands:  Panama, Luxemburg, Isle of Man, and other locations where bearer share issuance was previously possible are also phasing them out. I cannot imagine bearer shares are prohibited in the US or other Western countries. How would you list a company then?
Ownership is transferred from one registered entity to another. So much for "publicly tradable". |
|
|
|
All this overlay stuff is way too premature. Bitcoin has to get an order of magnitude larger before it can support any of it.
Either your statements are contradictory, or you don't believe Bitcoin can get an order of magnitude larger in a matter of months. |
|
|
|
<btc talk users bad, black market bad, btc full of scams negative spin>
Black market is used by a financially skewed media to paint bitcoin badly which is unfortunate. But black market usage of btc gives the currency value and utility just as much as buying a laptop from dell. Not only that bitcoin was used when btc was 1000 dollars or 275 dollars. As we have discussed on other threads bitcoin is still nascent and volatile. It is my view (and it could be wrong) that btc userbase is growing and could easily drive the btc marketcap up a couple of orders of magnitude without being more than a digital trading asset. People discount BTC the coming ETF's as being unlikely to be approved or being already priced in (LOL), but there is money to be made and regulated derivatives markets are now coming out so I think it is simply a matter of timing now. It could be drawn out until the next halving, but once the multi trillion dollar pool of capital currently excluded for regular investors from a tax free regulated entry into btc opens up it will be fireworks. The last runup took probably a few hundred million dollars to drive up the price into four digits. It doesn't take a genius to see the profit motive for large holders prior to ETF's being approved. People like to hold a portion of their portfolio in something high risk, btc will be an option. A rise of two or three orders of magnitude from here is not unreasonable IMO. Great point. Wall Street is not going to leave money on the table. They are going to take positions off-exchange, being careful not to prematurely cause a bubble. When the high-throughput fiat on-ramp is ready, and they have taken their positions, they will spark the mother-of-all-bubbles. This, we still don't have the infrastructure in place to handle the kind of fiat inflows a mass market financial product would bring. Hopefully a US based exchange would improve the situation. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
