Except with a two-way peg, each of the sub-operators are completely dependant on the backing-store as their value basis. If it fails, they fail. Think of it as having a monopoly on the wrenches needed to keep any bus healthy no matter who owns or runs the buses. They have no choice but to keep the backing store solution healthy.
As I say, there is clearly a lot of value to be had by a merchant in getting consumers on-board as evidenced by the the rewards programs. A small fraction of this passed on to a tight and secure backing store (hopefully native Bitcoin in it's current 'free' form) may well be many many times the value to be had by simplistic transaction fees or even by the current rather high inflation rate.
You see, this is where I think the reality disconnect starts with sidechains. Are you suggesting that there is going to be a 1:1 peg by value with the token ( and I use that term generously, altcoin could also fit) used in the transport channel/sidechain and the value of the transaction being represented? E.g. If I want to transfer $100 fiat from my US office to my European branch via a company operating a sidechain, that the Bitcoin equivilent of $100 has to be 'locked' on the blockchain? So in essence, the availability of the transaction is directly tied to liquidity in Bitcoin? So if a sidechain operator wants to offer to transfer $100m, they must find and secure the equivalent Bitcoin. Sounds tricky. What if it could be a 1:100 or 1:100,000,000 peg, as per my bus stop analogy? You need to be able to visualize ratios. My 1:100 example above, you can take it I can visualise ratios 
When I say 'one-to-one', I'm not even indicating that individual sidechains would not have their own inflation/deflation. I fully expect that many of them would. People who decide to own coins on one sidechain or another would need to factor the management of a sidechain into their decision.
Sidechains when viewed from above would be rated specifically on how many Bitcoin's are pegged.
1) foocoin has 1000 BTC pegged to it. It's a '1000 BTC sidecoin.'
2) There are 10,000 foocoins. Thus, there are 10 foocoin to the BTC.
3) Tomorrow the foocoin project changes to a circulation of 20,000 foocoins.
After #3 foocoin remains a '1000 BTC sidechain' irrespective of the internal circulation decisions.
Okay, so 1BTC can just as easily be 1:100,000,000 with respect to foocoin, because these are simply internal circulation decisions. Fair enough. But what backing do they have? Does the sidechain intend to offer guarantees in a manner that are compliant with CPSS settlement standards ? I know thats implementation specific, but a ball park answer would do. Do the bitcoins actually do that? And if they dont, whats the point? If I do a settlement via a sidechain that's equivalent to say a swift mtxxx, I want to be sure that I have reduced any payment system risks (liquidity, credit & systemic risks) - I dont see (for now) where that is coming from when using foocoins, or even a fraction of a bitcoin. I'm thinking the liquidity requirements would be quite high.
As a user one needs to have confidence in the management of foocoin. If you cannot achieve that confidence, don't buy any foocoins. If you start to lose confidence, excersize your peg and bail back into Bitcoin, or move directly to another sidecoin.
What developers like Blockstream can do is to provide the tools so that you can protect your stake in the backing store. For instance, mathematically gaurentee that if the foocoin circulation changes by more than x% in x amount of time, you automatically revert to holding the backing currency (which would be Bitcoin unless Heardresen destroy it as a 'free' currency first.)
As a Bank wishing to execute a settlement, I dont have to actually buy these foocoins? Do I assume the sidechain will allow end to end fiat? tl;dr I'm not saying sidechains wont work ( I think they could) but I'm failing to see how bitcoins are of any value to them. Any update on this tvbcof? Whats backing these infinite foocoins? |
|
|
|
I miss the doc's mega thread. it was a convenient catch-all without most of the wall observer micro-minds. So where to lurk now  just be thankful you have been unplugged from a matrix of FUD and disinformation ... replaced with your own brand? |
|
|
|
Looks like "the sort of character" the leaderships in all Western countries (at least) want would be a society of borederline retarded sexually confused zombie sheep. Exactly the kind of people who would become Heardresen worshiping XT drones. Wouldn't you say so?
How many people you stalking? Anyway, got an answer for this yet? |
|
|
|
Except with a two-way peg, each of the sub-operators are completely dependant on the backing-store as their value basis. If it fails, they fail. Think of it as having a monopoly on the wrenches needed to keep any bus healthy no matter who owns or runs the buses. They have no choice but to keep the backing store solution healthy.
As I say, there is clearly a lot of value to be had by a merchant in getting consumers on-board as evidenced by the the rewards programs. A small fraction of this passed on to a tight and secure backing store (hopefully native Bitcoin in it's current 'free' form) may well be many many times the value to be had by simplistic transaction fees or even by the current rather high inflation rate.
You see, this is where I think the reality disconnect starts with sidechains. Are you suggesting that there is going to be a 1:1 peg by value with the token ( and I use that term generously, altcoin could also fit) used in the transport channel/sidechain and the value of the transaction being represented? E.g. If I want to transfer $100 fiat from my US office to my European branch via a company operating a sidechain, that the Bitcoin equivilent of $100 has to be 'locked' on the blockchain? So in essence, the availability of the transaction is directly tied to liquidity in Bitcoin? So if a sidechain operator wants to offer to transfer $100m, they must find and secure the equivalent Bitcoin. Sounds tricky. What if it could be a 1:100 or 1:100,000,000 peg, as per my bus stop analogy? You need to be able to visualize ratios. My 1:100 example above, you can take it I can visualise ratios
When I say 'one-to-one', I'm not even indicating that individual sidechains would not have their own inflation/deflation. I fully expect that many of them would. People who decide to own coins on one sidechain or another would need to factor the management of a sidechain into their decision.
Sidechains when viewed from above would be rated specifically on how many Bitcoin's are pegged.
1) foocoin has 1000 BTC pegged to it. It's a '1000 BTC sidecoin.'
2) There are 10,000 foocoins. Thus, there are 10 foocoin to the BTC.
3) Tomorrow the foocoin project changes to a circulation of 20,000 foocoins.
After #3 foocoin remains a '1000 BTC sidechain' irrespective of the internal circulation decisions.
Okay, so 1BTC can just as easily be 1:100,000,000 with respect to foocoin, because these are simply internal circulation decisions. Fair enough. But what backing do they have? Does the sidechain intend to offer guarantees in a manner that are compliant with CPSS settlement standards ? I know thats implementation specific, but a ball park answer would do. Do the bitcoins actually do that? And if they dont, whats the point? If I do a settlement via a sidechain that's equivalent to say a swift mtxxx, I want to be sure that I have reduced any payment system risks (liquidity, credit & systemic risks) - I dont see (for now) where that is coming from when using foocoins, or even a fraction of a bitcoin. I'm thinking the liquidity requirements would be quite high.
As a user one needs to have confidence in the management of foocoin. If you cannot achieve that confidence, don't buy any foocoins. If you start to lose confidence, excersize your peg and bail back into Bitcoin, or move directly to another sidecoin.
What developers like Blockstream can do is to provide the tools so that you can protect your stake in the backing store. For instance, mathematically gaurentee that if the foocoin circulation changes by more than x% in x amount of time, you automatically revert to holding the backing currency (which would be Bitcoin unless Heardresen destroy it as a 'free' currency first.)
As a Bank wishing to execute a settlement, I dont have to actually buy these foocoins? Do I assume the sidechain will allow end to end fiat? tl;dr I'm not saying sidechains wont work ( I think they could) but I'm failing to see how bitcoins are of any value to them. |
|
|
|
Except with a two-way peg, each of the sub-operators are completely dependant on the backing-store as their value basis. If it fails, they fail. Think of it as having a monopoly on the wrenches needed to keep any bus healthy no matter who owns or runs the buses. They have no choice but to keep the backing store solution healthy.
As I say, there is clearly a lot of value to be had by a merchant in getting consumers on-board as evidenced by the the rewards programs. A small fraction of this passed on to a tight and secure backing store (hopefully native Bitcoin in it's current 'free' form) may well be many many times the value to be had by simplistic transaction fees or even by the current rather high inflation rate.
You see, this is where I think the reality disconnect starts with sidechains. Are you suggesting that there is going to be a 1:1 peg by value with the token ( and I use that term generously, altcoin could also fit) used in the transport channel/sidechain and the value of the transaction being represented? E.g. If I want to transfer $100 fiat from my US office to my European branch via a company operating a sidechain, that the Bitcoin equivilent of $100 has to be 'locked' on the blockchain? So in essence, the availability of the transaction is directly tied to liquidity in Bitcoin? So if a sidechain operator wants to offer to transfer $100m, they must find and secure the equivalent Bitcoin. Sounds tricky. What if it could be a 1:100 or 1:100,000,000 peg, as per my bus stop analogy? |
|
|
|
There will be zero traffic jams even with full blocks, the stress tests proved that. The stress test provided definitive evidence in favor of no blocksize increase, ironically enough.
Liar! Liar! Pants On Fire! From one of your shills fellow travellers during that event: How are developers responding to this severe limitation of Bitcoin's usage. There are currently 72000 (!) unconfirmed transactions but it seems they don't really want to acknowledge it.
Perhaps set a limit of tx/s to discourage spamming the mempool and block malicious nodes.
|
|
|
|
Too many "cooks", spoil the broth.
How is anyone who can't understand code (and I presume this to be the majority of Bitcoin users) meant to be able to make an informed decision over this issue? Any "ordinary" person, that is, someone with zero. or little coding knowledge, is just gonna feel very confused and inadequate and sell all their BTC until (or if) this thing blows over.
IS THIS WHAT ANYONE WANTS???
There isn't an issue. Problem solved. The (highly misleading) premise of the thread is that using Bitcoin core means you're somehow magically immune from IP logging and blacklisting but XT has just suddenly introduced those concepts because they are teh evils. This is empirically false. Any peer to peer software, whether it be filesharing networks, Bitcoin or something else entirely, can log your IP. Whoever has logged your IP can then attempt to trace it. They can pass your IP on to third parties including law enforcement agencies. They can ban or blacklist your IP from their server. That's ANY network, INCLUDING Bitcoin core. This is not something unique to XT and anyone who believes it is doesn't know how the internet works, let alone Bitcoin. If I run a node, whether it's Core or XT, I can log your IP and ban you from my node. It's my node. I can do whatever I want with it. If I want to ban you, I'm within my right to do that. Core or XT makes no difference in this regard. Hell, the admins of this very forum can log/trace/forward/ban your IP if they want. If you are fearful about the issue of protecting your IP, please disconnect your device from the internet now. Everyone needs to stop jumping at shadows and calm the fuck down. Bear in mind also the fact that privacy concerned bitcoiners will more than likely be running their node behind a proxy or through tor. In that case, bitcoinXT behaves EXACTLY THE SAME as Core. |
|
|
|
comparing bitcoin to buses. so smart.
Bitcoin forks are a bit like a bus, you wait for years for one, and then 6 turn up at once. |
|
|
|
6) Develop technology which safely allows 80,000 people to ride one bus with little or no difference in compfort and maintanance costs.
- Now each passenger pays the expected modest fee and the bus company has enough income to operate a very secure business.
Developing such technology is more challenging that the simplistic ideas of 'buy more buses', or 'charge more per ticket.' That seems to be the task that Blockstream is undertaking with their 'elements' suite of innovations.
sidechains could aggregate the activity of thousands of sidechain transactions to a single on-chain transaction. Even a tiny transaction fee at the user level passed up to the Bitcoin backing layer would support very robust infrastructure.
I would add that merchants of a certain size will provide pretty decent savings to customers who will participate in their company 'rewards program' or use company gift cards. If the merchant had their own branded currency system it must be worth at least as much to them as a silly little rewards card. This could bring a tsunami of value into what I've always called a 'subordinate chains' cypto-currency ecosystem. Sidechains would be an example but the word was not coined when I started promoting that scaling mechanism.
Seems to me that what Blockstream is shooting for is to be recognized as a trusted authority both technically and ethically in a world where sidechains are a major economic player. If a 'branded currency' is a useful thing to large corporations, they (unlike a gaggle of plebs) have the muscle to induce governments to lighten up and allow them to at least exist.
I would never expect the financial services industry proper to be very supportive of real sidechains operating under a 'free' backing store since they are doing very well under the current fully controlled systems. I could see this sector promoting something like XT which gives them the hope of monopolizing the take from a centralized and controlled solution just as they do with most fiat systems today.
Except that what you are doing is effectively "dressing" up the bus company to be contracted out to a 3rd party operator. That operator runs the buses, invests in new buses that are entirely his. collects the fares and manages the majority of the business. Then you tell your shareholders that they never owned the buses in the first place - only the bus stops. But you originally thought there was a limited number of stops, you now find that their are 100,000,000 bus stops where previously you had one. Your bus stop is virtually valueless. The buses go by full. 80,000 to a bus??? Thats exactly why you shouldn't be in charge.  |
|
|
|
It must be getting late, i'm starting to think the chick on the right is kinda hot..... 
|
|
|
|
Professor Stolfi must be capable of doing the job if nobody else is prepared to do it, or capable of doing it.
 Great joke! That would be funny indeed. I do have a Github account... Please someone do it, and remove the temptation. We need a suggestion list for what we put as the User Agent name. |
|
|
|
bitcoin becomes simply a unit of account for sidechains with no value outside it
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdfA purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online
payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a
financial institution. ftfy |
|
|
|
Why didn't you ask this in some other thread? There are way too many XT threads.
AFAIK the protection isn't against spam transactions. It is for DoS attacks on individual nodes.
Hey LaudaM your usually a pretty mellow fellow what gives? fork fatigue. |
|
|
|
How come meono gets ahead of me???  Is it because he called you a hypocritical asshole, while I only called you a duplicitous fraud? Is this the new fork? The new race to consensus? Since you seem to be as shoddy at your research as you are at taking a position on bitcoin, allow me to give you a little deeper insight....
Please keep pointing out flaws, but if you want to be taken seriously I would recommend that you build your own argument rather than keep defending our resident tl,dr-troll.
I don't 'defend' him, just his right to his opinion. I agree with a lot of what he says, but wouldn't share the same level of skepticism he has. But in the end of the day it is just a personal view, and any intelligent person knows they must make their own minds up about it while making sure they have all the relevant facts. Anyway, I'm not always negative. I think bitcoin makes plenty of nice, quiet advances everyday. In my own business, we have taken almost 200BTC in revenues, and paid out over 80BTC to freelancers since January. Bullish! Indeed.... But I cant get others to get involved because every time they look into it they find crackpots and scammers. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin XT is the only viable implementation of BIP 101
It is not. Any miner can make a copy of XT and remove the patches that he objects to. Or make a copy of Core and add only those XT patches that implement vote-triggered 8MB limit. If you are not a miner, you (or any programmer you trust) can make a copy of Core, simply raise the size limit to 8 MB, and start running that version any time before the fork actually happens. I'm not sure the masses of adopters are gonna do this / or even know-care about the possibility. Vanilla XT is the intended norm. I'm part of the Any miner people, I'll just use XT I can write a script but compiling code that's complicated stuff, I'll leave that to the developers. There must be developers who are nothing to do with core/XT in this community who are capable of making those modifications and compiling a wallet. If some third party developers offered a third choice then more people might adopt that than the alternatives offered by core/XT. Professor Stolfi must be capable of doing the job if nobody else is prepared to do it, or capable of doing it. There's actually nothing wrong with that. The nature of open source means that you can fork the code and change it as you wish. As long as you can get a majority to follow you that is. Anyway, I dont think we are lacking choice here, with 2 versions of core and an unknown number of XT;s knocking about. Its consensus thats needed, and as the blockstream side have gone to great lengths to illustrate - that is not going to happen. |
|
|
|
satoshifanclub, beside your need for continued personal attacks, your motives in this debate are clearly visible.
Surprisingly his history is full of shorting Bitcoin, so for satoshifanclub at least, his motive to support XT is obviously to cause as much FUD as possible to increase the chances of a price drop.
Meh, its a living. Better than being outed as a duplicitous fraud though.  Any joy with asking the devs to block malicious nodes? No? Tool. |
|
|
|
If there is consensus right now amongst relevant actors, it's that XT is not that solution.
Depending upon the definition of relevant actors. I seriously doubt that "we", "the community" will be regarded as most relevant. There is no "we, the people" in business. In general there is no "we, the people". It's just socialist propaganda. spot on.  Core Duo.... Core 2 And coming soon - Core(log duo) |
|
|
|
XT has an unreliable node count because of NotBitcoinXT
XT uses artificial urgency created by Coinwallet.eu 'stress testing' the network
XT relies on manipulative rhetorics and lack of technical understanding of it's supporters
XT plans to divide the network by causing a maximum amount of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
This movement of Bitcoin's low intellectual class has to be stopped in it's track before it drives away even more users.
Yes. Stop XT!
Straight out of chairman maos red book. good grief.  Blockstream - The Gathering |
|
|
|
I posted a few days ago that these XT nodes are likely "fake" and they will likely drop off in a short time. They are not veteran nodes switching over to XT but newcomers launching XT nodes because it's popular right now. XT supporters launched fake transaction volume to fill the blocks and they launch fake nodes. The real bitcoin will prevail.
Just so you know that these fake XT nodes are being put up by Core supporters. This does constitute an attack on the network and is in fact a horrible and incredible irresponsible thing to do, trying to make it so that a fork is impossible is the equivalent of hijacking Bitcoin. We should not think that we must have the consensus of the core developers if that consensus becomes impossible to reach, since that is tantamount to centralization of power. The ability to hard fork in this way represents the check that we have against such power that a core development team could hold. This is part of what makes Bitcoin truly so decentralized. If you think that we should never hard fork it is the equivalent of saying that the core developers have absolute power over the development of the Bitcoin protocol. Or as Mike Hearn said "they believe that the only mechanism that Bitcoin has to keep them in check should never be used". That is why we must fork, for now the only alternative to Core is XT, and for as long as that is the case i will choose XT. Even if it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. The motives of any cause that feels it is justified in advocating the use of a piece of software to subvert a network should be questioned, and questioned closely. But like all bullies, they only act out of fear - fear of what they cant control. |
|
|
|
I posted a few days ago that these XT nodes are likely "fake" and they will likely drop off in a short time. They are not veteran nodes switching over to XT but newcomers launching XT nodes because it's popular right now. XT supporters launched fake transaction volume to fill the blocks and they launch fake nodes. The real bitcoin will prevail.
You think that is all? Remember that guy who supposedly walked on the moon? Nah. XT supporters... #blockstreamrekt |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
